The Book Of Souls (song not album)

How good is The Book of Souls on a scale of 1-10?

  • 10

    Votes: 16 72.7%

  • 9

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • 8

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    22
I'm not sure how a stark acoustic guitar riff can immediately evoke a steaming dark jungle, but it does.
Just a great intro (and outro) for a song I must confess still sounds rather plodding even as it has grown on me.
I also wish Bruce's vocal was a little more distinct in the mix. I still don't know the words, which is ridiculous for the number of times I've heard the song.
Love the little counter-rhythmic touches that Mosh mentions above during the first half and it is built on a immense riff.
The second part is crushing. Powerful, with some nice soloing and a good harmony part.
 
A monster song. Lyrics that span empires and ages - an entire people, lost now to history. A grand instrumental that builds up to a thunderous crescendo.

Janick Gers has written his greatest song yet - and a song that easily ranks in the top 10 songs Iron Maiden has ever created from a songwriting standpoint, and, I suspect, will have quite nice footing in the upcoming rankings.

This one goes to 11.
 
If anyone wonders what epic means in music, you can play them this song. A monster, like said above. Janick has probably written his best song yet. From the lovely acoustic intro, to the hard hitting riff to the fast paced second part where they blend guitar solos, harmonies and majestetic singing effortlessly. 9/10. Time will tell if it deserves a ten.
 
Absolutely magnificent epic. Has a power and pathos that is missing from some parts of the album. Brilliant sprawling solo. Superb riffing and a knockout chorus. And most importantly, I think Bruce's best performance since BNW. The lyrics don't particularly speak to me which stops it getting full marks

9
 
More than a year after being released the song still feels like it shouldn't have the second verse and chorus. The first half is just too long. I remember Janick mentioning that he had the main ideas and then Steve came along and went on adding a verse. I thing that all parts are really brilliant....but the repetition in the first half brings it down. If I said it once I said it a million times....Maiden still got brilliant ideas. However they seem bored to spend any real time arranging their music. They want to have a live feel in 10 minutes + songs. This is just not good. Having streamlined the songs and having a decent production and mix would definitely make this album a classic. There is no spontaneity that can held so long songs. This 92 minute album contains a 75 minute classic record. It would still be very long (as they wish their music to be) but so much punchier.
 
I agree, it's all fine the way it is. Cutting the second verse and chorus would be taking away a whole chunk of the song's meat IMO. The chorus + pre-chorus part is too good to have it there just once. Also, the verse after the first chorus goes quicker anyway, because it's a singe one. The first one is double with an interlude, which works well, because that's the build-up to the first big chorus. It was smart to make it shorter the second time. I think that having no repetition at all would make it feel rushed and unsatisfying. Gk1, I see your point regarding the album overall, but I think this is the one perfect song on it and I see no flaws in its arrangement.
 
Really great title track. In the line of Dance of Death and The Legacy, the Janick/Harris combo delivers again. Bruce sounds great, and even thou its really high, he doesn't sound that strained as he does on other places on the album. The main riff is heavy as hell, and melodies are great through out.
Small thing that bother me is that the tempo which is shifting a bit, and some vocal layering should have been done. Once again, more studio time should had been used to make this tighter and more polished.
The song is a strong 9 for me, verging to a 10 but not quite there.

9/10
 
10/10

An acoustic melody leads us into the title track and it’s an instant classic. The Book of Souls is probably Janick’s crowning achievement with the band. The sledgehammer, stomping main riff (with Steve’s nonstop scale climbing underneath) has become one of my favorite Maiden riffs of all time. It’s a damned behemoth. The Book of Souls has everything you could ever want in a Maiden song: mythic lyrics, melodic and hooky riffs, pummeling drums and bass, four guitar solos, and an extraordinary vocal performance from Bruce. I cannot sing the praises of this song highly enough. The Book of Souls is a masterpiece that deserves to go down in history with the likes of Powerslave, Hallowed Be Thy Name, and Rime of the Ancient Mariner.
 
