Why not Paul Dianno instead of Blaze?

I apologize, I'm not sure if you live in a free country... but we are allowed to express our opinions freely in the US. ;)

You said "Maiden fans know how much of an error Blaze was." That's not a statement of opinion, it's stated as a fact.
 
You said "Maiden fans know how much of an error Blaze was." That's not a statement of opinion, it's stated as a fact.
It's still my opinion...however, I edited it to read 'Most' Maiden fans...how's that?

So, Perun if you are really 33yrs old as your profile says, then you probably really started getting into Maiden when you were a teenager (15yrs old) around 2000 (when you were begining to understand their lyrics). So, my apologies, you kind of grew up at the tail-end of the Blaze era (when he was fired- 'for being an awesome Maiden singer' <sarcasm>)...so this is the Maiden you started with. I get where you're coming from now. :) :D

You still didn't answer the question.... Why did the band want Blaze out and Bruce back?
 
Why did the band want Blaze out and Bruce back?
I don't think anyone is arguing that the Blaze era didn't work out on the popularity scale. There's a myriad of reasons why, and a good percentage of them have nothing to do with Blaze himself. The era wasn't conducive to that type of change, for example; metal itself was on a downswing and the bands that stayed strong were ones that leaned harder on the cabaret scale. Steve Harris himself made a decision that affected Blaze's ability to perform - not tuning the band's higher-octave songs down. The production of The X Factor didn't help either, I suspect.
 
There's a myriad of reasons why, and a good percentage of them have nothing to do with Blaze himself...

Respectfully disagree.... The two Iron Maiden albums released during the Bayley era did not chart as well as the band had hoped. X Factor peaked at No. 8 on the UK album charts & Virtual XI hit only No. 16, both being the lowest-charting Iron Maiden studio albums since Killers was released in 1981, which peaked at No. 12....This is because the band was just not as good with Blaze at the helm. The music was good, but the lyrics and vocals were just not up to par with everything else Maiden had/has done.

But the Blaze era probably helped boost them when Bruce returned because of how sub-par it was with Blaze.

And I did conceed that Dianno would not have been better, but may have sparked some interest initially if he were brought back instead of bringing in Blaze..
 
And I did conceed that Dianno would not have been better, but may have sparked some interest initially if he were brought back instead of bringing in Blaze..
The key word here is initially. It could potentially have initially generated more interest from older pre-Bruce fans, but everyone would have quickly realized that Paul was past it and a bad fit for a band with a totally different style from 1980. Imagine Paul trying to sing, for example, 'Seventh Son of a Seventh Son':

Seventh son of a seventh son, yeahhhhhh
Seventh son of a seventh son, oooooooohhhhhh
Seventh son of a seventh son, yeahhhhhh
And I'm a Seventh son of a seventh soooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnn
 
Most Maiden fans know how much of an error Blaze was.
You know we're in 2018, right? It's been a long time since the Blaze era isn't gratuitously bashed anymore. Yes, you may express your own opinion, but don't generalize it as if it were a fact (especially if you got your "facts" wrong). Regarding the Blaze era, the only error anyone has comitted is to have dismissed The X Factor when it was released.
 
Most Maiden fans are wrong.
Then Steve Harris and the rest of the band was wrong too when they recognized that the Blaze era was a chart dropper, and they were relegated to playing small theaters in the United States for the first time in forever. Reality is a good place to live in (and Steve and the rest of the band were RIGHT to put out the Blaze). So there's that...
 
You know we're in 2018, right? It's been a long time since the Blaze era isn't gratuitously bashed anymore. Yes, you may express your own opinion, but don't generalize it as if it were a fact (especially if you got your "facts" wrong). Regarding the Blaze era, the only error anyone has comitted is to have dismissed The X Factor when it was released.
Many of you defending the Blaze era are just too young to know what Maiden was like in their heyday. I am super glad are fans now...because through the decades... Maiden is still the best band ever. But the band was realistic and knew Blaze was not good for business. You might want to realise the same reality.
 
Okay, this is ridiculous, since when does a band need the fans' permission to do something? Chart success means squat in this case—just because it didn't sell well, doesn't mean they were wrong to choose who they chose. They hired who they liked the most, and just because the fans didn't like it at the time doesn't mean they made a mistake. Maiden never submitted to what the fans wanted, they wrote the music they wanted to write, and that's one of the things I most admire about them. Besides, if the band themselves (as you stated) think it was a mistake, why on Earth would Steve put The X Factor as his favorite Maiden album, together with Seventh Son...?
 
Okay said:
The X Factor[/I] as his favorite Maiden album, together with Seventh Son...?
When the fans don't like what they put out...it's bad for business and Maiden knew it and the charts proved it. Maybe he said it was one of his fav's to boost interest in it? Maybe it would have been more well received if it were sung by Bruce. Just because he liked it doesn't mean he liked how it sounded with Blaze or how it was received by the fans lack of interest.
 
Many of you defending the Blaze era are just too young to know what Maiden was like in their heyday. I am super glad are fans now...because through the decades... Maiden is still the best band ever. But the band was realistic and knew Blaze was not good for business. You might want to realise the same reality.
According to @Albie, who saw Iron Maiden play at the Rainbow with Paul di'Anno, Blaze Bayley has never put out a bad album. That includes his two with Iron Maiden.

I wonder if @Forostar has any opinions on this. He doesn't usually tell us what he thinks about 90s Maiden...
 
Just because I dislike something doesn't mean that I think it shouldn't have happened. Lots of "meh" albums (which is already debatable) were crucial for the development of the band as songwriters and performers.

If the band were passionate about what they were doing then I don't see what the problem was. I'm not them; I'm just a fan.
 
I give up. You're just too immature and close-minded for me to deal with.
Ok then, maybe someday you might believe in reality. And recognize that Maiden is also a band/brand who market them selves to make money...and alot of it! To bring us some of the best live concert experiences in the world! #uptheIrons ya earth dogs!
 
Back
Top