"The Book of Souls" - Official pre-release thread (CONTAINS ALBUM SPOILERS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
LooseCannon said:
No, there really isn't. For whatever reason, the writers of the songs made honest decisions to add longer refrains, extra choruses, more instrumentals, or even a few more repeats of the title. It doesn't always work - and it doesn't always work for every listener - but it is intentional. The music as written and performed are as the entity Iron Maiden wants it to be. Not always how Steve Harris or Bruce Dickinson or Adrian Smith want it to be, but the entity as a whole.

Those extra lines in For the Greater Good of God that people slag? Why is it there? Could it be that Steve wanted people to think about what that fucking means, the incredible hypocrisy in the demands of people to kill for their peace-loving zombie jew?

The long drawn out instrumental in Where the Wild Wind Blows? Could it be that we are literally listening to the musical death of people, and that subject deserves an appropriate epitaph?

Every single chorus in The Angel and the Gambler was placed there for a reason. It might not be a great reason, but it's there for a reason. Hate the songs if you want, but don't cut their fucking legs off and declare you've made a masterpiece. If you cut the legs off Michaelangelo's David because you don't like how tall he is, you're not making art. You're fucking destroying it to feel better about yourself.
Click to expand...

There was a time when Maiden had double the riffs and melodies in half the song duration. This is my main issue. The music doesn't flow. I don't care if a Maiden song was written in the 80s or not. I don't get the "feeling" anymore.

You are right, the songs are made this way for a reason, I just fail to get it in most cases.
 
Last edited:
LooseCannon said:
Every single chorus in The Angel and the Gambler was placed there for a reason. It might not be a great reason, but it's there for a reason.
Click to expand...

There's an easily missed detail. Listen closely to the backing chord progressions behind those many choruses; they change every time, ultimately forming a cycle that takes four choruses to complete. Once you hear the cycle, it becomes clear why it goes on so long: the lyrics may repeat a great deal, but the music behind them much less so.
 
Gk1 said:
There was a time when Maiden had double the riffs and melodies in half the song duration. This is my main issue. The music doesn't flow. I don't care if a Maiden song was written in the 80s or not. I don't get the "feeling" anymore.

You are right, the songs are made this way for a reason, I just fail to get it in most cases.
Click to expand...
Packing in riffs and melodies isn't what makes music flow, though. Getting it right, telling a story, bringing someone in, that is what makes a song flow. Maybe you don't get the feeling anymore, and that's understandable and fine. But if I can be completely honest with you, I don't think you're being honest with yourself regarding why you feel that way.

Because, when I spin a track like Paschendale, I am reminded of tracks like Powerslave in intensity and strength. When I put on a track like The Nomad, I'm taken back to To Tame a Land. When I listen to Brighter Than a Thousand Suns, I think of something similar to Hallowed. It's not direct correlations, but I get the same feelings I get when listening to the earlier tracks. My feelings aren't yours, but I can at least admit I make these connections because I formed them when I was forming my musical connection to this band.
 
LooseCannon said:
It's like cutting off half the Mona Lisa. You might like the individual piece better, but you're not getting the full message the original artist intended. At that stage, you're becoming the artist. Which is fine - I don't have a problem with that (to a certain extent, of course). But stop calling it Iron Maiden songs if they're being edited, because they're not anymore.
Click to expand...
LooseCannon said:
No, there really isn't. For whatever reason, the writers of the songs made honest decisions to add longer refrains, extra choruses, more instrumentals, or even a few more repeats of the title. It doesn't always work - and it doesn't always work for every listener - but it is intentional. The music as written and performed are as the entity Iron Maiden wants it to be. Not always how Steve Harris or Bruce Dickinson or Adrian Smith want it to be, but the entity as a whole.

Those extra lines in For the Greater Good of God that people slag? Why is it there? Could it be that Steve wanted people to think about what that fucking means, the incredible hypocrisy in the demands of people to kill for their peace-loving zombie jew?

The long drawn out instrumental in Where the Wild Wind Blows? Could it be that we are literally listening to the musical death of people, and that subject deserves an appropriate epitaph?

Every single chorus in The Angel and the Gambler was placed there for a reason. It might not be a great reason, but it's there for a reason. Hate the songs if you want, but don't cut their fucking legs off and declare you've made a masterpiece. If you cut the legs off Michaelangelo's David because you don't like how tall he is, you're not making art. You're fucking destroying it to feel better about yourself.
Click to expand...


I suppose, then, according to that logic, Maiden destroyed their own art when they released an edited single of The Angel And The Gambler? Radio edit of the Wicker Man? Electric version of Journeyman? :rolleyes:
 
My problem isn't that the songs are long but that they get longer for the wrong reasons.

It is not that I have an issue with the extra parts. It is that we have to dissect them and try to understand why they are so. Just cause they add a muted chord on the second repetition or just because he sing the line a bit differently....no this is not natural. I just don't like that I can go away,make some coffee and when I am back the same part is still playing just for the sake of it.

I don't care if HBTN was written in 1982. It is packed with energy and it just goes. Nowadays if Maiden get a good riff in a song you just know they'll just repeat it till their hands fall off.
 
