PDA

View Full Version : Queensryche To Take Cabaret Show On The Road


Travis The Dragon
03-05-2010, 12:00 PM
Seattle progressive rock giants QUEENSRčCHE have issued the following update:

"Two big new rumors to pass along today. The first is that the band has already begun work on their new album, and get this, it's nearly done being written. No word on a direction, theme or possible release date, but nonetheless, all those details are being worked on as we speak.

"But as we wait for more information on the new album, rumors of a spring/summer tour are starting to heat up. What we can tell you is that due to the success of the two cabaret shows in Seattle, the band has decided to take it on the road. No dates to announce just yet; look for those soon. In the meantime, [this video] might help get y'all excited." Source: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=136162


Bah! Fuck that shit! Get Chris back and put out a METAL album!

Derelict
03-05-2010, 12:18 PM
this makes me want to hang out in the locker room at the gym

Sanitarium78
03-05-2010, 12:33 PM
Source: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=136162


Bah! Fuck that shit! Get Chris back and put out a METAL album!

They turned to shit while Chris was still with them. HITNF was not good at all and neither was Tribe when he came back to help write. I honestly don't think he'd help them as much as some think he would, considering how bad his last two efforts with the band were. I wouldn't have much hope that a new colaboration with him would be any better. Chris's heart just isn't in it anymore:(

I read about this Caberet shit on blabbermouth a while back. I'm not really sure what exactly Geoff is thinking with this at all. Going by how bad their music has been the last 15 years, their questionable setlist selections and this Caberet crap, no one is more outta touch with their fan base than Queensryche is at this point.

It's a real shame to see a band that was so great, fall so far down.

ravenheart
03-05-2010, 12:37 PM
"No word on a direction, theme or possible release date, but nonetheless, all those details are being worked on as we speak."

Nonsense. It will be a social commentary concept album.

DethMaiden
03-05-2010, 12:49 PM
I really can't believe that they were once good, and actually released what might be my favorite album of all time. Shame.

ravenheart
03-05-2010, 01:01 PM
I don't share everyone's dislike of 'Tribe' or 'Operation: Mindcrime II', so I don't see their decline in quite the same way.

I think 'American Soldier' is pretty poor though, and they weren't fantastic the last time two times I saw them. They did that thing where they play mini-sets from certain albums, which on that tour were 'Rage For Order', 'American Soldier' and 'Empire'. So it was great for about five songs, then mostly shit. I suffered that set twice :(

When they finally did the complete Mindcrime set in the UK that was fantastic, and was a great show.

And the only other time was back in 2006 at a festival where they basically played a shortened hits set with a couple of Mindcrime II songs. Pretty decent.

But I think since the original Mindcrime, and they got their reputation for trying different things with each album, new directions, concepts etc. they've been too desperate to repeat that and their ideas are getting weirder and more desperate.

DethMaiden
03-05-2010, 01:06 PM
I don't share everyone's dislike of 'Tribe' or 'Operation: Mindcrime II', so I don't see their decline in quite the same way.

I think 'American Soldier' is pretty poor though, and they weren't fantastic the last time two times I saw them. They did that thing where they play mini-sets from certain albums, which on that tour were 'Rage For Order', 'American Soldier' and 'Empire'. So it was great for about five songs, then mostly shit. I suffered that set twice :(

When they finally did the complete Mindcrime set in the UK that was fantastic, and was a great show.

And the only other time was back in 2006 at a festival where they basically played a shortened hits set with a couple of Mindcrime II songs. Pretty decent.

But I think since the original Mindcrime, and they got their reputation for trying different things with each album, new directions, concepts etc. they've been too desperate to repeat that and their ideas are getting weirder and more desperate.

I quite like Tribe, actually. I think the two that preceded it were crap, but Tribe totally nails that relaxed vibe they were going for.

Mindcrime II I initially like, probably because the live show was so good, but it's unfortunately little more than an excuse to sing more about Dr. X and Nikki and Mary and the songs took a backseat to the story, whereas the original could have had lyrics about damn near anything and still been a masterpiece.

But American Soldier is terrible, and this idea is terrible, and they're not even struggling for relevance anymore, it seems like they're trying to outdo their last terrible idea with each new terrible idea.

ADD
03-05-2010, 01:08 PM
Gotta admit that Tribe has some good songs. Queensryche get kind of a bad rap overall I think, but in recent years they've really been justifying the haters.

Fe Maiden
03-05-2010, 01:14 PM
They need another album like The Warning!

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 08:30 AM
Tribe is an awesome album. I'm not really sure what's up with the American Soldier hate either. It's a good album. It has a good variety of songs. I'd say it's weaker than Tribe, but definitely stronger than Operation: Mindcrime II. Also the tour was pretty good. Sure, they're getting shit for the kid playing guitar, but he's not bad. He's more true to Chris' tone than Stone ever was. And at least when I saw the band on the American Soldier tour the guys really seemed into their performances, and it was a really good show.

As for the cabaret? I think it's silly, but I still give them a bit of credit for at least trying new things. The format of a rock show is something that basically remains unchanged, and I appreciate that they try to think outside of that box. However, I think where they've gone this time is just plain corny.

