The Book of Souls: General album discussion

Brave New Pilgrim said:


I still do think it's a great album, although not quite the masterpiece it was made out to be. I generally skip about 1/2 to 1/3 of the album when I listen to it.
Click to expand...

its a hard one to understand;　no offence meant here, but how can you refer to it as a "great" album whilst skipping half or a third of it?? i think "revolver" by the beatles is a great album, the jimi hendrix experience is a great album, the stones "beggars banquet" is great, etc..etc; i do understand the super fan ethic and mindset and any hint of an album being good is elevated to "great", even if up to half the album is skipped; half! 　4 or 5 out of 10 would be understandable perhaps, but "great"?

i would agree with the poster responded to in your message; besides two or three genuinely good songs, none of which i would consider classics to rival classics by other acts, i find the album very dull and disappointing. quite a few weeks in now, multiple listens, time to live with the record so to speak, and i feel it falls into the category/trap as their previous 3 did - overlong without inventive enough musical ideas to justify the lenghts. so what we get is whats become the latter day maiden trademark - repetition. "empire" a perfect example; how people refer to this as a masterpiece is beyond me. it has a decent musical idea, and stretches it to a mind numbing 18 minutes. there is definitely a feeling that the longer the song the more epic; however, that rule simply does not apply. a song, whether short or long, lives and survives and even thrives over time due to its musical quality. i find "empire" so disappointingly dull and mundane; had high hopes for it, but looking at it as a piece of music listened to for pleasure, and trying to be objective even though a fan, it is just not that good.

i recall a similar over-the-top reaction to "final frontier"; 5 stars everywhere, seemingly a masterpiece if you were to believe the fan hype on amazon, and today its not that listenable.

"book of souls" is better than the frontier, i think they have done a better job with constructing better melodies and lyrics than on the very bland previous album, but overall unfortunately, again, its "an easier album to admire than to love or even like", as one very memorable review stated for the frontier - and it applies equally here. should an album be such hard work to sit through?

many seem to rate this up there with the greatest of the great; as a music fan i find this hard to understand. its only one opinion, but for me it does spring to life on selected tracks like "the red and the black" (if that had the middle repetition edited out), but some of it is as uninspired as i`ve heard from the band.
 
irelandcalling4 said:
many seem to rate this up there with the greatest of the great; as a music fan i find this hard to understand. its only one opinion, but for me it does spring to life on selected tracks like "the red and the black" (if that had the middle repetition edited out), but some of it is as uninspired as i`ve heard from the band.
Click to expand...
What middle repetition? Where? I can't think of any song less repetitive that this one.
 
blindg3 said:
What middle repetition? Where? I can't think of any song less repetitive that this one.
Click to expand...

You don't think TRATB is repetitive? I do think it's one of the albums best cuts but honestly feel it's a great 6 minute track extended to 13 minutes. There's a lot of discussion on this on the thread about this song and many have mentioned how instead of differing musical ideas it's simply repetition of the same motif over and again to extend it.

As I said I do think it's one of the choicest cuts but it would benefit from some editing.
 
I really like the album, perhaps not as good as TFF but the production quality is way better.

Some people have gripes about the length of the album or the length of the songs, maybe thinking that the quality is linked to the time taken between the first and the last sound of the song.
I don't think that it is an artist's goal to make an efficient, concise and short song. Seems a bit strange to focus on that. Who says that a song should be 3-4 minutes long?

Also some people have gripes about some parts of songs being reminiscent of their back catalogue. Well, this is Maiden, and if Maiden sound somewhat like Maiden, then that's not really a problem is it? Maiden certainly like the gallop, and certain structures, Bruce sings in a certain register, we have guitar solos, intros, outros, time changes etc, all common to many Maiden songs. But Maiden as well as being a Rock/Metal band are also Progressive, which makes them very interesting without losing the feel of a song.

It's easy to sit back and over analyse an album or a song. But it is what it is. And for the most part I'm loving the album.

TBOS has lots of ideas, its very melodic, has great riffs, fantastic solos, lots of energy, Bruce sounds great, the drumming and rhythm is very interesting, the album has some real stand outs, TRATB, WTRRD, TVOD and a very interesting EOTC. What more could I ask for?
I'm just hoping there isn't a 5 year wait till the next one. ...and also hoping Bruce continues to have good health.
 
irelandcalling4 said:
"book of souls" is better than the frontier, i think they have done a better job with constructing better melodies and lyrics than on the very bland previous album, but overall unfortunately, again, its "an easier album to admire than to love or even like", as one very memorable review stated for the frontier - and it applies equally here. should an album be such hard work to sit through?
Click to expand...

Maybe you are not the kind of person who studies literature, film or music seriously. That's okay. Much of it works as simple entertainment. But for those who do that kind of thing, it's very much a consensus that some things that are hard to get into give so much back in return when you reach that certain treshold. Sometimes you need to put in the effort to 'get' something. Look at it from different angles, find appreciation in things you didn't look for initially. (Of course, if the spark that makes you want to do this isn't there from the beginning, it does no good.) So yes, sometimes albums (and books and films and plays) need to be hard work. If music didn't challenge the listener, how did we ever get past drumming with sticks and stones?

I'm not arguing your opinion on the album (that I very much agree with).
 
Maturin said:
Maybe you are not the kind of person who studies literature, film or music seriously. That's okay. Much of it works as simple entertainment. But for those who do that kind of thing, it's very much a consensus that some things that are hard to get into give so much back in return when you reach that certain treshold. Sometimes you need to put in the effort to 'get' something. Look at it from different angles, find appreciation in things you didn't look for initially. (Of course, if the spark that makes you want to do this isn't there from the beginning, it does no good.) So yes, sometimes albums (and books and films and plays) need to be hard work. If music didn't challenge the listener, how did we ever get past drumming with sticks and stones?

