Studio Album #16 - Rumours and Speculation (New Info 27.02.15)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure. Tattooed Millionaire is good for what it is. It's just a fun little side project after some really ambitious recording and touring with Maiden that doesn't take itself too seriously. It pales in comparison to what he'd do later but I wouldn't say it's bad by any stretch. A few tracks on there I really like in fact. I think Bruce did the whole glam rock thing much better than the other bands out there.

Machine Men on the other hand has nothing enjoyable for me. What makes it stick out even more is the fact that it's on such a juggernaut of an album.
 
Last edited:
Lego said:
From 2012-
"Harris: I don't know about ten years, but I think we've certainly got another five years in us but it's hard to say. As you get older it gets doubly hard to keep yourself fit and in shape. We do work really hard on doing that. It's important to us. We'd be selling ourselves and everyone else short if we didn't, so we do look after ourselves. It does get tougher."

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/st...as-another-10-years-left/#6zr1VvIIQosTtLy0.99
Click to expand...

I dont understand why cant they after 5 or 6 years start a new way to be in music, studio albums and maybe 3 or 4 concerts in London.i bet most of iron maiden fans would travel to see them.It could be like their own residency.Like other band in vegas.

Or maybe just studio albums,if they think they cant any longer play that awesome gigs..
 
I think Harris would never turn Maiden into a studio band, although I would like it (or prefer it to the end of the band). I don't take it for granted that they will end soon, though. I'm hoping a kind of Scorpions or Priest evolution : the guys think they are going to end it all, but when the term comes, they realize they love it and still can do it. The only thing that really bothers me is that they have wasted some of the band last years (I cant see another word) with those short history tours.
 
harrisdevot said:
The only thing that really bothers me is that they have wasted some of the band last years (I cant see another word) with those short history tours.
Click to expand...
Yeh, I'd agree harrisdevot (& I know it's been said a million times on here before, but...) --ME tour should have been way shorter & they should have tried to get back in the studio ~2012/13, for a 2013 studio album release. I think we could have been stting here now thinking about when album #17 was coming out, & whether it would be their last. Instead, it's nearly five years since TFF...
 
It's mostly enonomics I'd guess. The tour was hugely succesful, and a lot of people depend on them to tour to earn their living. A studio album, on the other hand, is a serious investment - and according to Kevin Shirley
"You can't make a decent record with a good budget and expect to make back your investment from record sales alone - those days are long gone."
Click to expand...
(http://www.musicradar.com/news/guit...oe-bonamassa-iron-maiden-led-zeppelin-316822/) Coming from him, I assume he also includes Iron Maiden in that.

If the money had been there in record sales, you would bet EMI and their management would put a lot more pressure on getting another studio release out there sooner rather than later. As it is, the touring is what they rely and earn the vast majority of their money on. They're a hugely succesful touring band, and they're only getting bigger and bigger because there's almost zero competition from new bands - no one has the money to build up new bands to the same level.

Yes, I agree that it was way better when all our favourite bands released new records 1-2 years apart, but in the reality of today that wouldn't work if we're talking doing anything with a budget. Sure, you can record in a small home studio with great results, but if Iron Maiden did that they would lose credibility. You just don't devalue your brand like that.

Mosh said:
Sure. Tattooed Millionaire is good for what it is. It's just a fun little side project after some really ambitious recording and touring with Maiden that doesn't take itself too seriously. It pales in comparison to what he'd do later but I wouldn't say it's bad by any stretch. A few tracks on there I really like in fact. I think Bruce did the whole glam rock thing much better than the other bands out there.
Click to expand...

I think Tattooed Millionaire is up there with the rest he did. That it's lighter stuff than the more progressive side he'd dive into later doesn't make it any less good. The title track is an absolutely stellar hard rock track. You and all your entourage...
 
Money is no issue to band like Maiden who are SUPER MEGA MULTI-MILLIONAIRES who have MORE money than they could EVER possibly know what to do with.

For a hard rock album, TM is definitely one of the best out there.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
Money is no issue to band like Maiden who are SUPER MEGA MULTI-MILLIONAIRES who have MORE money than they could EVER possibly know what to do with.
Click to expand...

Of course it's an issue, you would have to be very naive to think otherwise. It doesn't matter what the members' personal economy looks like. They're not the problem, and they don't use their own money to make records. It's a business, and any business leader who toys with their investors' (EMI, sponsors etc.) money wouldn't have their confidence for long. The only thing that makes sense from a business perspective in the current climate is to continue to tour for as long as they can, sell merch, sell their Trooper-beer, put out as many live-DVD and albums they can possibly make (much cheaper than writing new material and recording it) and be a money-making machine for their investors, make a living for their rather large crew, and continue to build their brand.

As a studio album won't make them much money, it comes when it's necessary from an investment/brand-building-point - when they have to make a new studio album to have any credibility as anything else than a nostalgia-act. They're stretching it, but 5 years isn't as long as it once was in this business.