I don't think they'll ever please everybody, or maybe even anybody. When you start out the gate as basically America's answer to Iron Maiden, get big with a song that could've fallen off Wish You Were Here, and release albums after that that can either be pegged as both of those things or neither, you're just kind of setting yourself up for being hated on.

I'll probably skip this tour, unless they keep Promised Land's title track on the set. If so, count me in. For the future, I hope they don't try something like this again. And the album, I think they need to try to re-capture the sound they had on Promised Land. In my opinion, that was the best blend of genres they've tried, not to mention the peak of their songwriting and musicianship.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 08:51 AM
My thoughts on Queensryche:

They need to stop, badly. I don't know if I've ever seen another band who has disgraced its own legacy so badly, but just continues to flog a long-dead horse, and with each attempt they make, you hear them and other people going "no really guys! This one's really good!" But they never ever. The last arguably great Queensryche record came out in 1994 - sixteen years ago, and they've been active ever since.

Chris DeGarmo's absence is not the problem - as has been said, he's come back and they still sucked. The rest of the guys (primarilly Tate, I think) just want to make shitty alternative rock music, with just slight hints of metal. I think Geoff Tate has massive delusions of grandeur about what they're doing, thinking they're sticking it to the man by not making metal records or something.

In regards to their live shows, I doubt I will ever pay to see them again. The Mindcrime shows are great because they are theatrical and put the emphasis on the story and acting and not the rest of the band. They are boring as fuck when just doing a normal set. Aside from that bore-fest factor, I have one other big issue with their live shows:
With most bands that made really influential metal prior to 1990, when they play the songs live today, they tend to sound better and more powerful - the combination of the live energy of a god live band, and the years-worth of evolving instrument sounds and technology. A band like Saxon's early material sounds much heavier and better these days than it used to. However, this is NOT the case. In fact, Queensryche don't even get up to album standard live. When Queensryche plays songs from "The Warning" or "Rage For Order", they sound... flat. It's like "Diet Queensryche", like some modern rock band is trying to cover metal songs. It's a hard feeling to pinpoint, but it bothers the shit out of me.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 10:14 AM
I disagree. I thought that especially on the 2004-2005 tours their older material was sounding really good. For instance, I prefer, to a huge degree, how they play "The Whisper" now. I think the vocals on the album version were just way over the top, and I like how they drop it down half a step, and Tate sings a different melody. It's more sinister. And the live version really downplays the cheesy synths, letting the guitars just cut through everything - heaver imo. And while sometimes it's hit or miss, there's some really good versions of "Screaming in Digital" from that tour that are both really heavy, and sometimes Tate really nails the scream at the end. Or "Walk in the Shadows" which they were mostly playing with the extended intro.

Also I prefer how Mindcrime 1 sounded in 2004/2005 than the original, honestly. The production on Operation: Mindcrime is an 80's cliche 100%. There's no low end. It's just high-pitched drums loaded with reverb, high-pitched vocals, and guitars with no crunch. The 2004/2005 live versions are much heavier imo, if only because you can actually hear the bass ALL THE TIME (and Eddie Jackson is an underrated bassist if there was ever an underrated bassist imo.)

But like I said, Queensryche will NEVER make everybody or even anybody happy. In 2004/2005 they did the metal thing 100%. When they opened for Priest in the summer of 2005 the newest song was "I'm American" (which is heavy, c'mon) and after that Empire's title track. The rest was off their first few albums, which are all fairly heavy.

They did the metal thing and people were still unhappy. Because people will always be unhappy with something that Queensryche is doing.

I also think it's wrong to say they're sticking it to anybody by not being metal. It's common knowledge Geoff didn't come from a metal background and never wanted to be a in metal band prior to Queensryche. If you listen to what Geoff, Scott, and Chris have all done outside of Queensryche, it's not metal. (Wilton's stuff is.) And just because they depart from metal on some of their albums, doesn't mean it's all shitty alt-rock. Tribe is progressive rock. "Art of Life" is a song any band that considers themselves progressive should be happy to have composed. No band should be forced to box themselves into a genre, even if it's just to "be true to the fans."

Honestly, I think if there's a lesson to be learned from the career of Queensryche it's to never let yourself be considered a metal band to begin with, because once you are, if you don't stick to it, your "fans" will fucking eat you alive. I love metal - I do, but I think it's one of the most stifling genres around. Any time a band that's metal tries to operate outside of metal, or even outside of their respective metal sub-genre, it just pisses people off or strikes them as inauthentic. I think it's odd that a genre that basically exists because some people tried to be different than the norm is a genre that has resisted, to an extreme degree, letting the bands within it, evolve, especially if it means evolving outside of something considered "metal." Yes, the genre as a whole changes, or expands into different sub-genres, but just about any band, if they want to keep their fans, or respect of those from the metal community, better stick to the form of metal they offered that got people's attention in the first place.

