The Genesis of Somewhere in Time

  • Thread starter Deleted member 7164
  • Start date
Not a big huge difference. Ideas or a song. The reasons for Maiden sweeping it under the carpet remain the same: rejected material, unhappy Bruce.
It's understandable that the shit is not made public by official sources. The biography indeed leaves matters out of the Maiden story, but it doesn't seem that incorrect.
 
The least documented era of Iron Maiden, paradox because of absolute high point in the 1980s and a platinum band. Etc.

Re: "absolute high point", I wasn't a fan until 91 so I don't have a perspective of the reception it got when released, but anything I read in the UK metal press in the 90's presented the album as a disappointment. Comparing the chart positions in the UK of SIT and it's singles with the next album, singles and Donington appearance would back that up. It had good sales in the States but this seems to be a result of the World Slavery Tour, with disappointment in SIT manifesting in less interest in Maiden in the States on subsequent albums. The quality of SIT is internet era revisionism IMO, a kind of hipsterism if you will, Maiden don't play the songs therefore there is some street cred and kudos to be had.

RE: song 9, I would definitely agree with it being swept under the carpet. Despite being well aware of Bruce having had ideas rejected, I never was aware that any of the songs got any further than Bruce presenting them, certainly not any further than pre-album rehersals and definitely not as far as possibly having had the rhythm tracks recorded.

It's strange that they never considered keeping it as a b-side given they had done some work on it before rejecting it.
 
Re: "absolute high point", I wasn't a fan until 91 so I don't have a perspective of the reception it got when released, but anything I read in the UK metal press in the 90's presented the album as a disappointment. Comparing the chart positions in the UK of SIT and it's singles with the next album, singles and Donington appearance would back that up. It had good sales in the States but this seems to be a result of the World Slavery Tour, with disappointment in SIT manifesting in less interest in Maiden in the States on subsequent albums. The quality of SIT is internet era revisionism IMO, a kind of hipsterism if you will, Maiden don't play the songs therefore there is some street cred and kudos to be had.

RE: song 9, I would definitely agree with it being swept under the carpet. Despite being well aware of Bruce having had ideas rejected, I never was aware that any of the songs got any further than Bruce presenting them, certainly not any further than pre-album rehersals and definitely not as far as possibly having had the rhythm tracks recorded.

It's strange that they never considered keeping it as a b-side given they had done some work on it before rejecting it.

Spot on, mate.

Somewhere in Time was seen by many as a disappointing album (I think it is, by far, the weakest of the albums by the classic Dickinson/Harris/Smith/Murray/McBrain line-up) and Seventh Son as a return to form.

Regarding the material that ended up on the album, the fact that there is a promotional interview in which Bruce mentions a 9th song suggests that his material was rejected at a much later stage than what the official hagiography says.
 
That was my point too. After WST and release of Live After Death, Maiden was at their most popular. You'd think that the following period would be documented accordingly.

Also SiT was not unpopular in any sense of that word - it sold and it featured a sucessful arena tour. Maybe it didn't maintain the momentum they had up to that point, but to say it was seen as a "dissapointing" album is rather absurd - you see, many saw SS the same, and I've read stories about people breaking their Maiden ties forever after hearing the synthy intro to Moonchild. I've also heard many stories of people going apeshit about Di'Anno leaving, and about Bruce leaving, and etc.

People did not ask for SiT material back 25 years ago because nobody asked any kind of material 25 years ago. 25 years ago nobody spoke about stall Maiden setlists and overused classics. Because the band was young and time wasn't running out. But as time went on the under-usage of SiT became evident, especially at its history era tour. Also 75% of the "play SiT" crowd are just wanting ATG and would be satisfied with HCW, WY and ATG in a same setlist. ATG in itself is curious because it is the only 80s Harris epic that didn't get played so the demand is "natural".

The first Maiden stuff I heard was from Powerslave. And then Piece of Mind, and then SiT, and it quickly became my favourite. This was in the age of exploring music via cassette tapes and it has nothing to do with the Internet.

Now what none of you give SiT credit for when comparing it to Powerslave, is how good of a guitar album it is. It came out in late 1986 - the shredder scene already aboom, standards are up in the sky, Maiden delivers both in areas of composition, sound and technical prowess.
 
People did not ask for SiT material back 25 years ago because nobody asked any kind of material 25 years ago. 25 years ago nobody spoke about stall Maiden setlists and overused classics.

I am afraid that is not correct. I was a fan 25 years ago and Maiden were playing - most of the time - the same oldies on every tour. I was (and still am) friends with other Maiden fans and we used to complain about it!