The difference between Kiss and Iron Maiden is purely in image.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
Money is no issue to band like Maiden who are SUPER MEGA MULTI-MILLIONAIRES who have MORE money than they could EVER possibly know what to do with.
Click to expand...
Have you seen Flight 666? That should tell you about how much goes into a Maiden tour. Think about all the airplanes, transportation, food, equipment, hotels, clothes, etc that you see in the film. Do you think all of that is free? Somebody has to pay for that and it doesn't come out of pocket. If they're not making money they won't be able to put on those big productions. Chances are they record their albums at a loss too which means part of touring for them is getting that money back.
 
I don't believe the amount of money they spend on all that stuff comes even close to how much money they already have. I truly and honestly believe that every band out there who has at least as good of a following that Maiden and Rush ALREADY has SO MUCH MONEY even before they start a tour that all their expenses are just pocket change and don't hurt then financially in the least. Bruce's net worth alone is $115 MILLION! http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/producers/bruce-dickinson-net-worth/
 
Here are more net worths. The other 2 members say under review for some reason, but you get the idea. This band most certainly does not have to worry about money!

Bruce: $115 million
Steve: $30 million
Dave: $15 million
Nicko: $30 million

Total: $190 million
 
That page is seriously not credible, but that matters less for this discussion.

If you have read anything of what we wrote, or even understand something about what a business is, you would see that their personal economy doesn't matter at all for this discussion. They are not doing the Maiden thing as a hobby, not one bit. It's this view of musician's as primarily hobbyists that happen to make a living out of it that throws the perspective on end.
 
Once you get to the point where you have SO MUCH money and you're completely set for life, it becomes less of a business and more of a hobby and you do it simply because you enjoy making music and touring and playing in front of people and I honestly believe Maiden has reached that point in their career. And if they haven't reached that, then it's because of greed. OH NO! Can't say our precious Maiden is greedy. Sadly, most fans won't admit the reality of this. But I don't Maiden are quite like that and feel that they are now doing it as a hobby.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
Once you get to the point where you have SO MUCH money and you're completely set for life, it becomes less of a business and more of a hobby.
Click to expand...
Tell that to all the crew members who make a Maiden tour possible traveling with the band away from their families for months at a time so they can earn a living. Nope, it's just a hobby for them!
 
You really didn't read a word of what I said? The members could easily retire and live the rest of their lives comfortable without worrying about money. That's not important. Their crew however, relies on Maiden-tours for work. They are not doing Maiden as a hobby. And neither is the band. They are still responsible for a business, and that's definitely work whether they need it or not. You don't say Bill Gates is doing Microsoft as a hobby because he already has money. Of course, I'm pretty sure they enjoy carrying out their profession, but that doesn't transform work into a hobby.

What goes against all rules of business is to knowingly make decisions which leads to less profit, or endanger the standing of the business. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg didn't stop caring about their business when they had made enough money for themselves to be set for life. Iron Maiden, though not being as large as either Apple, Microsoft or Facebook, follows the exact same rules.

Not touring as much as they can, and recording more albums instead would be like Microsoft putting out more versions of Windows just because Bill likes to be creative.
 
Here's an interesting article that was popping up around the internet late last year: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/11/25/band-just-finished-28-day-tour-made-much

Keep in mind that this was a much smaller band performing a much smaller tour, but it's a good look at how much a tour costs. Now I'll grant that there may ave been some questionable business moves on the part of the band here, but that doesn't change the fact that touring is expensive. This is just four band members and two crew members with a modest stage and sound set up. Almost $150,000 for this 28 day tour in America. Now apply this to Maiden, with 6 band members, the best stage and sound setup that money can buy, and a crew of hundreds. Touring around the world for 1-2 years at a time. If the tour was somehow a bust, the Maiden guys would be out of a lot of money and a lot of the people working for them would not be in the best financial position. Chances are they wouldn't be able to record a new album at the budget they're used to and the following tour would be dramatically scaled back in terms of number of shows, venue size, and production.
 
I do agree that tours are important for crew members and such who do need jobs, but I truly believe that Maiden ALREADY HAS SO MUCH MONEY that if a tour for them was a bust that they could EASILY pay the people working for them and still have a ton of money left over to continue on as they have been.
 
Going "I don't care how the finances are. I'll just cover the losses out of my own pocket!" is... How do I put this lightly. Fucking ludicrous. And it's ridiculous that you are almost requiring Maiden to do so, under the pretense that they are "greedy". To be honest, it sounds like you want them to do charity.

You have to realize that you don't simply merge private wealth and business lightly. And there's no reason you should just so you can charge as little per ticket as a band 10th their size, that has 1/100 000th as little expenses.
 
A Maturin says, really. There is an moral argument to be had if you want to go down that route, but they are running a business. Businesses in other industries rarely if ever decide they've become sufficiently successful and they don't want to make money any more. They also have contractual and legal obligations to other parties outside of their own employees. It could have repercussions elsewhere for those of them who are involved in other businesses.
 
Here is a question : do you guys seriously think that Iron Maiden is making no money with their records ? I just can't believe that. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure it is less expansive to record an album nowadays than it was back in the 80s, just because of the technology, and Maiden sales figures have not crashed like those of many bands, they have lowered. I'm open to your arguments, but I remain to be fully convinced on that point.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have an approximate number for how many people work for Maiden when they're on tour?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top