Well, see since I don't know them all that well I always had figured that people considered albums like British Steel and Screaming For Vengeance to be their best albums, and while I think both have a couple decent tracks I'm not crazy about either.

Do you prefer Stained Class and Sin After Sin to those and what would you consider to be their top 3 or 4 albums in your opinion?

I'm going to be perfectly honest, I prefer Painkiller to any of their albums simply because it is heavier, although I'm aware that it's not a historic Priest album, coming out in the 90s.

I just listened to the 1st two tracks off Stained Class just to see if their sound at the time was like those albums and I didn't like Exciter all that much but did find White Heat, Red Hot to be pretty catchy.

All in all, I think their style isn't my thing so much, but I'm still willing to listen to more of their stuff since I do like some of it.

I mean Painkiller is pretty killer and The Ripper has IMO always been an amazing song and is my single favorite of theirs, but I haven't heard anything else so chilling and creepy by them.

Do they have any other "darker" tracks like The Ripper?

I'm a HUGE MF/King Diamond fan and loved his cover of it and can strongly hear the vocal influence.


It's just that if we go for "older" metal bands, I tend to prefer the Black Sabbaths, Motorheads and Iron Maidens to Judas Priest.

To me it seems like those former bands kind of birthed Early Doom Metal, some thrash and well in Maiden's case some Power metal, while Priest went more in a straight forward Power Metal direction with what they influenced, and so as someone who only likes a couple Power Metal bands I guess it makes sense it's not my sound.

Other than Running Wild, Demons and Wizards and Blind Guardian there's barely any Power Metal I can enjoy listening to.

Ok, I actually forgot that I DO have Defenders of the Faith and after being reminded of The Sentinel I went back and listened to it again and that is an AMAZING song.

I think mainly I'm not all that into Halford's vocals a lot of the time because I tend not to USUALLY be into really high pitched vocals but sometimes I do like how he sounds on some tracks but their guitar work is just stellar so I get more into their instrumental shit.

I'm sensing a bit of Priest kick coming on and I'll probably come out of it a bigger fan which is usually what happens when I do these sort of "retrospective kicks" to review older bands, that I have a new found appreciation for them.

Edit: Oh wait, I also forgot I LOVE tracks like Victims of Changes...perhaps it's their 70s sound that is more my thing. Actually...in retrospect I do like Priest...just not as much as Maiden.

Maiden.

To me there's just no competition, I find Dickinson era Maiden to be one of the most over rated bands ever, Priestis just far superior and much more consistent.

Iron Maiden, hands down. I've tried and given Judas Priest many chances but it has never caught my taste, save for a couple of songs.

It's no wonder you find Priest too vanilla if you're mostly into their well-known tracks.

Priest's beginnings explore hard rock/metal and psych rock. And while they do get more straightforward as time goes by, the better, more interesting tracks are rarely the "hits"

It's OK if you can't get into Priest, though. But a lot of huge Priest fans love them in spite of songs like You've Got Another Thing Coming and Breaking the Law... not because of those.

Maiden all the way. I never really got into Priest that much, apart from a couple of albums, a compilation and a live one with Ripper. The first I heard of theirs was 'Jugulator' and I thought it would all be in a similar vein as I loved it, I was a bit disappointed when I found out it wasn't...
Meanwhile, Maiden changed my life and will forever be my number one band, even though I rarely listen to them nowadays (I don't really have to, I have their entire discography imprinted on my DNA, to quote whoever it was on 'Get thrashed').

This is easy for me, and the answer is Iron Maiden. I do love old Judas Priest and they were one of the first metal bands I got into, but Maiden does something for me that no other band can. They are the epitome of all that is heavy metal. However; I will say this: my allegiance lies with the Bruce Dickinson era and to a lesser extent the Dianno era. I've never even listened to X Factor or Virtual XI, save for the songs they've done live that Bruce has sung.

I also hold in high regard Bruce's solo albums, especially The Chemical Wedding. That is a goddamn masterpiece.

Really? I find those two quite literally inseparable, to the point where I will never listen to one without listening to the other. I suggest picking up a copy immediately.

I dunno, man. I found those albums to be way too similar. It's like they didn't even try to make them different.

Priest is a good band, of course, but they're no Iron Maiden. Judas Priest's influence on metal music as a whole falls slightly short of how much an impact Iron Maiden made.

That's quite a strong statement to make considering that influence isn't a very measurable concept. In what ways has Maiden just completely outstripped Priest in influence?

One thing that's really helped Maiden: Rod Smallwood is an amazing manager and Jayne Andrews is every bit as bad as he is good. Fuck KK practically all but said the reason he left is because she's so horrible.