SomewhereInTime72
03-11-2010, 10:19 AM
American Soldier and HITNF are the only two QR albums I actually dislike(Though Q2K is far from perfect too, but it's definitely listenable). As far as metal goes, I somewhat feel like OM:2 is the best they can do nowadays... so they might be best off trying to make a not-strictly-metal album, as long as they can make it good (looking at you, Promised Land)

Eh. No album since Promised Land has been AWESOME, and after American soldier, not to mention that lame covers album, it's really hard for me not to have given up on them making good music. I'll try to give them the benefit of the doubt once more when the next album comes around, just in case. :hmm:

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 10:22 AM
I disagree. I thought that especially on the 2004-2005 tours their older material was sounding really good. For instance, I prefer, to a huge degree, how they play "The Whisper" now. I think the vocals on the album version were just way over the top, and I like how they drop it down half a step, and Tate sings a different melody. It's more sinister. And the live version really downplays the cheesy synths, letting the guitars just cut through everything - heaver imo. And while sometimes it's hit or miss, there's some really good versions of "Screaming in Digital" from that tour that are both really heavy, and sometimes Tate really nails the scream at the end. Or "Walk in the Shadows" which they were mostly playing with the extended intro.

Also I prefer how Mindcrime 1 sounded in 2004/2005 than the original, honestly. The production on Operation: Mindcrime is an 80's cliche 100%. There's no low end. It's just high-pitched drums loaded with reverb, high-pitched vocals, and guitars with no crunch. The 2004/2005 live versions are much heavier imo, if only because you can actually hear the bass ALL THE TIME (and Eddie Jackson is an underrated bassist if there was ever an underrated bassist imo.)

But like I said, Queensryche will NEVER make everybody or even anybody happy. In 2004/2005 they did the metal thing 100%. When they opened for Priest in the summer of 2005 the newest song was "I'm American" (which is heavy, c'mon) and after that Empire's title track. The rest was off their first few albums, which are all fairly heavy.

They did the metal thing and people were still unhappy. Because people will always be unhappy with something that Queensryche is doing.

I also think it's wrong to say they're sticking it to anybody by not being metal. It's common knowledge Geoff didn't come from a metal background and never wanted to be a in metal band prior to Queensryche. If you listen to what Geoff, Scott, and Chris have all done outside of Queensryche, it's not metal. (Wilton's stuff is.) And just because they depart from metal on some of their albums, doesn't mean it's all shitty alt-rock. Tribe is progressive rock. "Art of Life" is a song any band that considers themselves progressive should be happy to have composed. No band should be forced to box themselves into a genre, even if it's just to "be true to the fans."

1) On that Priest tour, Queensryche played two songs off of Tribe. At least when I saw them. If you want to disagree, I'll pull up the setlist. If you just made a mistake, or they just didn't do it if/when you saw it, no bad.

2) I saw them do the "Hits/Mindcrime" stuff in 2005. Meh. The hits, that is. The Mindcrime performances were very good (lol @ your claim that a performance with Mike Stone could be better than the original with DeGarmo), but the hits were just typical Queensryche - standing on-stage, seemingly bored, while boring the audience by playing watered down songs.

3) No, the band will never make everyone, or anybody happy - because the truth is, this band should've broke up after DeGarmo left post-Hear in the Now Frontier. Still wouldn't have been going out on a high note, but at least it wouldn't have been embarrassing. Everyone could just go and do there own thing. The problem with this? There's no money in it. Sadly, just because Queensryche had some hits and sold a good number of albums between 1985 and 1992, people are still paying to see and support them. If the members were doing what they truly wanted to do under the name(s) they should be doing it, this argument wouldn't exist. However, the members would be broke because no one really cares about what they're doing musically, but will still occasionally shell out money to see them.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 10:29 AM
1) On that Priest tour, Queensryche played two songs off of Tribe. At least when I saw them. If you want to disagree, I'll pull up the setlist. If you just made a mistake, or they just didn't do it if/when you saw it, no bad.

2) I saw them do the "Hits/Mindcrime" stuff in 2005. Meh. The hits, that is. The Mindcrime performances were very good (lol @ your claim that a performance with Mike Stone could be better than the original with DeGarmo), but the hits were just typical Queensryche - standing on-stage, seemingly bored, while boring the audience by playing watered down songs.

3) No, the band will never make everyone, or anybody happy - because the truth is, this band should've broke up after DeGarmo left post-Hear in the Now Frontier. Still wouldn't have been going out on a high note, but at least it wouldn't have been embarrassing. Everyone could just go and do there own thing. The problem with this? There's no money in it. Sadly, just because Queensryche had some hits and sold a good number of albums between 1985 and 1992, people are still paying to see and support them. If the members were doing what they truly wanted to do under the name(s) they should be doing it, this argument wouldn't exist. However, the members would be broke because no one really cares about what they're doing musically, but will still occasionally shell out money to see them.

1) Oh yeah, I forgot about those two. (Their 04/05 sets kind of blur together for me.) Okay, so two songs out of 12-15. I have quite a few video boots from those tour, and I would say that's not really a fair characterization.

2) Fuck it. That's my opinion and it's no more right or wrong than yours. I think Mike Stone plays Operation: Mindcrime's solo better than Chris DeGarmo and I don't give a fuck if I'm the only person that thinks so.

