The Angel and the Gambler

How good is The Angel and the Gambler on a scale of 1-10?

  • Total voters
    36
Mega said:
I listened to the single version and the 6 minute edit just now. They're both much better than the album version, no doubt about that.
If we got either of those versions, this song still would've been one of the weaker Maiden tracks, but it wouldn't be egregiously bad.
Click to expand...
I actually think the original version of the song is the one that is on the CD single (part 2) and it's 6:05 minutes long. Before Steve decided to turn it into a ''live-studio version''. The repetition feels a lot on it too because it omits the verse after the solos.

It's better than the music video version imo. Maiden's live versions of the song were 7 minutes long (not 10 min).


Tbh, the long version that is on the album has a really great idea with the calm middle part, but it should have been much shorter (1 minute long at most) given the repetition that is at the end of the song. In ''Don't Look To The Eyes Of A Stranger'' this repetition is more effective.
 
Gk1 said:
We are the only people in the world still trying to find something redeeming about this song. It is complete garbage, just let it go guys.
Click to expand...
I saw Blaze Bayley perform live a couple of years ago. He pulled out a shorter version of this song. I will forever love and cherish how the crowd broke into jumping and partying during it.

I'll take this song over half of the shit that is in the Killers album.
 
Kalata said:
I actually think the original version of the song is the one that is on the CD single (part 2) and it's 6:05 minutes long. Before Steve decided to turn it into a ''live-studio version''.
Click to expand...
This is a new perspective on The Angel and the Gambler—at least, it is new to me—and it surprises me.

I can't believe I can be even more disgusted by Virtual XI's track no. 2 than I used to be.
 
Abas said:
I saw Blaze Bayley perform live a couple of years ago. He pulled out a shorter version of this song. I will forever love and cherish how the crowd broke into jumping and partying during it.

I'll take this song over half of the shit that is in the Killers album.
Click to expand...

Whatever works for you mate! It might be a nice song to drink beer to after all these years and at a Blaze show.....but hearing it live - back in the day - was quite exhausting and traumatic to me.
 
I still enjoy the 9 minute versions in the right mental setting. I find it something good to let go in the background when I'm working on something else, the long cycle of choruses isn't challenging and can help me work through something. I've given it a 7 and I feel that's about where it should be. It's good without being great. Maybe a 6.
 
Gk1 said:
Whatever works for you mate! It might be a nice song to drink beer to after all these years and at a Blaze show.....but hearing it live - back in the day - was quite exhausting and traumatic to me.
Click to expand...

Thank god I never witnessed it live! But listening to Studio version is quite exhausting, I never do that intentionally no matter what.

All in all the 9 minute version is ridiculous and offending to me.
The shorten version is enjoyable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gk1
____no5 said:
Thank god I never witnessed it live! But listening to Studio version is quite exhausting, I never do that intentionally no matter what.

All in all the 9 minute version is ridiculous and offending to me.
The shorten version is enjoyable.
Click to expand...
The Swedish shows in 1995 and 1998 were great. Both are available in soundboard quality. I had no complaints, other than the 1998 setlist being somewhat heavy on Virtual XI and The X Factor material. Should have gone with 5-6 songs from VXI and TXF!
 
efekåseo_suomi said:
I had no complaints, other than the 1998 setlist being somewhat heavy on Virtual XI and The X Factor material. Should have gone with 5-6 songs from VXI and TXF!
Click to expand...
Why? I thought that was a great statement from the band, especially with a new lead vocalist. They showed they believed in the music. And they did the same with Bruce after the 1982 tour.
 
Kalata said:
Why? I thought that was a great statement from the band, especially with a new lead vocalist. They showed they believed in the music. And they did the same with Bruce after the 1982 tour.
Click to expand...
Love Blaze, but the VXI material was too weak. It was apparent already back then that this was not going to be the new NOTB. During the early shows they played VXI almost in its entirety, more songs than they played from NOTB during that album tour. I love TXF, but playing 5-6 songs from that album after 7 VXI songs will not work in concert. Both Tony Martin led Sabbath and Ripper Owens led Priest balanced their sets more proportionally over the full discography (Around 6 out of 20 Martin era songs in the 1995 Sabbath set, Around 4 out of 18 Ripper era songs in the 2001 Priest set) than Maiden did. I would be first in line to see TXF and VXI played in its entirety by Maiden in the late 90's, but they shouldn't force that situation, or anything near, on the causal fans.
 
Last edited:
efekåseo_suomi said:
Both Tony Martin led Sabbath and Ripper Owens led Priest balanced their sets more proportionally over the full discography (Around 6 out of 20 Martin era songs in the 1995 Sabbath set, Around 4 out of 18 Ripper era songs in the 2001 Priest set) than Maiden did. I would be first in line to see TXF and VXI played in its entirety by Maiden in the late 90's, but they shouldn't force that situation, or anything near, on the causal fans.
Click to expand...
The difference is that Maiden had a proper management (then and now) while Sabbath and Priest were -up to recently- known to conduct their career rather nonsensically. ;)
 
Black Bart said:
The difference is that Maiden had a proper management (then and now) while Sabbath and Priest were -up to recently- known to conduct their career rather nonsensically. ;)
Click to expand...
I want to begin by expressing my personal admiration for Blaze, but I'm curious about your perspective on management decisions. Is it considered a sound management practice to replace arguably one of the most technically proficient singers globally with... Blaze Bayley? Additionally, after three years, facing substantial criticism from both media and the fanbase, is it prudent to predominantly perform 90's material during live shows, reaching an 85% ratio? When comparing these choices to Black Sabbath and Judas Priest, it seems their decisions regarding replacement vocalists and song selection were more suitable. Steve's and Rod's decisions and management during that period nearly led to the demise of the band. You've mentioned that "Sabbath were up to recently known to conduct their career rather nonsensically". However, it's worth noting that their most recent tour generated an impressive $84.8 million in revenue. Does this substantial financial success align with your assessment of poor management?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top