That's a bold statement to make since it's very likely there would be no Iron Maiden if there never was a Judas Priest. Maybe to like one more than another is personal taste but you can't deny Priest's impact on all metal bands that came after them...including Maiden.

More song covers exist for Iron Maiden songs than Judas Priest. I don't even think it's close...

That's pretty measurable. No? I'm not saying it's a concrete measurement of influence, but inspiring a band enough to make a song cover should count for something. I honestly have no clue has more songs covered but in my discography I have zero Judas Priest covers and dozens of Iron Maiden covers. Maybe Iron Maiden is more inspirational among black and death metal bands because that's what my discography consists of.

^ The melodic and progressive varieties of extreme metal do reach back to Maiden more overtly than to Priest, but you came off as though you had some sort of number in your head that was larger for Maiden. Also, as mjollnir alluded to, Priest helped lay ground for every style of metal after them, including the nwobhm that Maiden themselves started off in.

Judas Priest were every bit, if not more than, influential as Maiden - both bands just had so much impact on the scene afterward. But yeah if you're going off of black and death metal, safe to say you don't really have the right reference point to make statements like "Judas Priest's influence falls short"...at least try to know what you're on about...I mean, why say anything if you admit you don't know a large portion of the genre you're talking about?

I was never a big fan of either. To be honest I was never a fan of Judas Priest at all. I tried their stuff at times, and there are good songs for sure, but I never found myself coming back and wanting to listen again. I grew up more with Iron Maiden even though I was never hugely into them. But they do have some awesome songs that really does connect with me. So for me the choice is obvious despite never really listening to either band.

I've seen both live, why I saw Priest I don't know. They probably were part of a big package tour or something like that. There is no contest here either. Iron Maiden is much better live.

I'm going with Priest. Don't get me wrong, I like Maiden (Steve Harris is the reason I picked up bass guitar), but, like several people have alredy said, Priest's highs FAR outmatch anything Steve and co. have ever done. Also, Halford is a better singer than Dickinson imo (I've always found Bruce to be a little overrated to be honest).

I'd be surprised if anybody said Dickinson was a better singer than Halford, I think that much is clear. I think the technical skill is higher in Priest, but the songwriting consistency was more on point with Maiden. It really does just kinda come down to personal preference (I think seven essential genre defining classics in a row is more impressive than Priest's incredible records spread out across three decades interspersed with a lot of misses, though whoever pointed out that Priest kept trying new things, successful or not, while Maiden has been playing paint by numbers stuff for eons now had a really good point). Considering the borderline absurd amount of love Priest's 70s era gets here (though obviously well deserved), I'm shocked this poll isn't closer.

I dunno about range and what not, but I like Dickinson better than Halford. They were pretty close on their respective early works, but Dickinson just has this real soul and personality to his singing I can connect to. He's basically my favorite metal singer ever.

I don't see how Priest are more "technical" than Maiden. That 1980 s/t debut is so far ahead of what anyone else was doing instrumentally. That thing could have come out in early 84 and still run laps around most bands. God damn what an album.

I guess I mean in the sense that Halford has more range than Dickinson (I've never done the research but there's no way I'm wrong, I'll post a video of me eating my own arm if I am) and I just always felt like Tipton + Downing were more technically impressive AND evocative guitarists than Smith + Murray, plus Binks and Travis are both miles ahead of McBrain if you ask me. Basically on an instrument-by-instrument comparison, the only one where I'd give Maiden the clear advantage is bass, because obviously Steve Harris is an icon and Ian Hill is the guy whose name everybody forgets.

Keep in mind I'd still pick Maiden in the long run on the strength of their songwriting, but if I was doing a fantasy draft of metal musicians I'd take almost everybody in Priest before Maiden.

What about the s/t strikes you as particularly technical? Adrian was definitely a step up from Dennis, and I think Nicko was better than Clive as well. If you're referring to the variety and quality of riffs, then I think that's more a virtue in songwriting than technique.

The answer is a bit complicated, but basiconly I'd go for Priest if they had only produced Stained Class. I love all their 70s music especially, but that album is absolutely magical and mighty as far as I'm concerned. Like Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, it is a 70s metal album I'd give 100% to and I feel the same overwhelming excitement and zeal every time I put it on. I think I know every riff, vocal pattern and nimble drum fill (god damn, Les is awesome) by heart by this point but it never lessens the impact.

