What's so great about Killers?

It's a bit different when reading the official biography:

"Production-wise, it was chalk and cheese, compared with the first album," says Steve. "As for the quality of the songs, I think you could argue that the first album was the strongest, but I tend to disagree, really. The thing was, the first album was like a 'best of' from our live set, songs which went back years. It was difficult to choose which ones to do, and there were some really good ones that got left off. I mean, 'Wrathchild' had been in the set from the start, but that got left off, and that was an amazing song live. So, after the first album, we still had a lot of really good, strong songs, and we really didn't want to lose them. I mean, what are we gonna do, put them on a B-side or whatever? You can't. They're not B-side songs. They were good enough to go on an album, so that's what we did. After that, though, that was it, there was no more, and we needed to write a whole load of new material for the next album.
 
A lot of bands if not all have that issue with their first albums. Usually "best-ofs" from their demos that can go back years. I find it interesting he says Killers was better based on the fact they had to write new songs for it lol.
 
Yeah, that's the challenge. He wrote on short notice from the end of 1980 'til the very beginning of 81, Murders In The Rue Morgue, Genghis Khan (in studio, as a literal filler for the album, just as Paranoid was), Prodigal Son and Twilight Zone with Dave. Then for TBOTB, nothing was left and he start writing for it at the end of 1981.
 
Jeffmetal said:
I read more than twice Steve saying he prefers the songs from the debut, but hates the production, as we all know.
Click to expand...
He is right, the production of the 1st album is weak plus Di'anno sounds weak too. In fact the songs from the first album are much better in the live recordings from the Killers tour. Just listen to "Remember Tommorow" from the debut album and then from "Maiden Japan" ...
 
I like the songs more on Iron Maiden, but man Killers is definitely Maiden's most all out METAL album to me. 
 
Hmmm, I think I prefer Killers to the debut album despite thinking that it has more weaker songs than the debut. Partly this is because I think the highs of Killers are better than the highs of IM (with the exception of Phantom... that is just brilliant), i'm also one of the people who loves Purgatory, it's brilliant!
 
Onhell said:
he says Killers was better based on the fact they had to write new songs for it lol.
Click to expand...

He didn't say that. He tends to disagree that the songs on the debut are better. He didn't say anything about the fact they had to write new songs for it, that this would make him love the 2nd album more than the first.

He just likes many good songs on the first album and on the second album, e.g. 'Wrathchild'.

Looks like he likes the songs on both albums as much, but indeed is surely more happy with the sound of Killers, so in the end it's clear if he could only choose one of them: Killers for sure.
Hey Steve join the poll!
;)

Still, the fact that more songs of the debut played a bigger role in Maiden's career is kind of strange, so I'm not totally convinced.
 
I don't like the production on Killers.  I think Birch's best production with Maiden was NOTB, the only one where anyone did Clive's drums any justice.
 
Forostar said:
He didn't say that.
Click to expand...

Um... right off your post he says, "... As for the quality of the songs, I think you could argue that the first album was the strongest, but I tend to disagree, really....They were good enough to go on an album, so that's what we did. After that, though, that was it, there was no more, and we needed to write a whole load of new material for the next album."
 
I never really got into Killers. Apart from it's brilliant instrumentals and Murders In The Rue Morgue, it doesn't really have any track that could match the highly aggressive and flamboyant Prowler, the gorgeous atmospheric Remember Tomorrow, the majestic Transylvania or the amazing and intricate Phantom Of The Opera.

Seems to me that Iron Maiden has more sparks than Killers, but as Jeff said earlier, which lacks on the debut is on Killers and viceversa.
 
 
I wrote this out to a friend one day, explaining why Killers is the second best Maiden album behind Beast:

When talking to various Iron Maiden fans, nothing interests me more than the varying opinions I get regarding Killers.  Half the people I talk to think the album is one of the greatest things the band’s ever done.  About a quarter of people think it’s merely passable; the others flat-out despise it.  There isn’t another Maiden album that evokes such opinions (okay, maybe Dance of Death), and that just has to count for something, right?

