Someone started a thread to gather opinions? WHAT AN OUTRAGE!

Maiden is overrated. While having great albums up through Seventh Son, I don't quite get the love for it. It's a good album, but it's not great. Nothing touches the debut or Powerslave, which are the only filler-less albums they've put out.

I'm going to enter this thread defending Number of the Beast to my violent death. It's an outstanding album and has several of my favorite Iron Maiden songs including my number one, Hallowed Be Thy Name. It's likely my favorite of their albums but when I listen to Powerslave it becomes very hard to decide. I love all of Maiden's classic albums and also enjoy some of their new material.

As for the question of the OP, I'm sure luck played a role in the success they enjoy today, but it certainly wasn't the only factor, and perhaps not even a very prominant one.

Hell, even Fear of the Dark would've been great if they'd cut it down to 8 songs.

What a pretty contribution to this thread.

Considering what Iron Maiden has done to the metal world they're underrated, if anything.

I think it's simple, they were the best band period. I mean I never really liked Judas Priest even though I tried and tried to get into them. Maiden was a better band. Now other NWOBHM bands, I didn't know to much about back then, but I have since heard most of them and I don't think they were as good. I found out about Maiden not until Number of the Beast, but I think until then a lot of kids my age were listening to only bands like Lover Boy and Def Leppard lol, and compared to that they were just awesome. You had to be a somewhat rebellious kid to listen to them, because everyone thought they were satanic. Satanism is regarded with high fear in the states.

Also, Maiden got better and better. Those who say Seventh Son was their best are dreaming. That might be the best for the next gen of kids, but it was the downfall of Maiden for many. I remember how all my hardcore metal friends hated that album, but I wasn't sure if it was the album they hated more, or the new fans who suddenly liked Maiden lol. It was the same for Metallica fans when the black album came out. A division between the fans.

Anyway, after seventh son came out, I went to the tour and enjoyed it but I was never much into Maiden after that, I thought they were dead. And new things came out like death metal from Florida. Every now and then I would hear some of the newer stuff and think it was totally lame.

I like the new Live album though which I got. Maiden was just one of the best through out those years in the 80's, that's all there is to it.

I can't find 8 good songs on that album. Maybe 4 or 5, but the rest is really pretty much swill. If they combined the decent tracks from NPFtD and FotD, they still wouldn't have an album that could stand up to the early albums.

...If there's an overarching message in this post, I'd love to hear it.

I agree that the quality material on Fear of the Dark isn't sufficient for an 8-song album. How does No Prayer For the Dying stand in comparison? Are there some great songs among the filler?

Be Quick Or Be Dead
Afraid To Shoot Strangers
Fear Is The Key
Childhood's End
Wasting Love
Judas Be My Guide
Fear of the Dark

that's 7 songs I enjoy quite a bit.

Throw in "From here To Eternity", I guess, for the obligatory filler. That's a solid 8 songs. Not up to par with Number, Seventh Son, Powerslave or Somewhere In Time, but still better than a vast majority of metal albums.

But we digress. I think the story about Angel Witch and Maiden competing for the same record deal was the most interesting and telling thing to come out of this thread. Just imagine if history were reversed.

It's such a common thread with bands that have great longevity and popularity is that these traits are not causes of their success but results of it. If bands like Satan, Angel Witch and Pagan Altar managed to get major label deals and competent management behind them early on, there's a high probability that they would've had much more stable lineups and much greater commitment to music. That steady stream of label support, and the income that comes with it would allow these guys to quit their day jobs and focus on music, instead of vice-versa.
Guys in popular bands so rarely get burnt out on making music and touring the way those in underground bands so often do. There's a good reason for that.

Only songs on No Prayer that I ever enjoyed were "Tailgunner" and "Mother Russia"

Oh crap. It's even less effective than Fear of the Dark then?

Angel Witch didn't have a unique sound as much as Maiden. They had some unique songs, even highly influential, but overall, they also had a lot of songs that sounded either stupid, or like from the 70's. Maiden didn't do that.

You mean, how they helped put metal in the mainstream scene during the 80's? I agree with that, I just don't get them at all..

Mainstream? Metal has never and will never be mainstream except for that time with the hair bands.

I certainly wouldn't say that Iron Maiden and Metallica have not achieved mainstream success while still retaining a metal sound, however, Metallica's sound was much more tame than their previous works.

Angel Witch's first album is an absolute heavy metal classic to match anything you could name from Holy Diver to Balls to the Wall. But as a band they didn't have what I was talking about with 'the package'. When music is your day job, you have to work bloody hard at it to get anywhere. Angel Witch might have had a great album, but they had bugger all else going for them. The same goes for Diamond Head.

i think Iron Maiden is a great band with a lot of talent. But it's just one of those bands i can't get into as much as other people. Judas Priest is my favourite Heavy Metal classic, and maiden just can't seem to quite make it to their awesomeness. However, it seems that maiden inspired all the bands that are moreso modern now, that i happen to like.

AJFA went to number 6 in the US, I'd say that's pretty mainstream, and that was their most inaccessible album.

But it was still tame.

I'm not sure if this one's been touched upon, but how about consistency of their 80s output? No other NWOBHM band came close to that string of 7 excellent albums - maybe some could have with the benefit of a better record deal and better financial backing, but that's a sort of hypothetical situation I don't think we need to go into.

I think PhantomOTO touched on this by mentioning Saxon's hair metal flirtation, but it's still an important point: Maiden had perseverance, regardless if you like their 80s output - they did stick to their guns and I can't say they even did what I would consider "sell-out" song. Sure 'Wasted Years' and 'Run to the Hills' are commercial - but there's an integrity to them. Maiden made great business decisions, marketed themselves well and had a management that wasn't going to fuck them over. Combine that a string superior albums and excellent live shows (which, I think at least, was more important to making a band back then).

