The Official Book of Souls Tour 2017 Thread (Warning: Spoilers Within)

Well I was thinking what would be a fair solutuion. The rights to a song are usually split as follows 66,7% is music and 33,3% are the lyrics. Hallowed has around 30 lines, 6 of which are Quinn's, so that makes him an author of 6,5% of the song. Reading the article about what Quinn's promotor wants, it's probably a case of greed, not neccecerly from Quinn, but more from his promotor (judging also by his history with the court cases). He probably wants Quinn to be paid equally as Steve who is in my mind 93,5% author of Hallowed, and Rod, Andy and Steve won't have that. As the promotor stated he wants "a couple hundred quid for performance" which is probably half of the money that the author gets. So that's why the IM camp didn't make an agreement. The Nomad thing is more complicated, as it involves music.

There is also Barton factor who apparently lied to Quinn and IM.
 
There is also Barton factor who apparently lied to Quinn and IM.

Yes, and that is what annoys me about McKay's statement. He is not taking it into account, and saying things like "I really don't know what is wrong with Steve Harris, or is it that he is being poorly advised by his management? Is Steve Harris so greedy that he would rather deprive his fans of enjoying seeing Iron Maiden perform their best and most popular song than pay the actual co-writer of that song his entitlement to publishing from a performance of a joint copyright?"

Come on, give Steve the benefit of the doubt before talking to him.
 
That could be a good point. Even if none of them listened to metal, you'd think someone would've pointed it out to them at some point between '82 and now

They might have even found out about Maiden when they covered Rainbows Gold!
 
I have just found this...

http://www.metaltalk.net/news_seventeen/iron_maiden_advised_to_settle_out_of_court.php

The claims that Brian Quinn co-wrote Hallowed be Thy Name are laughable, but an interesting read nevertheless. I would not be surprised if Steve and Dave end up having to pay a significant amount of money.

That being said, this is possibly the worst publicity the band could get.

To claim those lines are a huge element of the track is laughable. I have always though those two lines of lyrics were out of place with the feeling of the rest of the song, and "strange illusion" doesn't even rhyme with anything or fit the pattern of the rest of the track

Let's be honest, steve was just lazy looking for two lines of lyrics to finish off the track and he robbed them, they don't add a hell of a lot to the song.
 
Yes, and that is what annoys me about McKay's statement. He is not taking it into account, and saying things like "I really don't know what is wrong with Steve Harris, or is it that he is being poorly advised by his management? Is Steve Harris so greedy that he would rather deprive his fans of enjoying seeing Iron Maiden perform their best and most popular song than pay the actual co-writer of that song his entitlement to publishing from a performance of a joint copyright?"

Come on, give Steve the benefit of the doubt before talking to him.

And that is why I think the main force behind this case is greed. If the promotor and Quinn didn't want more money, they would only sue Barton for lying and half of the settlement that he had with IM camp. Suing Steve for 50% of the song rights, while Quinn (and Barton) should rightfully get around 6,5% is just an utopia. And if he is a co-writer with Barton they should get 3,4% each. That's it.

Since the promotor wanted Quinn to have too much and the IM camp wouldn't have that, they simply dropped Hallowed.

Again The Nomad is a different story, but Quinn and his court-loving promotor won't get rich with that song.
 
To claim those lines are a huge element of the track is laughable. I have always though those two lines of lyrics were out of place with the feeling of the rest of the song, and "strange illusion" doesn't even rhyme with anything or fit the pattern of the rest of the track

Let's be honest, steve was just lazy looking for two lines of lyrics to finish off the track and he robbed them, they don't add a hell of a lot to the song.

Who knows what could have happened back in 1982?

My guess is that those lines were in Steve's subconscious and he used them when he was writing the song. Anyway, we know that Terry Slesser was auditioned as a possible replacement for Paul DiAnno, so perhaps Steve had been listening to Beckett a lot and that refreshed his memories...
 
And that is why I think the main force behind this case is greed. If the promotor and Quinn didn't want more money, they would only sue Barton for lying and half of the settlement that he had with IM camp. Suing Steve for 50% of the song rights, while Quinn (and Barton) should rightfully get around 6,5% is just an utopia. And if he is a co-writer with Barton they should get 3,4% each. That's it.

Since the promotor wanted Quinn to have too much and the IM camp wouldn't have that, they simply dropped Hallowed.

Greed is obviously behind this claim, but isn't that always the case?
 
TNotB is probably as fast if not faster (on the album, they play it slower live nowadays)

I think Seventh Son as performed live in 1988 gets a bit faster. But another great example, that downpick intro is one of the best moments in metal history.
 
Sure. It's never about artistic integrity. Perhaps one needs to be a song writer to understand that importance, or am I too cynical now?
 
Last edited:
Sure. It's never about artistic integrity. Perhaps one needs to be a song writing to understand that importance, or am I too cynical now?

No, you are just missing the point :p

Steve Harris wrote the song, influenced no doubt by Beckett's tune. That is undeniable. He settled this with Bob Barton some time ago (in 2012, quite possibly) as the latter claimed to be the writer of the bits that had been used/adapted by Steve.

Brian Quinn comes 35 years later and sues Steve and Dave, saying that it is just not about the money. Why is he not just suing Bob Barton, as he is the one who allegedly cheated him? Why is Hallowed be Thy Name mentioned everywhere while The Nomad hardly gets a mention? Because the former could earn him much more money, that's why.

I bet that if Steve had agreed to pay him and McKay a hefty amount of money we would not have heard a single whisper about this. Call me a cynic...
 
Last edited:
I call you a speculator.

:lol:

Now that I think of it, I think I can speculate why Steve used the same song again in The Nomad. Perhaps the melody was in his subconscious or perhaps he was considering auditioning Terry Slesser, Beckett's singer, again, this time to replace Blaze Bayley and that refreshed his memories... :lol: :lol:
 
:lol:

Now that I think of it, I think I can speculate why Steve used the same song again in The Nomad. Perhaps the melody was in his subconscious or perhaps he was considering auditioning Terry Slesser, Beckett's singer, again, this time to replace Blaze Bayley and that refreshed his memories... :lol: :lol:

Personally, I think the Nomad melody is way too close for comfort to be 'subconscious'. Nope, I don't believe that for a second. Even the way it builds is the same, not just the part you can whistle or hum.

Maybe they had already thought they had bought the rights to the song at that stage? Who knows how accurate an undisclosed timeline is. Maybe Maiden genuinely thought this was settled way before that , around 1999-2000, and thought they may as well use other parts also?
 
I have just found this...

http://www.metaltalk.net/news_seventeen/iron_maiden_advised_to_settle_out_of_court.php

The claims that Brian Quinn co-wrote Hallowed be Thy Name are laughable, but an interesting read nevertheless. I would not be surprised if Steve and Dave end up having to pay a significant amount of money.

That being said, this is possibly the worst publicity the band could get.
According to that link, Quinn lives in a mobile home. My statement I made a page ago is correct, someone is looking for an upgrade.
 
So, supposing Maiden settled (with cash) with the other Beckett guy, on the understanding the song was all his own work, doesn't that potentially mean there could be a new legal case against him?
 
Back
Top