Thankfully things got much better when Adrian and Bruce re-joined and rejuvenated the band.
 
It's strange that they never considered keeping it as a b-side given they had done some work on it before rejecting it.

They stopped putting original songs (not covers) as a B-sides from the POM album onward... (if we don't count Black Bart Blues and Nodding Donkey Blues, which were never songs that going to be included in a album).

TXF album though has original songs as a B-sides and were considered for inclusion in the album - the only exception since 1982.
 
Last edited:
That was my point too. After WST and release of Live After Death, Maiden was at their most popular. You'd think that the following period would be documented accordingly.

Also SiT was not unpopular in any sense of that word - it sold and it featured a sucessful arena tour. Maybe it didn't maintain the momentum they had up to that point, but to say it was seen as a "dissapointing" album is rather absurd - you see, many saw SS the same, and I've read stories about people breaking their Maiden ties forever after hearing the synthy intro to Moonchild. I've also heard many stories of people going apeshit about Di'Anno leaving, and about Bruce leaving, and etc.

People did not ask for SiT material back 25 years ago because nobody asked any kind of material 25 years ago. 25 years ago nobody spoke about stall Maiden setlists and overused classics. Because the band was young and time wasn't running out. But as time went on the under-usage of SiT became evident, especially at its history era tour. Also 75% of the "play SiT" crowd are just wanting ATG and would be satisfied with HCW, WY and ATG in a same setlist. ATG in itself is curious because it is the only 80s Harris epic that didn't get played so the demand is "natural".

The first Maiden stuff I heard was from Powerslave. And then Piece of Mind, and then SiT, and it quickly became my favourite. This was in the age of exploring music via cassette tapes and it has nothing to do with the Internet.

Now what none of you give SiT credit for when comparing it to Powerslave, is how good of a guitar album it is. It came out in late 1986 - the shredder scene already aboom, standards are up in the sky, Maiden delivers both in areas of composition, sound and technical prowess.

Guitar playing is great on SIT, agreed, not just the solos, real interesting rhythm guitar parts in the solos on songs like CSIT and HCW. Perhaps the best album for harmonies as well.

I didn't mean to seem like I was having a go at the album, for me personally I think only Killers is weaker from the 80's but other people have it as their favourite album, and that's an equally valid opinion, and I wouldn't for a second belittle anyone who has it as their favourite album. The point I was trying to make was the phenomenon of a lot of people having SIT as their favourite album was not something I was aware of in the 90's.
 
Last edited:
I am afraid that is not correct. I was a fan 25 years ago and Maiden were playing - most of the time - the same oldies on every tour. I was (and still am) friends with other Maiden fans and we used to complain about it!

Thankfully things got much better when Adrian and Bruce re-joined and rejuvenated the band.

25 years ago give or take they did Read Dead One, tour exclusively for the old stuff.
I'm still friends with Maiden fans from back then, who also think SiT is among their best material and tops Powerslave with no effort.

See how subjective opinions derail the discussion?
Somewhere In Time is a Platinum album, it sold better than any album following it.

It would be best if we stick to the numbers and refrain from our subjective opinions.
The current popularity of SiT is not an Internet phenomenon, it was always there.
 
For every album I've heard testimonials from people who were around at the time who thought that it was the best album and from those who thought they lost it with that one. I take those as anecdotes about what things were discussed by fans at the time, but not as evidence for the general reception of any of those individual albums.
 
25 years ago give or take they did Read Dead One, tour exclusively for the old stuff.

I guess you mean the A Real Live Tour? That was a rather short - for the band at the time - European tour, originally intended as a final leg of the Fear of the Dark tour and hardly a tour exclusively for the old stuff! ;)

The only reason the setlist was changed to add some oldies that had not been played for some time (Where Eagles Dare, only played at 1/3 of the shows, Wasted Years, Prowler, Remember Tomorrow and Transylvania) was because Bruce was leaving the band.
 
Last edited:
Thankfully things got much better when Adrian and Bruce re-joined and rejuvenated the band.

Agreed! Today especially Dickinson has a lot of input in the setlist.

The point I was trying to make was the phenomenon of a lot of people having SIT as their favourite album was not something I was aware of in the 90's.

I wasn't aware that Judas Priest have had Maiden levels of popularity, not even close. Just due to the people and the vibe around me, nobody except one person was really into Priest and tons of people were into Metallica, Maiden, Megadeth, Pantera, Slayer, etc. I wasn't aware of glam at all, I thought alt/grunge/nu-metal is the worse it can get. Because it was all I was exposed to. Later on I was hanging out with some bikers because I worked with one of them, went to their local club, and right there I found out about 'hard rock of the 80s' or glam.
 
