Why A Matter Of Life and Death is Iron Maidens best album

Yeah, take Talisman for example. The first 2 min and 30 secs are an acoustic guitar and Bruce talking. I know it builds the story and what not but its incredibly boring to listen to (for me at least) why not start the song with the riff at 2:22 BANG, much more effective. There's a lot of instances like that where you could cut off 2 or 4 min from those 8, 9, 10 min songs and you wouldn't really miss anything...
 
I'm not sure if Maiden has lost its ability to write good short songs, or if the forum has lost its ability to appreciate them.

I thought/think The Alchemist, The Final Frontier, Rainmaker and Different World are excellent "singles."
Short and catchy with strong riffs, melodies and solos.

Yes, they are simple and have a standard rock song structure.
But they compare well to popular golden era songs of that type like Run to the Hills, Flight of Icarus and Can I Play With Madness, which — not coincidentally — are also viewed with a collective "meh" from this forum.
 
Last edited:
Personally I don't find any of those songs, Pilgrim, Rainmaker, Different World to be of the same quality as Flight, Run and other short songs of the same length from the 80s...At all! Neither musically or lyrically.
 
SixesAlltheway said:
Yeah, take Talisman for example. The first 2 min and 30 secs are an acoustic guitar and Bruce talking. I know it builds the story and what not but its incredibly boring to listen to (for me at least) why not start the song with the riff at 2:22 BANG, much more effective. There's a lot of instances like that where you could cut off 2 or 4 min from those 8, 9, 10 min songs and you wouldn't really miss anything...
Click to expand...

Yeah, The Talisman isn't exactly the best example of a natural progression. But I think it's an exception, because many other songs do naturally grow out of the soft quiet parts, like No More Lies, Brighter Than a Thousand Suns or When the Wild Wind Blows. While the heavy parts kick in abruptly there too, they wouldn't make sense without the intro.
 
Yes, there are also many instances where the soft and quiet intro/outro thing work really well, no doubt about that. Like the songs you mention. My gripe is more that they latch it on on far too many songs when it isn't necessary because they want to build it up and then bring it down again or set a mood of some sort, but when you do that with every song it starts sounding like it's the same number over and over. Off the top of my head a song like Lord of Light is very similar to Talisman too. Boring intro, Bruce talking then BAM, one of the greatest riffs. Should have just kicked the song off like that..
 
mckindog said:
I'm not sure if Maiden has lost its ability to write good short songs, or if the forum has lost its ability to appreciate them.

I thought/think The Alchemist, The Final Frontier, Rainmaker and Different World are excellent "singles."
Short and catchy with strong riffs, melodies and solos.

Yes, they are simple and have a standard rock song structure.
But they compare well to popular golden era songs of that type like Run to the Hills, Flight of Icarus and Can I Play With Madness, which — not coincidentally — are also viewed with a collective "meh" from this forum.
Click to expand...

Agreed, minus Different World, which is just blah. Alchemist is incredibly underrated and Rainmaker is the best "short-style" Maiden song they've written in many, many years. Second best short reunion song after Wicker Man.

As for the drawn-out intro structure, I'm tired of it. It works for one song per album (two at the most). But if half the album sounds super dramatic, the drama kinda fades.
 
Now Talisman is actually one of the ones I do think it works well on. It starts like a folk song or sea shanty, that's completely in the spirit of the song. Calm before the storm, if you like. But I agree, when a lot of songs start soft and quiet, it lessens the impact at best, and gets tiresome at worst. They do need more variation and balance on the next album, and to avoid writing songs which sound too similar to previous reunion era ones.

For the record, I do like a good many of the short and catchy songs. Rather than them being incapable of writing them, though, I just doubt writing songs similar to the stand-out 80s ones would work for Maiden today. It risks sounding too dated.
 
What AMOLAD gave us that TFF didn't was a culmination of all those little moments that make songs compelling and believable, like where Bruce sings "the cliffs erupt in flame", and Nicko's toms punch through the song like D-Day gunfire. The mysterious, haunting, almost playful intro of "Lord of Light", which builds to a crescendo as the song breaks down and Adrian's guitar wails like some sort of tortured, hellbound soul. It gave us the soaring, heavy chorus of TROBB, as a man pleads for his life in the face of eternal damnation. The universal miracle of life, uniting us all through the birth of a child.

AMOLAD is full of relevant, compelling topics: appreciating life, and other people's perspectives, leaving home and going off to serve your country, the creation of the atomic bomb and the real-world and spiritual consequences, the voyage of a group of religious outcasts fleeing to a completely new part of the world to escape persecution, the d-day landings, the joy of childbirth, the mystery of a man condemned and haunted by his deeds, the question of religion and all the hate and suffering it's caused throughout history, the concept of the Devil, and what that really means outside of traditional Christian dogma, and reflection on the actions of a world leader, now on their deathbed, as the public recounts all the horrors they've been responsible for over their reign.