In terms of a dedicated, hardworking band that still somewhat delivers the goods, especially in the live environment where it really counts? Maiden for sure. There's just no contest here, in terms of which band I'd ratehr see again in the 21st century, even if the best days of music-making are well behind them.

I guess I didn't understand the way you guys are breaking down technicality. I'm definitely approaching it more as a "total package" rather than individual players vs individual players. Obviously Stained Class and the other two masterpieces are in the stratosphere of their time. Complete cutting edge. But I swear I'm blown away every single time I spin the Maiden debut. Stuff like Phantom of the Opera and Transylvania are so fast and thrilling, with changeups on a dime...when you lay it up against other legendary releases of the same year (Angel Witch, Lightning to the Nations) the gap in instrumental ability, composition, ambition...it's just not even the same ball park.

So yeah, maybe I was thinking more about songcraft than technical skill.

I voted for Iron Maiden, because they were the second band I ever came across when first discovering metal (& I wouldn't even come across Priest until a few years after), hence I'm familiar with all IM album whereas my knowledge of JP post-Painkiller is sketchy at best.

IM are also much better live than JP - or at least back in 2008/09 when I last saw them anyway. IM's stage presence was huge & their interaction with the audience was all anyone could ask for, while in contrast JP seemed insipid & just wanted to get on with the show so they could go home & have a nap.

Having said so, the Priest material that I really really like such as SWoD or Stained Class are more enjoyable by far than my favourite IM stuff. So, it's a reluctant cast to be sure.

That's okay....you're not missing anything.

Redeemer of Souls wasn't all bad.

Half of it was decent to pretty good. The rest was just bad. In the context of this thread, I don't think the post Painkiller material holds up near as good as post reunion Maiden.

I really like these polls! I know that in the past, people have expressed not wanting to see too many, but I think it would be cool see just one always going.

As for this particular one, I'll admit I'm not too knowledgeable on either, but from what songs I've heard, Iron Maiden is better.

Except Painkiller kicks ass, of course.

Hard call. Iron Maiden has a more consistently strong body of work, but Judas Priest's best albums are better than Iron Maiden's best albums.

Iron Maiden. They were 'my first love' in heavy metal music, and the first band that made it necessary for me to get every release (full-lengths and lives). So I might be biased... But I like Judas Priest too. I got their British Steel album, which I like, and I've listened to Painkiller as well. Aside from that, I don't really care for them. So, while I can't evaluate them equally, Maiden is easily my choice.

I see we're making full use of the poll I added

I voted Iron Maiden - I know so much more of their stuff and they seem more 'accessible', love the artwork, really like their mascot Eddie [classic!]
they have a more relaxed image and they seem like a bunch of pretty nice guys, very consistent music-wise albeit a bit samey and boring.
I laughed when I first heard them though, I couldn't believe how not heavy they were, my mate and I looked at each other and turned the tape off within a minute and stuck on some Obituary ha ha

However.

Judas Priest's PAINKILLER slays anything they have ever written, that album is speed metal 1:01, I'm pretty much putting this one album up against Iron Maiden's entire catalogue.
Not much else of theirs really gets my attention, I hear some good bits and pieces here and there but for me Painkiller is benchmark stuff.
I've owned it since I was 10 years old by the way, out on the farm, no neighbours, Dad's huge stereo - on eleven

So yeah, Iron Maiden on the whole but if it was one album vs any other album: Judas Priest hands down.

Are you aware specifically what fraction of metal bands releasing material in the last ten years are death and black? I don't, but I was under the impression the majority of metal being released these days fall under that bracket. I don't see nearly as many heavy metal, power metal, or thrash bands in comparison. Or discussion of these bands in general.

So if Judas Priest is in any way measurably more influential than Iron Maiden, where is that influence directly being displayed? Which genre of metal has more Priest covers than Maiden? That's a fair question, considering the only reason you noted it as preposterous in the first place was the sub-genres I was looking in.

I'm not trying to act like an authority on any of this. I don't even care. It's just fun for me to discuss. Judas Priest is much before my time. But having listened to a lot of metal, read many interviews with musicians, etc. I've gathered a very strong sense that Judas Priest didn't directly make as much of an impact on metal bands as Iron Maiden did. But it's incredibly easy for me to be biased in the matter because I was influenced by Iron Maiden growing up so it's very possible the bands I find myself researching and listening to bands that are Iron Maiden fans because they might share elements of their sound.

And of course, Judas Priest themselves influenced Maiden's sound so they have that going for them. But inspiration stems all the way back from blues, and I'm sure many metal bands don't have blues music in mind when composing their own music. That's what I sort of mean by Maiden being more influential - I was under the impression more modern bands are fans of Iron Maiden than Judas Priest. Could be completely wrong, just casting my poorly speculated opinion.