I'm not arguing your opinion on the album (that I very much agree with).
Click to expand...

point taken, and as an avid music fan for a few decades, of course there are albums where the listener does need to put in effort. if all art or music was immediate there would be much less pleasure in discovering the gems over time, the slow burners.

in my case it just comes down to taste; i wouldnt place the latter day day maiden albums up there with their best. i do think brave new world came closest; but the albums since - over a few years of revisiting, re listening - i would agree that they are easier to admire than to like very much. but thats just my own opinion; i discovered maiden really during the late 90s initialy and into the 2000s in a much bigger way, so didnt have a loyalty or a nostalgia for the 80s albums - however, on hearing the catalogue, much of the last 4 albums (dance of death to book of souls) i find not that compelling or rewarding.

the new album is only a few weeks in, i do prefer it to the preceeding trio, but already there are 3 tracks i am skipping, the title track being among them. early days, maybe that will change over time; it didnt for the frontier, but i am still listening. new maiden is better than no maiden, absolutely.
 
Coming back to the album after taking a bit of a break for about 2 weeks, and it is still quite amazing. My current ranking of the songs:

Book of Souls
TRATB
Shadows of the Valley
Empire
The Man of Sorrows
IESF
Death or Glory
Tears of a Clown
The Great Unknown
When The River Runs Deep
Speed of Light.

TRATB has grown the most since my first impressions, while The Great Unknown has dropped the most. I do feel that Empire is likely to climb higher as well. SOL and WTRRD are the only 2 songs that I don't really get much enjoyment out of.
 
(To satisfy Cried :D ) My list is probably as following:

The Book of Souls (9-10)
The Red and the Black (9)
Shadows of the Valley (9)
If Eternity Should Fail (8)
When the River Runs Deep (8)
Tears of a Clown (7)

Empire of the Clouds (6-7)

The Great Unknown (6)
Speed of Light (6)
The Man of Sorrows (5)
EDIT: Death or Glory (5)


What's weird is that my most listened-to (standalone) track is Eternity, which is not even in my top 3. I know many will be offended by the fact Empire is too low, but it's just a tad overlong. Not enough meat for me.
 
Last edited:
Well, yeah. It's funny, because, if I recall correctly, MoS was my one of my favourite songs along with Eternity when I first heard the album.

I don’t like the Lightning Strikes Twice intro, I hate the change at 2:24 and the chorus is one of the weaker on the album. The solos are good, but I’ve never been sold on solos only.

I think the song suffers a bit from its position - after nearly 70 minutes of the album, it has a tough spot to live up to and it just isn't that great. I usually appreciate it more when I listen to the second CD alone, but then I'm remembering how much better that first one really was. Sorry, can't help it.

IMHO, Dave has been progressively worsening as a songwriter since BNW, honestly (though I still love Age of Innocence). These days I don’t even like TMWWBK all that much.

If anything, TBOS (album) just confirms to me that double albums were more fit in the age of vinyl. It’s much easier for the artist to “perfectly” fill 2x40 min. than 2x80.
I mean, double CD? Over 80 minutes of music? I have a hard time thinking up anyone who would manage it completely right. Whether it’s Maiden, Dream Theater with SDOIT, even recent Ayreon albums. The so called “proper” version of Iconoclast is overlong too. It usually doesn’t convince me the album wouldn’t work better as a single one. It’s a very hard task to fill two CDs worth of material so it doesn’t feel bloated.

I mean, when you listen to one of the double albums of the vinyl era like The Wall, Quadrophenia, The White Album, even Lamb on Broadway or Exile on Main St. (though it's not my favourite Stones record and I don't even like Stones all that much), they just go down. It's smooth. These days pretty much every album is a "double" (50+) and the proper double albums really do drag a bit, honestly.

Maybe there is a limit as to the amount of material a band is able to put out at a single moment of time. Yes, I know the classical composers have put out thousands of works writing more and more and more, kept writing all the time... but they usually have been working on various types of music concurrently; I think it's very different to write an opera, a string quartet or a symphony, so it might help you to keep yourself more "fresh". (And then again, you could say many of those classical compositions were hit and miss too, I mean - do you really know by heart every cantata by Bach?)
 
Last edited:
JudasMyGuide said:
I mean - do you really know by heart every cantata by Bach?)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if @SinisterMinisterX does. :p

I think double albums can still work, but it's better if they're born out of necessity (Book of Souls) rather than an artist setting out to do one. To me, it's always very obvious when a band decided to make a double album before writing any music. Six Degrees wasn't meant to be a double album either, originally, but it still works IMO. It's one of my favorite albums of all time.
 
From this album, The Man of Sorrows is probably the only song I could give a full 10. I am not going into it now, but I think that all other songs either lack something, either have something too much to be that good. In The Man of Sorrows, everything flows perfectly. It is the album's zenith of beauty, atmosphere, originality, balance and depth.



RE Dave's songwriting:
TMWWBK is indeed not that great. The midpiece kind of ruins it for me. First I thought it was original, but now it's just a piece I'm getting impatient about. Rainmaker, Breeg and even Age of Innocence I find pretty good as well.
 
Last edited:
Re-listened to the album today, I love it. The Book of Souls is like they took all of the great elements from their sound from 1980's sound, and expanded and revitalized them into some new kind of awesome. I'm kind of tired but man this album rocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top