Meanwhile, TFF gave us... being trapped in space, the feeling of piloting your custom 737 home after touring the world with your multimillion dollar rock band, fleeing your homeworld via the ocean to settle in a new land (hm, funny, that sounds familiar), and... whatever the hell Starblind and Isle of Avalon are supposed to be saying. With the exception of El Dorado, The Alchemist and WTWWB I find nothing moving or stirring about the thematic conent here. It's all either far too generic, or hard to relate too.
 
Brigantium said:
Finality and contemplating the future?
Click to expand...
True, but the topics they used to communicate these ideas are far less fleshed-out and real-world. Plus, like I said, all the little extra touches (both musical and lyrical) on AMOLAD set the songs apart and make them seem more potent and believable.
 
Perun said:
Yeah, The Talisman isn't exactly the best example of a natural progression. But I think it's an exception, because many other songs do naturally grow out of the soft quiet parts, like No More Lies, Brighter Than a Thousand Suns or When the Wild Wind Blows. While the heavy parts kick in abruptly there too, they wouldn't make sense without the intro.
Click to expand...
I do think that Brighter Than A Thousand Suns would've worked spectacularly even without the intro.
 
Yax said:
I do think that Brighter Than A Thousand Suns would've worked spectacularly even without the intro.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to think about that. The intro is an integral part of the song to me. It's like asking about whether it'd work without the chorus or the solos or whatever... it's just the way the song is written.
 
I don't even think BTATS fits in the category of songs with "long, quiet intros". It feels nothing like songs like The Legacy, The Talisman, The Clansman or Sign of the Cross. Or its direct predecessor on the album, for that matter.

The intro is distorted and dirty, and unlike many of the other songs that follow the formula, there is no change in musical theme - it's just the intro theme suddenly becoming heavy.
 
Perun said:
I find it hard to think about that. The intro is an integral part of the song to me. It's like asking about whether it'd work without the chorus or the solos or whatever... it's just the way the song is written.
Click to expand...
Not quite, as the intro is followed by the same riff, but with distortion and full on instrumentation. It's the same musical foundation, while if you removed the chorus or the solos you wouldn't have anything left in the song to mirror those sections. Albeit, point taken.
 
Im sorry but AMOLAD or any of the other reunion albums are not going to be remembered in comparison to the 80's recordings. If they are so vital with writing music today, why all the nostalgia tours? Come on, this thread is just fantasy.
 
Ziggyplayedguitar said:
Im sorry but AMOLAD or any of the other reunion albums are not going to be remembered in comparison to the 80's recordings. If they are so vital with writing music today, why all the nostalgia tours? Come on, this thread is just fantasy.
Click to expand...

I can assure you the thread itself is very real. If you think otherwise, you have watched The Matrix once too much.

Is AMOLAD Maiden's best album? Some obviously think so, hence the existence of the thread. I don't agree with that, I think SSOASS is, followed by Powerslave.

But to say the albums from 2000 onwards will not be remembered, that's just plain silly. They have all sold very well in a number of countries, that alone disproves your claim. You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else, but don't confuse opinion and fact.
 
If you are a band that has been around for damn near thirty years, your new albums will never get the respect they deserve. It's just the nature of music careers and fandom. A lot of people like certain bands because their music evokes certain emotions and those emotions are usually tied to memories. We who follow bands til their death and continue to analyze their new music are actually quite rare, despite what the internet makes us believe. I will never say that AMOLAD will not be remembered, but I definitely don't think it will be remembered the way the old stuff is remembered, because sadly: a lot of people don't care.

Personally, I find this thread incredibly interesting and I think the reunion albums have better songwriting and more consistency than anything put out during the band's heyday (except for SSOASS and DOD, on both ends of the spectrum).
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I can assure you the thread itself is very real. If you think otherwise, you have watched The Matrix once too much.

Is AMOLAD Maiden's best album? Some obviously think so, hence the existence of the thread. I don't agree with that, I think SSOASS is, followed by Powerslave.

But to say the albums from 2000 onwards will not be remembered, that's just plain silly. They have all sold very well in a number of countries, that alone disproves your claim. You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else, but don't confuse opinion and fact.
Click to expand...
Ziggy is also confusing cultural impact and perceived quality. Two vastly different things. For instance, 5150 is my favorite Van Halen album. While it's also one of their best selling albums (Second or third), it does not have the same cultural impact as some of the DLR albums (whichever the most influential was. I'm not into VH enough to know) but it's well within my right to think it's their "best" album, and it's not a thought completely alien to the rock community.

By the same reasoning I like BNW the best and I think it's largely perceived as a great record. But it's not as culturally important as NoTB or Powerslave and likely not the album the masses will remember Maiden for. And this is where Ziggy is going, although poorly expressed. Maiden's later catalogue sales are catapulted by their prior popularity. Shock? No. While their newer recordings are not as culturally vital to their popularity as their older body of work they should not be so easily dismissed. Popularity is not an extention of quality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top