Judas Priest have definitely had more controversy too now I think about it, the boys who shot themselves and Rob coming out of the dressing room...
Iron Maiden has Bruce being a pilot and now Bruce having Cancer, I suppose Bruce leaving then returning was pretty controversial too.

Judas Priest is still more 'entertaining' than those though ha ha

yeah and more bands have named themselves after Priest songs.....talk about arbitrary things to base influence off, jesus-if you wanted to go that route than 'thank you/hail' lists on albums would make a lot more sense, which would probably be pretty even keeled though i'd suspect Priest might win that just for longevity and my own bias

obviously voted Priest-sharper Metal edge and they're the METAL GODZ. Maiden rules, and they've put on the better live shows i've seen in this era.....but Priest at the top of their game was/is so un-fuck-withable.....only Motorhead and Black Sabbath are equal/surpassed, though Maiden's right there behind them

+Slayer tried to be them, that has to count for something

It's just ridiculous to base influence off how many covers of their songs are out there. If you listen to any 80s metal band or modern power metal band, chances are you'll hear some Priest in there just as often as Maiden. Sheer numbers of random death and black metal bands these days - many of which are probably bedroom bands or go-nowhere local acts who will split up in a year or two - don't really mean anything. Songs like "Sinner," "Stained Class," "Exciter," etc were immeasurably influential on tons of bands after them. Plus, plenty of death and black metal bands probably don't have Maiden covers and were just as influenced by bands like Priest or Venom, Bathory, etc. - so it's really just not the best way to measure that, is all.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue - that bands aren't majorly influenced by bands they cover songs from? I'm pretty sure bands cover songs they like precisely because they were inspired by them. You're right, it's no real measure of influence. But I don't get what's arbitrary about a song cover. Surely not a definitive measure of influence, as I stated, but I don't see why it can't be considered some method of measuring influence - inspiring bands enough that they have to dedicate a portion of their CD space to a song cover is no small thing. Cover songs are essentially tributes, one of the few ways of displaying blatant inspiration from a band besides name-droppping. You could say bands naming their band after Judas Priest or Iron Maiden songs could be something counted too, but that's a lot more of a specific scenario than what was thinking. I'm not trying to create an air-tight debate. Just speculating, without full base, and no authority. I'm not aware of many noteworthy bands named after Judas Priest songs, but I am aware that there many noteworthy bands that cover Iron Maiden songs and not as much Judas Priest.

It's not like I seek bands that sound exclusively like Iron Maiden either. They're simply my preference. Maybe Judas Priest had blatantly more influence on speed metal - but really, how much of metal being released these days is speed metal?

I'm genuinely curious how many song covers each band has - not really for argument or even to make a point about influence. I'm just curious from a historical perspective . But if we were to pointlessly argue about influence, I'm not really seeing anyone make any compelling arguments about why they think Judas Priest is more influential other than they influenced Iron Maiden themselves and were extremely popular at the time. Probably because it's a waste of time comparing the influence of two massively important acts.




I was thinking of influence in terms of important metal bands in operation now, not really how many Judas Priest rip-offs were inspired back in the 80's. Regardless, you're right, definitely not the best way. I'd argue influence as a whole is immeasurable. But I think it's equally ridiculous to deny correlation between influence and song covers. It's plain as day there's some correlation, despite it being trivial. And while it's not a real measure of influence in any way, it at least an objective number (whatever that may be). Is it possible for a band to have been more influenced by Priest, yet only covered an Iron Maiden song? Sure, but I can't imagine it being a significant factor - if anything sounds like a self-serving counter-argument to make. You say Judas Priest likely had more influence than Iron Maiden - so I thought it'd be fair to expect at least an equal amount of tribute songs, but I haven't seen many at all. Maybe other people's metal collection is filled with more Judas Priest worship, because somehow my collection unintentionally ended up being filled with Iron Maiden worship and completely light on Judas Priest worship. I really like Judas Priest, just to a lesser extent, so it's not like I try to avoid bands that may somehow be blatantly inspired by Judas Priest. I've got infinite amounts of exploring into other genres left to do.

Just two things. To the people claiming that both Judas Priest and Iron Maiden are overrated...What the actual fuck dudes? are you in your right minds? Both bands are milestones of the genre, they have a number of classic masterpieces under their belts and have been around rocking stages for almost 4 decades.




Really? are you sure about that?





and I'm pretty sure most Tyrant(s) and Savage(s) are Priest-influenced as well.