3) That's a matter of opinion... look, I'm just going to be pull the Iron Maiden card here. First of all, how many people thought they should break up with Blaze, or after? I mean, shit, I think you could make a really good argument that Bruce's solo career is better than some of Iron Maiden's output, so maybe they should've split so he could do that. Or maybe they should can Janick, because why the hell do they need three guitarists?

But that's the problem. Bands should basically never do what fans want. If a band wants to stay together and release music nobody gives a shit about because it's what they want to do, then they should. In Iron Maiden's case, plenty of people like the Blaze albums or new-era Bruce albums. And there's people like that post-Promised Land Queensryche too. You're just re-enforcing the idea that metal is best left to the wisdom of the crowds, and in a financial sense, that's certainly true. But in an artistic sense, I'd rather see a band release a Q2K than a 10th greatest hits album.

DethMaiden
03-11-2010, 10:33 AM
3) That's a matter of opinion... look, I'm just going to be pull the Iron Maiden card here. First of all, how many people thought they should break up with Blaze, or after? I mean, shit, I think you could make a really good argument that Bruce's solo career is better than some of Iron Maiden's output, so maybe they should've split so he could do that. Or maybe they should can Janick, because why the hell do they need three guitarists?

But that's the problem. Bands should basically never do what fans want. If a band wants to stay together and release music nobody gives a shit about because it's what they want to do, then they should. In Iron Maiden's case, plenty of people like the Blaze albums or new-era Bruce albums. And there's people like that post-Promised Land Queensryche too. You're just re-enforcing the idea that metal is best left to the wisdom of the crowds, and in a financial sense, that's certainly true. But in an artistic sense, I'd rather see a band release a Q2K than a 10th greatest hits album.

I think all of this is especially valid. Just because most of us here (myself proudly included) have our heads so far up Iron Maiden's butt that we're glad they made every damn album they made, there's people who wish they quit after '88. That sounds ridiculous to us, but that's about as ridiculous as saying QR should have broken up after '94 sounds to people who like the stuff they're doing. I quite like Tribe and think the rest of the post-Promised Land material is mediocre at best, but other people have every right to like it.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 10:45 AM
1) Oh yeah, I forgot about those two. (Their 04/05 sets kind of blur together for me.) Okay, so two songs out of 12-15. I have quite a few video boots from those tour, and I would say that's not really a fair characterization.

2) Fuck it. That's my opinion and it's no more right or wrong than yours. I think Mike Stone plays Operation: Mindcrime's solo better than Chris DeGarmo and I don't give a fuck if I'm the only person that thinks so.

3) That's a matter of opinion... look, I'm just going to be pull the Iron Maiden card here. First of all, how many people thought they should break up with Blaze, or after? I mean, shit, I think you could make a really good argument that Bruce's solo career is better than some of Iron Maiden's output, so maybe they should've split so he could do that. Or maybe they should can Janick, because why the hell do they need three guitarists?

But that's the problem. Bands should basically never do what fans want. If a band wants to stay together and release music nobody gives a shit about because it's what they want to do, then they should. In Iron Maiden's case, plenty of people like the Blaze albums or new-era Bruce albums. And there's people like that post-Promised Land Queensryche too. You're just re-enforcing the idea that metal is best left to the wisdom of the crowds, and in a financial sense, that's certainly true. But in an artistic sense, I'd rather see a band release a Q2K than a 10th greatest hits album.

1) Saw the tour, though it was okay. Better than the hits sets with Mindcrime, but still, my thoughts stand.

2) You are right, you are entitled to your own opinion, but this very thought makes my brain take a crap.

3) First of all, some of Bruce's solo material is better than a lot of what Maiden has done. I will take Accident of Birth and The Chemical Wedding over all Maiden records but 4 or so. But I think that's kind of irrelevant.
Despite how much Maiden may have started to suck in the 90's, I don't think they completely abandoned what they were "about", but that's debatable I guess. But my primary point is that Queensryche have been faltering for 15 years now. Even if you hate every 90's Maiden record, they managed to give us Brave New World 12 years after their last renown album, and have arguably kept delivering solid releases since. I can kind of see where you're coming from with this comparison, but I gotta whole-heartedly disagree. If Queensryche managed to pop out one album actually on par with their debut-through Empire/Promised land output, I would be more than willing to eat my words, but as it stands, I think anyone who is still hanging onto this band is wasting their time.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 10:46 AM
I think all of this is especially valid. Just because most of us here (myself proudly included) have our heads so far up Iron Maiden's butt that we're glad they made every damn album they made, there's people who wish they quit after '88. That sounds ridiculous to us, but that's about as ridiculous as saying QR should have broken up after '94 sounds to people who like the stuff they're doing. I quite like Tribe and think the rest of the post-Promised Land material is mediocre at best, but other people have every right to like it.

:)

Exactly. How is the 1 guy that thinks Q2K a masterpiece anymore wrong than somebody that says A Matter of Life or Death is Iron Maiden's best album? It might fly in the face of what 99.99% of fans of a band, or just about any casual observer a band would say, but it's not wrong.