I make no qualms about saying that all things considered they were a cut above the rest of the NWOBHM movement. The paid their dues and reaped the rewards: they deserve every success they have.

Also, isn't it worth noting that Metallica based their career on Maiden. Lars certainly took note of what they did.

Edit: Isn't it worth noting in reference to the OP that Diamond Head had every journalist in the UK in a rabid hyping process? "The next Led Zeppelin" "More great riffs in one song than Sabbath had on their first 4 albums"? It's probably just you'll hear about Kerrang! championing Maiden more these days because, well, you hear more about Maiden.

I've always felt Diamond Head could've gotten bigger then Iron Maiden if (among other things) they had an actually decent vocalist. It's a shame. Basically I'm saying that I prefer Lightning to the Nations over Maiden's debut.



Definitely. For once, we are agreed on a point about Metallica!

No way is maiden overrated, while commonly over associated with the NWOBHM movement - to me they've always been far superior to any of these bands - their early power metal stylings with Di'anno right through all of their 80s stuff. There was nothing coming out anything like their debut or Killers, and then they took it to the next level with Bruce - they set a standard, and were absolutlely unparralled among the NWOBHM acts theyre coomnly associated with. sure, i think Diamond Head and Angel Witch are great too - and im a huge NWOBHM/heavy metal fan - but come on - these guys are (were) on a plain of their own in the 1980s. They spawned more imatators than almost anyone.

Indeed, but I was talking more about The Black Album, since it's a little simpler, slower and catchier.

Maiden was the right band for the right time, and they sounded catchy. Nowadays they wouldn't make it again, though.

Nope, you're not the only one.

QFT!

If "Heavy: The Story of Metal" is any indication, part of their success was due to their live show, and the fact that they captivated the audience when they played, and it created a buzz about the band that their albums & subsequent touring only bolstered. I do agree that the current crop of Maiden albums would not have garnered them the same accolades & popularity as their previous work back then. The new stuff is more deliberate and studied, and takes longer to absorb. It's just not as immediate as their 1st 5 or 6 albums tend to be, which limits their appeal slightly.

How do you know?

Interesting and well said. I agree.

Given if the scene was the same way it was today, Iron Maiden might still make it, if they had the same dedication to touring and to the old 80s sound. Those bands can still get popular. It just wouldn't be quite the same as the old days.

Fixed

I agree with everything, except that I really like Sun and Steel too.



...with the sudden slowdown! YES!



No, that song is obviously awesome, and the acoustic outro is pure gold.



Ditto - finally, someone who shares my feelings.
I think it's an incredibly fun song, backed by an infectious groove and a great, catchy chorus.
On a side note - and yes, I understand it wasn't on the original album - Total Eclipse is a lost classic in my book. It showcases many of the band's trademarks in less than five minutes, and the slow part at the end ("Gone are the days when man looked down", etc.) has to be one of the greatest moments in Maiden's history, not to mention Bruce's performances.



...and Schaffer is apparently ashamed of Burn Offerings. But it seems to be a musical tradition that goes way back in time; I seem to remember reading somewhere that Tchaikowskij was anything but pleased with his Nutcracker Suite.
What the fuck, people?



As much as I worship Angel Witch's early efforts (basically the s/t and all the bonus tracks you can find on the latest reissue), I have to agree.
The famous drunken gig incident that skyrocketed Maiden to stardom in their place is proof of that: you don't show up drunk out of your own arse onstage, especially at such an important occasion. That's not bad luck, that's simply sheer lack of professional attitude.

I think a lot of those 1980 releases are great too - Angel Witch and Diamond Head's perhaps being the strongest - but still it just seems to me that the early maiden efforts have more of a stellar, godlike quality to them which makes them streets ahead of their contemporaries. like it was the "next level" of sound or something.

along with Priest, Sabbath and Dio himself - Maiden is one of the righteous few artists in metal truly deserving of the god-like status often imposed on them. not that ive even listened to them in the last few years.

The anachronism of this post is making my head implode. That's like asking if Slayer would make it today if they were a thrash revival band competing against Evile and Warbringer. Would Iron Maiden as a new band today succeed in... reviving the 80s style made popular by Iron Maiden? Brain melting now.

I was responding to some question posed in another post. It was all hypothetical - assuming the style had become popular without Maiden at all; that kind of thing.

There's always some luck involved when a band becomes really huge, but you don't sustain it for 30+ years just on luck. Maiden had good management, a strong work ethic, great players, great songwriters, great marketing, a dedicated fan base, and a successful formula. All their hard work has paid off for them.

One fucking word to describe Iron Maiden...OVERRATED

coming from a 15year old fan of "metal punk" and presumably mainstream metal - i'd say thats a fairly uneducated opinion. Maiden is far from overrated - though if your exposure to them is through their latest album, then that would be a ready assessment to make.

Iron Maiden are so overrated that everyone and their dog has bastardised an Iron Maiden guitar solo at one stage or another.. oh wait

Yes, "metal punk" is much cooler and deserving of praise.

Steve Harris and Dave Murray were in the band.....

Calling Iron Maiden overrated should be outlawed, IMO. They were without doubt the best NWOBHM band, mainly because of their consistency in the 80s. Sure satan, grim reaper and the likes had great albums but none of them can boast of a discography like Maiden's. As far as their popularity is concerned, having a smart PR machinery and effective touring to the right places is not luck. I ll agree that they happened to release the right albums at the right time. So, maybe luck had a good role to play as well.