Sorry, this one just doesn't do it for me. I love the intro / outro and the how the riff really feels as though you're there within the jungles looking at the building of the... Mayans, I believe? Otherwise, this song isn't all that memorable. The chorus is pretty much shite, and while I don't straight out dislike it, it's by far one of Maiden's most overrated tracks. If it weren't for the fact that it doesn't feel as though it were overlong, which is good, and that the riff and acoustic beginnings and endings are good, it'd be a 6. As it is, it's a low to mid 7/10.
 
The end, identical to the intro, is dispensable (just like it is in "The Red and The Black"). I love Nicko in the second chorus, with a short improvising (after Bruce sings "Prophecy of sky gods").

9/10
 
Last edited:
Diesel 11 said:
As it is, it's a low to mid 7/10.
Click to expand...

Trying to find general logic in other people's rankings is kinda pointless, but I have to. I see that you rank integers up to 10, which can include 10 or 11 marks. And you use a low-mid-high classification. You have several permutations due to uneven split, and in none of them 7 can be low. 7 is always middle bracket, and never on the lower side. I don't know how this matrix system is called but it's used a lot in performance evaluations, where you have 0 to denote that something doesn't need to be evaluated, in the negative sense, and 10 is the same, but in the positive sense. They denote shit or godlike. Other marks are put in 3x3 matrix. Mark 3 would be low tier, but with tendency for mid tier in next evaluation. Next time around, if it proves itself, you'd give it a 5. If you aren't so certain about it being mid-tier, you give it a 4, because then you're denoting a downward trend, and next time you'll figure if the song deserves to get back into shit category.

So you can automatically discard any appalling songs and give 10 for truly the best stuff. For all else, you have 9 marks in 3 general categories and a way to describe upward or downward trend in bordering cases.
 
Zare said:
Trying to find general logic in other people's rankings is kinda pointless, but I have to. I see that you rank integers up to 10, which can include 10 or 11 marks. And you use a low-mid-high classification. You have several permutations due to uneven split, and in none of them 7 can be low. 7 is always middle bracket, and never on the lower side. I don't know how this matrix system is called but it's used a lot in performance evaluations, where you have 0 to denote that something doesn't need to be evaluated, in the negative sense, and 10 is the same, but in the positive sense. They denote shit or godlike. Other marks are put in 3x3 matrix. Mark 3 would be low tier, but with tendency for mid tier in next evaluation. Next time around, if it proves itself, you'd give it a 5. If you aren't so certain about it being mid-tier, you give it a 4, because then you're denoting a downward trend, and next time you'll figure if the song deserves to get back into shit category.

So you can automatically discard any appalling songs and give 10 for truly the best stuff. For all else, you have 9 marks in 3 general categories and a way to describe upward or downward trend in bordering cases.
Click to expand...
Not sure I completely get what you're saying... but I'll try to explain how I rate songs. For me, I dislike going lower than 5 because that's about as low as any Maiden song is. When I say it's a low to mid 7, I mean it's around 7.0 - 7.5. TBOS isn't a bad song, it just isn't a great one at the same stroke.

Does this help? Otherwise I've completely misread your post, in which case if you have any other confusions over my ratings I'll be happy to answer. I don't know if I've cleared anything up or not, IDK. :confused:
 
My post was just nitpicking, don't look into it too much :)

So in your system, 5 would be some generic song on the radio, passable material, etc., or any Maiden song that's that dull for you?
 
Zare said:
My post was just nitpicking, don't look into it too much :)
Click to expand...
Oh, alright, cool. :)

Zare said:
So in your system, 5 would be some generic song on the radio, passable material, etc., or any Maiden song that's that dull for you?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. 5 is what I'd give songs by, say, One Direction, or my least favorite Maiden tracks - not terrible, but nothing I'd go out of my way to listen to at the same time. 1 is reserved solely for bluegrass. ;)
 
Hehe I see your point, I also have special scores for a similar type of music from where I come from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top