Steve Harris

I'm on song 2, and I must say, I quite like this. It's got a bit of an Oasis vibe, but heavier and not as obnoxiously British.

I'll be the oddball and say I like the vocalist. Sure, he lacks in the resonance department, but one of my favorite singers lacks in that department, too (Jeff Buckley), so it doesn't bother me. And there's a fair amount of emotion in his vocals so far, so no complaints. :)

Edit: Listening to Us Against the World, I now kind of see what you guys mean. I like his voice, but it doesn't match the heavy background music. The music makes him sound weak, like he's disappearing from the mix.
 
I listened to the album again and my thoughts about it actually went south. I liked it, now I'm neutral about it.

Steve should've done a complex, atmospheric album with 70's progressive rock vibes (or a pure dark album like The X Factor). This one is more like a straight forward 70's hard rock album.
 
Steve obviously did not want to do the same things as with Maiden. So the "should" is out of order here.

When people say things "don't fit" or that a style "should have" been a certain one they describe, this actually means that Steve and co made something that went beyond the imagination of some listeners. Their self made borders of taste and rules, were crossed.

The aspects I dislike about the album is that I can't stand the singer in some parts, but in (most) others I like him. It's not much different from when I heard Blaze for the first time.
 
I agree with Forostar. Steve must have liked the album exactly the way it is, otherwise it wouldn't have been released. There's no point in doing anything that he might do with Maiden, right?
Whether we like the album or not is not something that will cause Steve a lot of concern, I believe. He did it because he wanted to and it probably has turned out the way he had planned it.
 
Perhaps it's not heavy enough for you. ;-)

EDIT:
By the way, I bought the CD yesterday and from the booklet I learned that the playing credits are more complex than on the average metal CD. Three different drummers, each playing three songs (one of them is still in the line-up), and we also have three different guitar players (two of them are still in the line-up). I am glad that the double bass drummer is still in the line-up. Not necessarily because he played some double bass, but I rather thought his work was more diverse.
 
Forostar said:
Steve obviously did not want to do the same things as with Maiden. So the "should" is out of order here.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that I wanted him to do exact same things he does with Maiden. I'm saying the exact opposite.

This album doesn't surprise me one bit. It's pure 70's straight-forward hard rock which got really old (not by age) now. He should've blended in other styles to it like he does with Maiden. (not the same styles) He didn't and that is why I don't see anything special with the album.

If I want to listen to a 70's straight-forward hard rock album, I'd listen to a one that was released in 70's. Simple as said.

The reason why I used the word "should" is because Steve really isn't the guy for straight-forwardness. His straight-forward works hasn't been good since the early days of Iron Maiden. The straight-forward Maiden songs that I've liked have always been from Adrian.
 
The Flash said:
I didn't say that I wanted him to do exact same things he does with Maiden. I'm saying the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
Alright, I thought you didn't make that impression (see also later in this post).
The Flash said:
This album doesn't surprise me one bit. It's pure 70's straight-forward hard rock which got really old (not by age) now.
Click to expand...
I hardly hear 70's in this album. Rather melodic mid 80's hard rock. But one or two songs also have a grungy feel (the opener especially reminded me of Soundgarden).
The Flash said:
He should've blended in other styles to it like he does with Maiden. (not the same styles) He didn't and that is why I don't see anything special with the album.
Click to expand...
So, you're definition of special containing Steve Harris is as follows: "should have other styles blended to it."
-First of all, this sounds very demanding (and IMO by saying this you're limiting your set of imagination and rules)
-Second: it sounds contradictory because you do not want Steve to do exactly the same things as in Maiden.
Or do you?
-Third: there are different styles on the album.
The Flash said:
If I want to listen to a 70's straight-forward hard rock album, I'd listen to a one that was released in 70's. Simple as said.
Click to expand...
As explained: I don't think it is a 70's straightforward hard rock album.
The Flash said:
The reason why I used the word "should" is because Steve really isn't the guy for straight-forwardness. His straight-forward works hasn't been good since the early days of Iron Maiden.
Click to expand...
As you just heard yourself, Steve is the guy for straightforwardness. Apparently there is not much room for it in Maiden (anymore), but on this album there is. That said, I am not sure which tracks you are referring to, but these are imo pretty straight-forward: 5,6,7 and 8: mostly consisting out of simple mid-tempo's. The rest of the album is different. Different tempo's, less easy to digest, less in your face.
The Flash said:
The straight-forward Maiden songs that I've liked have always been from Adrian.
Click to expand...
I like Wildest Dreams and Different World less than most songs from British Lion.
 
