This guy is really on the wrong job with serious ME(n)TAL problems

This first reply on the site is solid, without resorting to insults:

"We can start by pointing the amusing, and glaringly obvious disdain for Iron Maiden (and the apparent jealousy about Maiden's larger world-wide following over Judas Priest) has made you blind to the real facts as you bashed them. I think this blog was more of an attempt to display sarcasm than to prove any real point.

You had more to say about what Maiden isn't than what they really are..."

"Iron Maiden are what many can refer to as "The Rolling Stones" of heavy metal. This is not a slight either. This means as far as metal goes Maiden has the tunes, the longevity, the reputation, and stamina to back up their legend that is now almost 40 years. Iron Maiden did not have MTV videos, or radio airplay that Judas Priest did."

The man who wrote that article obviously does not know what he's talking about.  He's looking for attention; that's why he's flaming.
 
He's actually pretty much alive on facebook. Posts some stuff here and there.



@ The blog dude: You're an idiot. Next.
 
This guys doesn't (want to) see or/and show the differences with the other bands he mentions, which is either a lack of knowledge and interpretation, either a display of dishonesty.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
Hehe ... read all the way to the very bottom of the page ... a sighting of a wild He Who Must Not Be Named.

You know, that almost starts Pokemon references. And that would define me as the world's biggest dork.
 
LooseCannon said:
You know, that almost starts Pokemon references. And that would define me as the world's biggest dork.

The fact that you came up with the idea alone did it. I don't even have the slightest idea what a wild Mav sighting could have to do with Pokemon.
 
Perun said:
I don't even have the slightest idea what a wild You Know Who sighting could have to do with Pokemon.
poke1.jpg

poke2.jpg

poke3.jpg


:D
 
Anyway. I read the guy's article, and I get that he doesn't like Maiden. Okay, I understand. But then he makes some kinda bullshit comparisons (the Stonehenge thing? Really?) and pretty much keeps saying that other bands were doing the same thing, well why did Iron Maiden get bigger than X?
 
I really didn't get the whole "hard rock, not metal" argument.  Yes, Slayer play faster and heavier.  No, that does not mean that everyone who plays slower or more melodic is "not metal", and that's from a huge Slayer fan.

Also, I don't see how Maiden are "happy" and "not dark".  Sure, there's the occasional Invaders, Montsegur, or what have you with a happy chorus, but those are an exception more than a rule.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
Hehe ... read all the way to the very bottom of the page ... a sighting of a wild He Who Must Not Be Named.
I scrolled down and his link is just one of that blogger's article.
 
An insight into a limited mind.

Maiden were always a progressive band, even in 1970ties. There are hundreds of elements to their music.
This guy has an issue with the band, but he tries to back it up with flawed "facts" and simple bullshit. Which is quite understandable, because if he said "i like some Maiden, but not much as other bands", he couldn't write a complete essay about it.
 
Back
Top