The Beckett Connection

I'm inclined to think Hallowed isn't being played because of Bruce's voice, but it has to be said, if you made an absolutely last minute change and had to play something not really rehearsed, Wrathchild would fit that bill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to give some context to this Hallowed Be Thy Name discussion. So is also the "starting melody" been taken from Van Der Graaf Generator's A Plague Of Lighthouse Keepers

Check 1:08s to hear it played more prominently.

But I guess all this isn't very new information to progheads out here.
 
imthesun said:
Just to give some context to this Hallowed Be Thy Name discussion. So is also the "starting melody" been taken from Van Der Graaf Generator's A Plague Of Lighthouse Keepers

Check 1:08s to hear it played more prominently.

But I guess all this isn't very new information to progheads out here.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, it is not mentioned enough how much of an influence Peter Hammill had on Bruce's vocals.
 
imthesun said:
Just to give some context to this Hallowed Be Thy Name discussion. So is also the "starting melody" been taken from Van Der Graaf Generator's A Plague Of Lighthouse Keepers

Check 1:08s to hear it played more prominently.

But I guess all this isn't very new information to progheads out here.
Click to expand...
That's where Bruce got the "I prophesy disaster..." which he said during the intro to The Clairvoyant in 2003.
 
Poto said:
That's where Bruce got the "I prophesy disaster..." which he said during the intro to The Clairvoyant in 2003.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

On a related note, Bruce himself recommended me some Van der Graaf Generator albums once on his 6 Music Radio Show (he was reading an e-mail I sent him that included that question). :lol:
 
Seventh_One said:
So bravewords is reporting maiden might have been forced to drop Hallowed...https://www.facebook.com/bravewords/posts/1437718589621703
Click to expand...

Basically they are reporting a piece on the Daily Telegraph in which it is basically stated that the legal dispute is why the song was dropped:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iron-maiden-shelve-fans-favourite-song-legal/

Mr McKay, from Hampstead, north London, said: "There was no need for Iron Maiden to withdraw the song from their set. But if they wish to do the right thing, they are welcome to contact either myself or my lawyers and reach a simple agreement to perform “Hallowed Be Thy Name”.


"I have never wanted to stop fans hearing their favourite Maiden song."


After being made aware of the legal claim Iron Maiden took the decision to drop the song from their set - including at tonight’s concert at the Metro Radio Arena in Newcastle - until the dispute was resolved.


In a statement the band, which has recorded more than a dozen albums since it was formed in 1975, said: “As previously announced for the current second leg of the Book of Souls tour a couple of changes to the set list were due to be made. The first was including a different track from the new album and having been made aware of a legal claim, the second change was to replace Hallowed Be Thy Name.”
 
I don't really understand this aspect of it to be honest. Why would Maiden have to pay anyone to "perform" Hallowed? You don't have to pay anyone to even perform covers live, so I fail to see how this could possibly be any different in this case. They could go out there & play the Beckett song; the copyright holder, as far as I'm aware, is not in a position to stop this.
 
GhostofCain said:
Basically they are reporting a piece on the Daily Telegraph in which it is basically stated that the legal dispute is why the song was dropped:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iron-maiden-shelve-fans-favourite-song-legal/

Mr McKay, from Hampstead, north London, said: "There was no need for Iron Maiden to withdraw the song from their set. But if they wish to do the right thing, they are welcome to contact either myself or my lawyers and reach a simple agreement to perform “Hallowed Be Thy Name”.


"I have never wanted to stop fans hearing their favourite Maiden song."


After being made aware of the legal claim Iron Maiden took the decision to drop the song from their set - including at tonight’s concert at the Metro Radio Arena in Newcastle - until the dispute was resolved.


In a statement the band, which has recorded more than a dozen albums since it was formed in 1975, said: “As previously announced for the current second leg of the Book of Souls tour a couple of changes to the set list were due to be made. The first was including a different track from the new album and having been made aware of a legal claim, the second change was to replace Hallowed Be Thy Name.”
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised if the Beckett album gets a re-release after all this is settled .... probably more publicity than they got in the 70s! I do like the album though, there is some good stuff on there ;)
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I don't really understand this aspect of it to be honest. Why would Maiden have to pay anyone to "perform" xxxxx? You don't have to pay anyone to even perform covers live, so I fail to see how this could possibly be any different in this case. They could go out there & play the Beckett song; the copyright holder, as far as I'm aware, is not in a position to stop this.
Click to expand...

Good point.

Any royalties owed would be due to the various recordings Maiden have released (including live versions and videos/dvds etc)
 
They probably do not want McKay et al. to claim that x amount of money has been earned as a consequence of playing the song.

I bet the other co-writer of the Beckett song managed to get money from Steve and Dave without having to go to the High Court back in 2012 after that year's tour had started and that this was also the reason why the song, which had been rehearsed for the Maiden England tour, as Dave's setlist on IMTV showed, was not played.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top