The word "should" is not used for demanding. I didn't say "He must", "He had to" or something like that. Should is used as an advice therefore meaning that I'd like an album with those aspects better which turns it into an advice.

I don't want him to do same things, but I don't want him to do an album like that. He can do whatever the fuck he wants, who am I do make him do what I want ? But that's not how it works when you're judging quality of a record. I didn't like this direction, I explained my desires about it and that's all.

And I didn't say I like EVERY straight-forward song Adrian has been a part of. I said every straight-forward Maiden song I've liked are from Adrian. Not the same, is it ?

Both songs you mentioned has Steve Harris on its credits, too, by the way.

P.S. : I think you misunderstood my point about Steve Harris not being the guy for straight-forwardness. By since the early days of Iron Maiden, I meant the whole time. Or to keep it short : Steve Harris has NEVER been the guy for straight-forwardness. I despise the horrificly simple songs (Sanctuary, Running Free, Iron Maiden) on Iron Maiden (the album).
 
The word you're looking for is "could" e.g. "he could've blended in other styles (& I think this would have worked better & made it more interesting). He didn't and that is why I don't see anything special with the album" (or something like this) --the difference between offering your opinion (based on your own personal listening tastes) vs. suggesting that if Steve had followed your advice it would have made for a more "special" album; which could be interpreted as a little presumptuous.

I'm guessing this is what Forostar is suggesting... :D
 
Suggesting that if Steve had followed your advice it would have made for a more "special" album cannot be interpreted as a little presumptous since I'm looking to the album from a personal angle. An album's specialness to myself is about my tastes, so.
 
Your perfectly entitled to your opinion. I haven't heard the album, but when I do I'll probably agree with you. But, sorry, I have interpreted it (your previous "he should've") as a little presumptuous, so your use of "cannot" is incorrect. The point is: why should Steve follow your advice/opinion? It's just a little strongly put, that's all. I'm just suggesting you could've framed your opinion as above...
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
The point is: why should Steve follow your advice/opinion?
Click to expand...

To make me like the album. Music is a personal thing and I think nothing is incorrect about my statement because of it.

Some may say "It's impossible to make an album that everybody likes". It's true, but that's not the case here. I don't care about anyone else on that matter.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
I thought the album was interesting and enjoyable, but not exactly memorable. I thought the singer's voice was fine. They can't all be Bruce or RJD.
Click to expand...
When it arrives and I get to listen to it more,my thoughts may change.
But for now, that about sums it for me.
 
Ariana said:
I agree with Forostar. Steve must have liked the album exactly the way it is, otherwise it wouldn't have been released. There's no point in doing anything that he might do with Maiden, right?
Whether we like the album or not is not something that will cause Steve a lot of concern, I believe. He did it because he wanted to and it probably has turned out the way he had planned it.
Click to expand...
He pretty much said that on That Metal Show last night. He said it was something he was working on for quite some time and he felt that it was finally finished and ready to be released. If he didn't want to release it, he wouldn't have but he knew it was ready and done with and he wanted it out there. Basically the question on the show was how did he know the timing was right to release a solo album after he's been in Maiden for so many years and Steve's reply was something like simply because it was finished.
 
I listened just 3 songs and until now the British Lion album is good. In my opinion may it suffers the "last Indiana Jones film's syndrome", which is when a project got delayed for so long that it will diverge from its initial concept. Change of musicians, writings, resumption of old ideas, etc. It all started in 1992, wasn't it?

Maybe the attitude to sit down and finnish the project was a relief for everybody and Steve Harris is happy the way it is. Sometimes things have to be concluded once and for all. He'll probably do another album with a proper schedule.
 
Was British Lion heavier than expected for anyone else? I thought it sounded a lot closer to metal than I expected given the "hard rock" descriptor. In fact (keeping in mind I've only listened to it once), I'm not so sure I wouldn't classify it as metal rather than hard rock.
 
http://metalassault.com/album_reviews/2012/09/20/steve-harris-british-lion-2-out-of-10/

I read a 2/10-review, and for what may very well be the first time in my life, I can't make myself to understand an opinion. I would be the first to point out that it may not be something for the Iron Maiden-fan who wants more of that. But now it is called the "worst album I've heard all year". And I do not understand a bit of it.

As I said earlier, I love the vocalist - and that impression hasn't changed. It strikes a vibe, and I can't ask for more. "The vocals don't fit" is another statement I can't understand - I couldn't possibly imagine any other vocalist on these songs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top