what Maiden song parts do you think sound live much better than on the original album?

I actually can’t think of any, which is so different from my lifetime favorite bands Rush and Yes where their live versions often render their studio versions obsolete.

For me studio Maiden is my favorite for audio purposes.

Of course it’s different for videos where it’s so much more exciting to see a huge live crowd going nuts.
 
el diablo said:
I actually can’t think of any, which is so different from my lifetime favorite bands Rush and Yes where their live versions often render their studio versions obsolete.

For me studio Maiden is my favorite for audio purposes.

Of course it’s different for videos where it’s so much more exciting to see a huge live crowd going nuts.
Click to expand...
I'm actually the opposite, I think in the main the live sound just has that little bit extra oomph. Whether it be the speed, Bruce's singing, extra embellishment with the 3 guitars. Don't get me wrong I love the studio versions but most of the time when I listen to Maiden I listen to the live recordings.

To answer the OP - the entire MOLAD album on the Stockholm soundboard bootleg. The whole thing just elevates an already great album even more.
 
I can only answer it the other way around. The only song that is worse live than in the studio is Wasting Love. The guitar harmonies don't translate live and I always cringe when I hear them on the live albums.
 
The two that stand out for me:

"Sign of the Cross" from Rock in Rio is played faster and heavier during the verses and the instrumental part (right after the Harris/Murray section). Harris used far more power chords at Rock in Rio, giving the song more energy. I like Blaze Bayley, but Bruce Dickinson's vocals suit the song better. This is one of my favourite Maiden songs, but the live edition renders the studio version sterile.

The other one that jumps out is "Revelations" from Live After Death. This is also played faster and a bit heavier during the verses. (Dickinson's vocals seem a bit strained here but, for me, that's a good trade-off). I don't think that playing songs faster is necessarily better though (for example, the much faster "Flight of Icarus" on Live After Death is a mess).
 
I'd say most Maiden songs sound better live than on the actual albums.
Hallowed Be Thy Name being the nr 1 example of this, IMO. Live versions from RIR, DOTR or F666 are so much better.
The intro, guitar harmonies, Bruce's vocals...
 
BloodOnTheBassistsHands said:
The two that stand out for me:

"Sign of the Cross" from Rock in Rio is played faster and heavier during the verses and the instrumental part (right after the Harris/Murray section). Harris used far more power chords at Rock in Rio, giving the song more energy. I like Blaze Bayley, but Bruce Dickinson's vocals suit the song better. This is one of my favourite Maiden songs, but the live edition renders the studio version sterile.

The other one that jumps out is "Revelations" from Live After Death. This is also played faster and a bit heavier during the verses. (Dickinson's vocals seem a bit strained here but, for me, that's a good trade-off). I don't think that playing songs faster is necessarily better though (for example, the much faster "Flight of Icarus" on Live After Death is a mess).
Click to expand...
Sign of the Cross, hell yeah! One of my favourite Maiden songs.
 
Hallowed Be Thy Name is one for me. I find the dynamics of the song to be much better on LAD than on NOTB. The studio version, I think the intro is too fast, then after the intro it is too slow. For me I think that loses the impact of the main part, as it comes in slower and thus seems less powerful and less exciting. Think they got it right with LAD where the intro is slower, allowing an atmospheric build up, then they are in with a bang for the rest of the track.
 
srfc said:
The current live tempo is the best IMO, LAD too fast but better than the studio
Click to expand...

I think that the same goes for Revelations as well! I love the album version as well and admittedly Live After Death/RIR 1985 versions of it definitely rock, but I think that tempo is slightly too suffocating for the nuances and mystic edge of the song. :) Where as the modern takes on Revelations hit that perfect middle-ground, giving the song some extra kick on a live setting without changing it's nature too much.
 
The instrumental section of The Red and the Black on Live Chapter has some absolute magic that just isn't there on the studio version.

You can hear how much fun the band is having, and the way the tempo just keeps gradually creeping up makes it build in a really exciting way.
 
Perun said:
I can only answer it the other way around. The only song that is worse live than in the studio is Wasting Love. The guitar harmonies don't translate live and I always cringe when I hear them on the live albums.
Click to expand...
I blame Janick and his out of tune guitar for that one. If he was in tune it'd probably sound a lot better. I mostly agree with this though, Maiden is often just straight up better live consistently. Sure, there's some concessions. A lot of the 80s stuff has a tinge of "everything's great, but Bruce's voice isn't really there" but the instrumentals are so good they completely eclipse the studio versions.

Listen to SSOASS at Donington '88. Listen to the instrumental section in particular and Nicko's playing. Sweet Jesus it's out of this world.

chaosapiant said:
Biggest issue I have with FOI on the album version isn’t the tempo, it’s the weird multi tracked vocal effect on the chorus.
Click to expand...
Effect? That's a vocal harmony and it's fucking great. The song would be super limp without the harmony vocals, same with Aces High and many other 80s classics. It's one of the biggest things modern Maiden is missing because Bruce seemingly can't be assed to do proper harmony vocals anymore even when they would be fitting to the song.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top