Controversial opinions on metal

[SentinelSlain]

Seventh Son of a Seventh Son is the one with the best "sound", for me. Does no one else hear what I'm talking about in regards to their overall sound? It went from being brilliant to being pretty bloody bad by AMOLAD

 

[waif]

Im in agreement with bnw being one of their best. But i also think somewhere in time is the best of the first six. I think fear of the dark is a solid album and the blaze albums have some really great songs.

I'd definitely agree about Somewhere in Time. The sound and songwriting on that album is just much more lively than Seventh Son.

Overall I think everyone would agree that Iron Maiden are a single-oriented band and their albums tend to lack consistency. As a result they're best experienced either live or by cherry-picking favorite songs rather than just spinning whole albums.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'd definitely agree about Somewhere in Time. The sound and songwriting on that album is just much more lively than Seventh Son.

Overall I think everyone would agree that Iron Maiden are a single-oriented band and their albums tend to lack consistency. As a result they're best experienced either live or by cherry-picking favorite songs rather than just spinning whole albums.

lolno. Going to any Iron Maiden forum you will find plenty of people complaining that they play the same "classics" and singles over and over. Generally speaking, songs like Run to the Hills are favorites among the general population, not fans of the band.

Anyone that thinks their first five are inconsistent must either have incredibly high standards of consistency or no standards whatsoever. Are songs like Gangland, Sun & Steel, or Back in the Village actually bad relative to the average less-preferred song from any other band?

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Maiden is stupidly consistent. I don't know how a Maiden fan could have any albums they don't like, just ones that they don't listen to as much.

Then again, that consistency doesn't mean it's all good. It just means they're consistently mildly enjoyable. I've tried so hard, since I was about 12, to understand the Maiden adoration. Never figured it out.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Im not a Maiden fan either. I mean, I get why people like em. But totally not for me.

 

[J.]

Then again, that consistency doesn't mean it's all good. It just means they're consistently mildly enjoyable. I've tried so hard, since I was about 12, to understand the Maiden adoration. Never figured it out.

Nailed it. I've got all their full lengths and i do enjoy them to an extent. I have my favorite songs and albums. I pull em out for a listen rarely, and when I do it becomes background noise. I've never been blown away by Maiden (same with JP), and I don't expect that to change. It's just not something that is all engrossing.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

count me in, as well. in fact, maiden, priest and sabbath all rank at the bottom of my metal chart. but i do understand why people like any or all three of those bands.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Maiden, Priest, and Sabbath are fucking excellent. Totally deserving of the hype they get.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

Yes, lots of people agree with you. I just happen to think otherwise. Metal for me started with early Maiden, so I am into them more than the other two. Sabbath and Priest aren't metal bands, they're rock bands.

 

[KafkaX]

Maiden is a good band, with some excellent songs, and some excellent albums, but theres a lot of stuff they have that I dont care for at all.

Sabbath and Priest aren't metal bands, they're rock bands.

Explain.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Sabbath and Priest aren't metal bands, they're rock bands.

If that's how you want to define the genre, go right ahead. You can also refer to all cats as lions and say that cake isn't a dessert.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

There are certain elements of 'metal', at least my definition of it, that need to be consistent throughout a bands discography as well as their sound and style. Priest and Sabbath are on the boarder, but I still consider them rock, though they paved the way, so to speak, for heavy metal.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Elaborate on these elements.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I can't help but find this to be a dumb suggestion that's overly dependent on both of those band's early releases. Early Black Sabbath might be a lot more famous than say Headless Cross, but there's a limit to the relevance of that.


Also, upon further listening to Virgin Steele, HB is a total tasteless whale for preferring their hair metal songs.

 

[Westsiyeed]

Somewhere in Time was the first sign of them losing it. Choruses went to shit, songs started becoming too long, and they stopped being badass.

Agreed. Even the sound on SiT started sounding overproduced with the use of guitar synths.

As far as Maiden being single-oriented, I don't really agree. Their well-known songs are probably that way as they concentrate so much on them live, but all the albums up until SiT have pretty much all good songs.

I'd have to say Number of the Beast is probably the most hit and miss - The Number of the Beast, Run to the Hills and Hallowed be They Name are all a much higher standard than the rest of the songs on the album.

For a renowned band to put out 15 albums and still stay fresh and as good as they were at the start, would be very unusual unless they change their style fairly radically. Which is partly why Iron Maiden's best albums are their earliest ones.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Somewhere in Time is produced far better than most of the post reunion stuff.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, lots of people agree with you. I just happen to think otherwise. Metal for me started with early Maiden, so I am into them more than the other two. Sabbath and Priest aren't metal bands, they're rock bands.

Everyone likely has a different opinion on this, but ultimately the marker when rock started being metal is somewhat arbitrary. If metal constitutes an artistic extremity for its time period that happens to attract diverse subcultures, then Sabbath without a doubt fits the bill as a metal act. They just may not have utilized all the musical aesthetics that we associate with doom (and other genres) today.

I, for one, don't think we can entirely define what "metal" is purely based on musical aesthetics. There's a cultural element as well.

 

[0Marty]

I can't listen to most Iron Maiden cuz i can't stand Dickinson's vocals. I even like albums with Blaze Bayley more. But I rate Paul Di'Anno's punk-ish voice best, so first two are the best for me.

 

[SentinelSlain]

The first Iron Maiden album is kind of underrated imo. It's really easy to listen to and fun.

 

[J.]

Also, upon further listening to Virgin Steele, HB is a total tasteless whale for preferring their hair metal songs.

I cant stress how good the marriage and atreus albums are. Invictus as well, but slighty less so. I do like visions of eden, but defeis went overboard with the ridiculous lilith fairytale in the lyrics, and he pulled some ridiculous stuff out of his ass for black light bacchanalia.