We're all great at being armchair band managers, but at the end of the day I think bands just need to do what they have to do. I mean, I can't help but think if Queensryche put out a press-release saying they've tried to re-capture the sound of their EP or The Warning in a new album we'd all think they're just being disingenuous and trying to cash in on the legacy of their early albums. But if they released something that wasn't metal, we'd all have shit to say about that too.

And to me this is just one of the problems with genres: Once a band finds success in a genre, they're basically stuck. If they move out of that genre, they lose the base that supported them in the first place.

Like I said earlier (by editing my post) I think metal is honestly a stifling genre with exceptionally hard to please fans. And I'm not trying to win people over to my way of thinking on Queensryche. I don't really care what people think, and I hope Queensryche doesn't either. Because even though it'd be great if they listened, and stopped this horror show of a tour, for the most part, listening to fans is just going to keep you stuck in the same place you started.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 10:47 AM
I think all of this is especially valid. Just because most of us here (myself proudly included) have our heads so far up Iron Maiden's butt that we're glad they made every damn album they made, there's people who wish they quit after '88. That sounds ridiculous to us, but that's about as ridiculous as saying QR should have broken up after '94 sounds to people who like the stuff they're doing. I quite like Tribe and think the rest of the post-Promised Land material is mediocre at best, but other people have every right to like it.

When you show me one person who genuinely likes/loves the majority of Queensryche's post-Promised land output, we'll talk. To date I have not met one. I don't think I've ever seen another band who is so universally disliked after a certain point in their career.

I'm not saying anyone's opinion is "wrong", but in the real world, majority rules, and you can't act like anything I'm saying is a ridiculous notion.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 10:52 AM
But my primary point is that Queensryche have been faltering for 15 years now. Even if you hate every 90's Maiden record, they managed to give us Brave New World 12 years after their last renown album, and have arguably kept delivering solid releases since. I can kind of see where you're coming from with this comparison, but I gotta whole-heartedly disagree. If Queensryche managed to pop out one album actually on par with their debut-through Empire/Promised land output, I would be more than willing to eat my words, but as it stands, I think anyone who is still hanging onto this band is wasting their time.

But that's my point: They're faltering based on your standards.

For me, HITNF, Q2K, and Tribe have some of my favorite driving music, so I've had a pretty lengthy relationship with those albums. I'd say I ignore at least half of HITFN and Q2K, but I still like them. If those albums were trying to stay closer to the sound that Queensryche was known for, I can't say I'd like them better beacuse of it.

I could easily make the same argument you're making about Queensryche about Iron Maiden: That anybody that's hanging on them now is wasting their time. No new Iron Maiden album holds a candle to their classics, and I think a good number of their fans would agree with that.

The difference is that Iron Maiden has hardly evolved since Number of the Beast, and has a lot of fans. It's easy to pick on Queensryche, because your opinion is basically the popular one to have.

But at the end of the day... if Dance of Death and A Matter of Life and Death can't compete with Powerslave and 7th Son and HITFN and Q2K can't compete with Empire or Operation: Mindcrime, why should one band pull the plug and the other keep going?

I'll answer that, because Iron Maiden didn't change, so even if the quality isn't as good, it's still the same sound Iron Maiden fans fell in love with to begin with. In other words, what I'm saying is you're allowing nostalgia and brand loyalty rather than artistic integrity guide your opinions on Iron Maiden. But because Queensryche studio albums rarely (O:M 2 being an exception, although not sonically) appeal to nostalgia, and Queensryche doesn't have the cheering squad a band like Iron Maiden has, it's easier to be critical of their artistic output.

Am I wrong? Maybe. And I'm not trying to single you out here either Jeff, I'm speaking pretty generally about people that listen to Iron Maiden and Queensryche.

DethMaiden
03-11-2010, 10:53 AM
But that's my point: They're faltering based on your standards.

For me, HITNF, Q2K, and Tribe have some of my favorite driving music, so I've had a pretty lengthy relationship with those albums. I'd say I ignore at least half of HITFN and Q2K, but I still like them. If those albums were trying to stay closer to the sound that Queensryche was known for, I can't say I'd like them better beacuse of it.

I could easily make the same argument you're making about Queensryche about Iron Maiden: That anybody that's hanging on them now is wasting their time. No new Iron Maiden album holds a candle to their classics, and I think a good number of their fans would agree with that.

The difference is that Iron Maiden has hardly evolved since Number of the Beast, and has a lot of fans. It's easy to pick on Queensryche, because your opinion is basically the popular one to have.

But at the end of the day... if Dance of Death and A Matter of Life and Death can't compete with Powerslave and 7th Son and HITFN and Q2K can't compete with Empire or Operation: Mindcrime, why should one band pull the plug and the other keep going?

I'll answer that, because Iron Maiden didn't change, so even if the quality isn't as good, it's still the same sound Iron Maiden fans fell in love with to begin with. In other words, what I'm saying is you're allowing nostalgia and brand loyalty rather than artistic integrity guide your opinions on Iron Maiden. But because Queensryche studio albums rarely (O:M 2 being an exception, although not sonically) appeal to nostalgia, and Queensryche doesn't have the cheering squad a band like Iron Maiden has, it's easier to be critical of their artistic output.

