MindlessPieces
Educated Fool
The use of the word "filler" when describing someone else's music is either disingenuous, intellectually dishonest or portrays the critic's belief that they are somewhat psychic.To me filler would imply that ...
The honest critical approach would be simply to state that YOU personally don't like, don't understand or don't feel that particular song. Just because YOU don't like it, that doesn't mean that no-one likes the song. It certainly doesn't mean that the recording artist doesn't like the song, but had run out of ideas and just laid it down in order to fill up space on the record.
It is quite evident that many people, while liking the same band, have different opinions when it comes to individual songs from the band. Me for example, I love the Final Frontier album, which many people seem to bag. I love The Red and the Black, which many seem to bag, I love No Prayer for the Dying album which many people have as one of their worst Maiden albums.
I love the long epics, I love the way Maiden have progressed on AMOLAD, TFF and TBOS towards more complex "proggy" songs. But as I understand it there are many people that find these long "proggy" songs boring and they want the short snappy songs, they love Death or Glory, where I find this song to be dull and unnecessary for the album. Does that make it "filler"? No, I can't honestly say that I know what is going on in the heads of the individuals that we collectively refer to as Iron Maiden. Perhaps Adrian and Bruce think DoG is a great song, perhaps they would have fought tooth and nail keep that song should Harris have argued that it was dull and that the album was too long and hence could afford to lose it.
Anyway, I find it quite pretentious when a person claims that a particular song is filler. All you can know is what is in your own head. All you can know is how YOU feel about a song. If you don't like it then say so. Speak from the "I". You do not know what the artist thought of the song at the time of recording and release.