PlayClassics! said:
I suppose, then, according to that logic, Maiden destroyed their own art when they released an edited single of The Angel And The Gambler? Radio edit of the Wicker Man? Electric version of Journeyman?
Click to expand...
No, of course not, and had you understood what I was saying, you'd know that. Perhaps you did understand, and you're trying to stir up trouble intentionally.

As the controlling entity, they have the right to try different things with their own work. The problem comes when a non-Maiden person rips down Maiden's work without passing it off as their own, and suggesting they've made a superior version.

You are talking about a single edit (which I wonder how much the band had to do with), the original release of a song they decided they didn't like and changed, and a bonus b-side.
 
Gk1 said:
It is not that I have an issue with the extra parts. It is that we have to dissect them and try to understand why they are so. Just cause they add a muted chord on the second repetition or just because he sing the line a bit differently....no this is not natural. I just don't like that I can go away,make some coffee and when I am back the same part is still playing just for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
Have you heard classical music? It follows many of the same styles and there's certainly points in Beethoven's symphonies that you could go away, make coffee, come back and hear a very similar part. But you're already slagging off by suggesting these artistic decisions are "for the sake of it". Repetition in music is not only natural, it's almost a pre-requisite for most musical formats.

You don't have to dissect anything. You're free to enjoy an empty-headed, light, relaxing musical experience from the band that wrote an incomprehensible epic based on Dune, used a long instrumental segment in their most famous song to show a man being executed, and re-wrote one of the greater poems of the English language in 13.5 minute format, but that was back in the 80s so it was all better anyway.
 
PlayClassics! said:
Actually, that's just the job Kevin Shirley is supposed to be doing, but usually isn't.
Click to expand...
Kevin Shirley is an employee of Iron Maiden, so whatever work he does or doesn't do has to pass muster with Iron Maiden. So while we might criticize the production, if the band as an entity didn't like it, they'd tell him to change it or hire someone else. So really, it's not the job Kevin Shirley is doing at all.
 
LooseCannon said:
Kevin Shirley is an employee of Iron Maiden, so whatever work he does or doesn't do has to pass muster with Iron Maiden. So while we might criticize the production, if the band as an entity didn't like it, they'd tell him to change it or hire someone else. So really, it's not the job Kevin Shirley is doing at all.
Click to expand...

Employee? I thought he was adopted...:p
 
LooseCannon said:
Kevin Shirley is an employee of Iron Maiden, so whatever work he does or doesn't do has to pass muster with Iron Maiden. So while we might criticize the production, if the band as an entity didn't like it, they'd tell him to change it or hire someone else. So really, it's not the job Kevin Shirley is doing at all.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Maiden write their own songs how they want.
 
LooseCannon said:
No, there really isn't. For whatever reason, the writers of the songs made honest decisions to add longer refrains, extra choruses, more instrumentals, or even a few more repeats of the title. It doesn't always work - and it doesn't always work for every listener - but it is intentional. The music as written and performed are as the entity Iron Maiden wants it to be. Not always how Steve Harris or Bruce Dickinson or Adrian Smith want it to be, but the entity as a whole.

Those extra lines in For the Greater Good of God that people slag? Why is it there? Could it be that Steve wanted people to think about what that fucking means, the incredible hypocrisy in the demands of people to kill for their peace-loving zombie jew?

The long drawn out instrumental in Where the Wild Wind Blows? Could it be that we are literally listening to the musical death of people, and that subject deserves an appropriate epitaph?

Every single chorus in The Angel and the Gambler was placed there for a reason. It might not be a great reason, but it's there for a reason. Hate the songs if you want, but don't cut their fucking legs off and declare you've made a masterpiece. If you cut the legs off Michaelangelo's David because you don't like how tall he is, you're not making art. You're fucking destroying it to feel better about yourself.
Click to expand...

The whining has LC on fire!
 
LooseCannon said:
Kevin Shirley is an employee of Iron Maiden, so whatever work he does or doesn't do has to pass muster with Iron Maiden. So while we might criticize the production, if the band as an entity didn't like it, they'd tell him to change it or hire someone else. So really, it's not the job Kevin Shirley is doing at all.
Click to expand...

Either way, I'm sure they wouldn't just tell Martin Birch to change it or hire someone else. Too much respect for him. Which was good. Birch knew his business, and I'm sure if he suggested Changes in the songs, they were all for the better. Whereas Shirley probably doesn't suggest much at all, because of that "change it or we'll hire someone else"-attitude.
 
PlayClassics! said:
Either way, I'm sure they wouldn't just tell Martin Birch to change it or hire someone else. Too much respect for him. Which was good. Birch knew his business, and I'm sure if he suggested Changes in the songs, they were all for the better. Whereas Shirley probably doesn't suggest much at all, because of that "change it or we'll hire someone else"-attitude.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware you temped with the Caveman, and thus were privy to all the secret details of the Guilliaume Tell recording sessions. Martin Birch was an excellent producer, and I haven't a doubt that he absolutely had input into how things should sound, but producers don't define a band's sound, at least not a band like Iron Maiden. Birch was told how the band should sound on a particular album and helped them key towards that. That's why albums as diverse as Killers, SSOASS, and FOTD sound...well...diverse. Well produced, but in entirely different styles.

I am sure that Shirley has made many suggestions to Steve & co, and that some have been accepted, and others probably ignored. They clearly respect the work he did. If they didn't, they wouldn't hire him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top