Am I wrong? Maybe. And I'm not trying to single you out here either Jeff, I'm speaking pretty generally about people that listen to Iron Maiden and Queensryche.

Well, you almost had me in total agreement.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 10:55 AM
When you show me one person who genuinely likes/loves the majority of Queensryche's post-Promised land output, we'll talk. To date I have not met one. I don't think I've ever seen another band who is so universally disliked after a certain point in their career.

I'm not saying anyone's opinion is "wrong", but in the real world, majority rules, and you can't act like anything I'm saying is a ridiculous notion.

Right here buddy.

But you're already making your point very, very clear: The wisdom is in the crowds.

And that's the great irony of metal, in my opinion. A genre that tried to be different, and appealed to few, and received critical disdain to begin with now rags on those who evolve to a different form of metal, or out of metal, with silly arguments like, "How many people like x album?"

Because if nobody liked The Number of the Beast, it would suck.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 10:56 AM
Well, you almost had me in total agreement.

C'mon man. How have they evolved in any real way?

Musically, it's the same approach: Twin-guitars, trade-off solos, harmony guitar parts, similar chord progressions, and lately, the song formula is almost always the same (soft intro, gallop verses, layered choruses, 3 solos, etc.) Lyrically the topics have never shifted very much either.

The nuances of Iron Maiden have changed, but can you really say there's been a significant evolution in the core of what Iron Maiden has done since NOTB?

DethMaiden
03-11-2010, 10:58 AM
C'mon man. How have they evolved in any real way?

Musically, it's the same approach: Twin-guitars, trade-off solos, harmony guitar parts, similar chord progressions, and lately, the song formula is almost always the same (soft intro, gallop verses, layered choruses, 3 solos, etc.) Lyrically the topics have never shifted very much either.

The nuances of Iron Maiden have changed, but can you really say there's been a significant evolution in the core of what Iron Maiden has done since NOTB?

I think it's definitely an evolutionary process. You can listen to NOTB next to AMOLAD and they're totally different albums. NOTB sounds a bit like POM which sounds a bit like Powerslave and so on...but evolution is absolutely the key word. It's like with Death: Scream Bloody Gore does NOT sound like The Sound of Perseverance, but each album sounds a little like the last. Maiden's just the same.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 11:02 AM
I think it's definitely an evolutionary process. You can listen to NOTB next to AMOLAD and they're totally different albums. NOTB sounds a bit like POM which sounds a bit like Powerslave and so on...but evolution is absolutely the key word. It's like with Death: Scream Bloody Gore does NOT sound like The Sound of Perseverance, but each album sounds a little like the last. Maiden's just the same.

Let's try a different approach: What's similar between the albums?

First of all, topically, it's not that different. Secondly, the music: I think Number is more energetic, but in terms of how the music is built, you can see the same basic building blocks: The chord progressions are still slightly familiar. There's still the gallop that's favored by the bass. There's still a penchant for solos. The singing style remains unchanged.

You get my idea.

I mean, of course it's different - there's over twenty years between the albums. But how has Iron Maiden really evolved? Is there a form of song on AMOLAD that's new? Some new stylistic approach? (And don't say Nicko, his approach to drumming isn't exactly that far removed from POM.) I mean the actual core of what I would argue defines Iron Maiden is still there in full force on AMOLAD.

And let's say you're not an Iron Maiden fan that's spent years listening and scrutinizing the details. If you listened to NOTB and then AMOLAD would you be like, "Whoa! [X] is a huge difference!" Or would you note that, again, while the nuances are definitely different, the actual core remains the same.

(I think you would. My two cents.)

DethMaiden
03-11-2010, 11:04 AM
Let's try a different approach: What's similar between the albums?

First of all, topically, it's not that different. Secondly, the music: I think Number is more energetic, but in terms of how the music is built, you can see the same basic building blocks: The chord progressions are still slightly familiar. There's still the gallop that's favored by the bass. There's still a penchant for solos. The singing style remains unchanged.

You get my idea.

I mean, of course it's different there's over twenty years between the albums. But how has Iron Maiden really evolved? Is there a form of song on AMOLAD that's new? Some new stylistic approach? (And don't say Nicko, his approach to drumming isn't exactly that far removed from POM.) I mean actual core of what I would argue defines Iron Maiden is still there in full force on AMOLAD.

And let's say you're not an Iron Maiden fan that's spent years listening and scrutinizing the details. If you listened to TNOTB and than AMOLAD would you be like, "Whoa!" Or would you note that, again, while the nuances are definitely different, the actual core remains the same.

(I think you would. My two cents.)

Even if I accept all that, which I'm not prepared to, you say it like it's a bad thing. Frankly, if this career Maiden has pieced together is all based on one core sound, they couldn't have picked a better one.

JRA
03-11-2010, 11:05 AM
I'll answer that, because Iron Maiden didn't change,



http://www.navlog.org/aw_jeez.jpg

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 11:06 AM
But that's my point: They're faltering based on your standards.