Well, I’m in the first category as I absolutely love this release.  There’s nothing more unique in the Maiden catalogue, and the songs stick together so wonderfully that I’m often surprised that Killers isn’t some sort of concept album.  Despite having the same singer (Di’Anno), this album and the self-titled are very different beasts.  The first album is a metal force with a punk singer and a raw production.  This one’s a punk force with a punk singer and a metal production.  “Genghis Kahn,” an instrumental, is the closest thing here to a straightforward metal tune, and even that track has an edgy, punk feel.  I guess the punk direction is the main problem some people have with this album, though.  If you don’t like punk, Killers probably won’t be your bag.  That opinion would also explain the Di’Anno criticisms.  Not much I can say about such opinions, but I do wish those critics would be willing to listen to the tracks with Mr. Dickinson singing them (he’s sung most of them throughout his tenure). 

This album oozes with attitude that most metal bands could only dream of recapturing.  Di’Anno’s the main reason for the temperament, but Adrian Smith’s arrival to the band helps as well because he knew just what type of singer he was dealing with.  The solos he and Dave Murray created here are exclusive to this short-lived punk-metal amalgamation; these unique sounds were never heard again after the band went more straightforward, and that’s really a shame.  Maiden’s always been individualistic, but the solos on here really made the boys stick out.  That uniqueness, along with the punk attitude, breathed life into songs that felt like actual characters.  Such a weird opinion to have, but I almost get the feeling that these songs don’t care if you like them or not.  So punk!

“Murders in the Rue Morgue” is the big winner here, being my second favorite Iron Maiden song.  “Prodigal Son” continued the short-lived streak of amazing ballads.  “Purgatory” and “Drifter” are probably the two most underrated songs in the whole archive (both tunes get really high marks from me).  “Wrathchild” and the self-titled track are the big hits.  And “Innocent Exile” is where Steve Harris especially gets to shine on an album full of amazing bass playing.
 
It's a GREAT album.
Awesome songs like Ides of March, Wrathchild, Killers, Prodigal Son and Ginges Khan.
The weaker songs aren't even that weak: they are just not classics.
And unlike other Maiden songs that I don't consider classics, these songs are catchy and great to listen to.
 
Song for song, the debut edges Killers.
But I am far more likely to listen to Killers straight through from start to finish.
It's got a great nasty, ugly vibe — otherworldy but still grounded in the real at the same time.
There are no great epics, no great anthems and probably a few fillers.
But there are a lot of good songs, and, as a package, Maiden never did an edgier album.
It's grimy, street-level, nearly out-of-control dirty and a lot of fun.
 
The first album and Killers are both classics without a doubt. I've often found myself wondering which is better and even though Adrian makes his debut on Killers and it has a fresher sound, the first album is still a better album in my opinion. The first album is one powerful track after the other; Prowler, Remember Tomorrow, Running Free, and so on. Killers is also one powerful track after the other but the first is still better by a margin. Twilight Zone, Purgatory, and Genghis Khan are among my favorites on Killers.  :rocker:
 
LooseCannon said:
Killers has the problem of being full of songs that were excluded from Iron Maiden. However, that doesn't make it a bad album. Firstly, it has much, much better production, and the addition of Adrian Smith on guitar, which makes each track sound better than Iron Maiden. To some people, this is a big deal.

It also has some incredible tracks - "Wrathchild", "Murders in the Rue Morgue", and "Killers" are all timeless Maiden classics. However, it has weaker tracks - "Drifter", "Innocent Exile", "Purgatory" - that do harm it a bit. Most people would agree that Iron Maiden is the better album, despite its difficulties, but I don't think that makes Killers bad. Killers has some incredible moments.

So, to answer your question: Production, H, and "Killers" is what's great about Killers.Killers is a great album, spiritual as well.
Love Prance
Click to expand...
 
Killers is the most energetic Maiden album ever. Paul's vocals are technically much better than Iron Maiden album.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top