I guess you mean the A Real Live Tour? That was a rather short - for the band at the time - European tour, originally intended as a final leg of the Fear of the Dark tour and hardly a tour exclusively for the old stuff! :lol:

The only reason the setlist was changed to add some oldies that had not been played for some time (Where Eagles Dare, only played at 1/3 of the shows, Wasted Years, Prowler, Remember Tomorrow and Transylvania) was because Bruce was leaving the band.

Sure, it's the same like playing Children of the Damned in 2000s, it was sort of represented on multiple tours but the number of dates was low. However it did show that song, that idea of playing the song, is floating around.

Anyway, regardless of the exact opinion on the album, I hope we can come to conclusion that it is the least covered relative to units sold.

I can go further with this - give me an album from the heyday of metal, true metal album no glam no radio stuff, sold 1+ million in the US and at least that much worldwide, has no live counterpart, has no documentary for it, did not get "nostalgia" treatment?
 
Maiden's sixth album arrived on Sept. 29, 1986, reaching No. 3 on the U.K. chart and giving the band its first double-platinum album in the U.S. But opinions on its merits have grown increasingly muddled over the years, to the point that it's often seen as a weak link in an otherwise victorious decade.

No such qualms assail the first five Iron Maiden albums (though, to be fair, critics weren't entirely sold on 1981's Killers either), and certainly not Somewhere in Time's predecessor, 1984's Powerslave, which had signified their true arrival in the States, and taken them around the world for the record-breaking World Slavery Tour.

...most fans paid little mind to these gradual advancements, embracing Somewhere in Time as they had the previous Iron Maiden albums. It wasn't until a few years later, with the band's even more popular next album, Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, that more mixed emotions started to emerge about Time. But even if it lacks the unanimous support enjoyed by most of the band's '80s records, Somewhere in Time remains an important chapter in its history.
 
Spot on, mate.

Somewhere in Time was seen by many as a disappointing album (I think it is, by far, the weakest of the albums by the classic Dickinson/Harris/Smith/Murray/McBrain line-up) and Seventh Son as a return to form.
Nope. See Perun's post.
 
Somewhere in Time went faster platinum in the USA than Powerslave.

Somewhere in Time:
release: SEPTEMBER 19, 1986Platinum | July 20, 1992
5 years and 10 months

Powerslave:
SEPTEMBER 4, 1984Platinum | June 17, 1991GROUPStandard1 MillionNone
6 years and 9 months

Basically, Somewhere in Time is Maiden's most successful post-Piece of Mind studio album (USA sales wise).
 
Last edited:
I don't think that Cain's post is incorrect in itself. But it omits the "seen by many more as one hell of a record" part of the truth equation.
 
Somewhere in Time went faster platinum in the USA than Powerslave.

Somewhere in Time:
release: SEPTEMBER 19, 1986Platinum | July 20, 1992
5 years and 10 months

Powerslave:
SEPTEMBER 4, 1984Platinum | June 17, 1991GROUPStandard1 MillionNone
6 years and 9 months

Basically, Powerslave is Maiden's most successful post-Piece of Mind studio album (USA sales wise).

I also believe that first TV promotional ads for the tour were used in 1986.
 
It is funny how results differ in other countries.

In the UK (just using it as an example as it is easy to find official and transparent data at https://www.bpi.co.uk/brit-certified/), three Maiden albums have been certified Platinum: Iron Maiden, The Number of the Beast and Piece of Mind.

And now some useless facts for nerds like us:

Somewhere in Time was certified Gold 11 days after being released, Seventh Son of a Seventh Son 3 days after being released, No Prayer for the Dying on the day it was released, and Fear of the Dark 10 days before being released. :lol:

No prices for guessing the titles of the 2 Maiden studio albums that have not been certified Gold...
 
Does any effort have to be made by management to get certification when a long time has passed? I'd be surprised if TXF and VXI have not shifted 100K in the UK yet, just with the multiple issues and the more-hardcore-than-the-average-band level of collecting there is among Maiden fans, I'd have thought TXF at least would have made it by now.
 
Does any effort have to be made by management to get certification when a long time has passed? I'd be surprised if TXF and VXI have not shifted 100K in the UK yet, just with the multiple issues and the more-hardcore-than-the-average-band level of collecting there is among Maiden fans, I'd have thought TXF at least would have made it by now.

Virtual XI was certified silver (60k copies shifted) on 2nd June 2017. The X Factor was certified silver on 22nd July 2013.
 
Back
Top