For me, HITNF, Q2K, and Tribe have some of my favorite driving music, so I've had a pretty lengthy relationship with those albums. I'd say I ignore at least half of HITFN and Q2K, but I still like them. If those albums were trying to stay closer to the sound that Queensryche was known for, I can't say I'd like them better beacuse of it.

I could easily make the same argument you're making about Queensryche about Iron Maiden: That anybody that's hanging on them now is wasting their time. No new Iron Maiden album holds a candle to their classics, and I think a good number of their fans would agree with that.

The difference is that Iron Maiden has hardly evolved since Number of the Beast, and has a lot of fans. It's easy to pick on Queensryche, because your opinion is basically the popular one to have.

But at the end of the day... if Dance of Death and A Matter of Life and Death can't compete with Powerslave and 7th Son and HITFN and Q2K can't compete with Empire or Operation: Mindcrime, why should one band pull the plug and the other keep going?

I'll answer that, because Iron Maiden didn't change, so even if the quality isn't as good, it's still the same sound Iron Maiden fans fell in love with to begin with. In other words, what I'm saying is you're allowing nostalgia and brand loyalty rather than artistic integrity guide your opinions on Iron Maiden. But because Queensryche studio albums rarely (O:M 2 being an exception, although not sonically) appeal to nostalgia, and Queensryche doesn't have the cheering squad a band like Iron Maiden has, it's easier to be critical of their artistic output.

Am I wrong? Maybe. And I'm not trying to single you out here either Jeff, I'm speaking pretty generally about people that listen to Iron Maiden and Queensryche.

You are not in any way wrong for suggesting that there are people who hate newer Maiden, dislike it, or whine that it's nowhere near the standard of their old stuff. But the honest truth is that I know dozens of Maiden fans, and at very best, 10 or 15% of them aren't crazy about the new stuff, and even almost every one of those people likes Brave New World. I know a sizeable but not quite as big number of Queensryche fans, and I'd say maybe 5% of them genuinely like any post-Promised land album. Actually, among people I know in real life, I honestly think I know one. My point is that dissenting opinion always exists, but at the end of the day, democracy rules. If you made a poll asking people whether or not Queensryche should call it a day, I would bet all I own that the ruling answer would be Yes, or at least no with a big clause. If you constructed that poll for Maiden you would see nearly poplar opposites.

I'm not saying a band should not exist if they are incapable of producing their best album 20+ years into their career - not everyone can be Saxon. But if they are incapable of producing an album even somewhat on par with their output from 15 years ago and prior, in the eyes of the vast majority of their fans, I do believe they are somewhat wasting their time. Reunion Maiden albums aren't my favorite records (though Brave New World is up there), but I am still genuinely interested in them, love listening to them, think they include many great songs, love seeing them on tour, and I think they are nowhere near the worst albums they've ever done. You'd be hard pressed to find Queensryche fans who hold that opinion of their 1995-present output. And yes, I realize you're one of them, but how many others do you know? Exactly.

And I disagree that Maiden hasn't evolved since 1982, to argue every Maiden album is exactly the same would actually be wrong. But I do believe they've mostly stuck to the same "mission statement" throughout their career, and that's why I think people stick by them like they do.
I don't care if I'm allowing nostalgia/brand loyalty to effect my opinion. I hate experimentation for the sake of experimentation, and originality for the sake of originality. I hate music elitists who act like there's a crime in a band sticking to one basic style/sound. Not all evolving is bad, in fact most bands wind up evolving at some point in their career in order to make their best music - but abrupt and extreme style change, such that a band can't even be considered the same genre - count me out.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 11:07 AM
http://www.navlog.org/aw_jeez.jpg

Thanks. Because that really refutes my point.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I'm just making the case that compared to a band like Queensryche, Iron Maiden has remained a relative constant in what they do in the studio.

If you don't agree, I'd love to know why.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 11:11 AM
Right here buddy.

But you're already making your point very, very clear: The wisdom is in the crowds.

And that's the great irony of metal, in my opinion. A genre that tried to be different, and appealed to few, and received critical disdain to begin with now rags on those who evolve to a different form of metal, or out of metal, with silly arguments like, "How many people like x album?"

Because if nobody liked The Number of the Beast, it would suck.

:tp:

I think you're trying to turn this into something bigger than it is.

I'm not saying the majority is always right, but at the end of the day - it rules. If you read 20 reviews of an album, 18 saying it sucks and 2 saying it's amazing, be fucking honest, which one are you going to figure is more close to the truth?

I think you're honestly being kind of an elitist about this whole thing, when in reality it's simply just a massive clash of opinions - and since you're in the minority, you're reaching for defensive mechanisms. I'm not any more right than you are, but this is something I feel VERY strongly about (my thoughts on Queensryche, that is), you're not going to change my mind - and I'm clearly not going to change yours.

JRA
03-11-2010, 11:13 AM
Thanks. Because that really refutes my point.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I'm just making the case that compared to a band like Queensryche, Iron Maiden has remained a relative constant in what they do in the studio.

If you don't agree, I'd love to know why.



For me, song formula is the core. Sure it's stagnating now, but it hasn't been stagnating since the Number of the Beast.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 11:15 AM
You are not in any way wrong for suggesting that there are people who hate newer Maiden, dislike it, or whine that it's nowhere near the standard of their old stuff. But the honest truth is that I know dozens of Maiden fans, and at very best, 10 or 15% of them aren't crazy about the new stuff, and even almost every one of those people likes Brave New World. I know a sizeable but not quite as big number of Queensryche fans, and I'd say maybe 5% of them genuinely like any post-Promised land album. Actually, among people I know in real life, I honestly think I know one. My point is that dissenting opinion always exists, but at the end of the day, democracy rules. If you made a poll asking people whether or not Queensryche should call it a day, I would bet all I own that the ruling answer would be Yes, or at least no with a big clause. If you constructed that poll for Maiden you would see nearly poplar opposites.

I'm not saying a band should not exist if they are incapable of producing their best album 20+ years into their career - not everyone can be Saxon. But if they are incapable of producing an album even somewhat on par with their output from 15 years ago and prior, in the eyes of the vast majority of their fans, I do believe they are somewhat wasting their time. Reunion Maiden albums aren't my favorite records (though Brave New World is up there), but I am still genuinely interested in them, love listening to them, think they include many great songs, love seeing them on tour, and I think they are nowhere near the worst albums they've ever done. You'd be hard pressed to find Queensryche fans who hold that opinion of their 1995-present output. And yes, I realize you're one of them, but how many others do you know? Exactly.

And I disagree that Maiden hasn't evolved since 1982, to argue every Maiden album is exactly the same would actually be wrong. But I do believe they've mostly stuck to the same "mission statement" throughout their career, and that's why I think people stick by them like they do.
I don't care if I'm allowing nostalgia/brand loyalty to effect my opinion. I hate experimentation for the sake of experimentation, and originality for the sake of originality. I hate music elitists who act like there's a crime in a band sticking to one basic style/sound. Not all evolving is bad, in fact most bands wind up evolving at some point in their career in order to make their best music - but abrupt and extreme style change, such that a band can't even be considered the same genre - count me out.

I think naturally you're going to find more agreement on Iron Maiden, because there's just more Iron Maiden fans. I met this girl once who actually knew of Queensryche, and I was, frankly shocked. And when I said they were, you know, one of my favorite bands her response was that she knew a few people that liked/knew of Queensryche, but never heard of anybody that would call them a favorite. I think that's just how it is. Queensryche has never elicited the loyalty that Iron Maiden does.

I mean, in terms of people I know in real life, I have three friends that go to Queensryche concerts with me. They're the only people I know that listen to ANY Queensryche. And all of them basically share my opinion. I realize we're a minority, but still. My main point is: I know three people. As for Iron Maiden? Shit, I see people like once a week walking into Wal-Mart, down the street, etc. in an Iron Maiden shirt. There's just a bigger sample size for Iron Maiden when it comes to polling. (And for the record, all three of us are Iron Maiden fans too.)

And your last point is where we'll just have to agree to disagree. As a musician I can't even wrap my mind around your point, because as a kid I learned classical music on the piano, goofy school tunes on the sax, and taught myself Black Sabbath on the guitar. Today, when I write music, I have all that background, plus my lifetime of listening to music, swirling around in my mind. When I write: It's all there. It's not "metal time" or "soft piano song" time... it's just... music.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 11:17 AM
For me, song formula is the core. Sure it's stagnating now, but it hasn't been stagnating since the Number of the Beast.

I think Iron Maiden was a little more experimental in the 80s with song formulas, but I think since Fear of the Dark they've expressed a lack of willingness to do much experimenting or exploring (I mean how many songs use the "Fear of the Dark" formula now?) And I say that as someone who enjoys both Dance of Death and Brave New World.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 11:23 AM
:tp:

I think you're trying to turn this into something bigger than it is.

I'm not saying the majority is always right, but at the end of the day - it rules. If you read 20 reviews of an album, 18 saying it sucks and 2 saying it's amazing, be fucking honest, which one are you going to figure is more close to the truth?

I think you're honestly being kind of an elitist about this whole thing, when in reality it's simply just a massive clash of opinions - and since you're in the minority, you're reaching for defensive mechanisms. I'm not any more right than you are, but this is something I feel VERY strongly about (my thoughts on Queensryche, that is), you're not going to change my mind - and I'm clearly not going to change yours.

It's a trick question, because my point still stands: If everybody on Amazon says The Number of the Beast is a terrible album, that doesn't mean it is. I treat reviews for what they are: People's opinions I might agree with - or not.

I'm not sure how I'm being elitist. I'm making the argument that bands should do what they need to do, and whether that's change their sound, or keep it exactly the same, or any deviation thereof - I don't care. If it's good, I'm there, if not, fuck it. You're saying the same thing but with a twist, you're already outlining how things could be better: By not experimenting, by sticking closer to what drew you in in the first place. And that's fine, you're entitled to like what you like, but honestly, if anything's elitist I think it's wanting to get things boxed in.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 11:24 AM
As a musician I can't even wrap my mind around your point, because as a kid I learned classical music on the piano, goofy school tunes on the sax, and taught myself Black Sabbath on the guitar. Today, when I write music, I have all that background, plus my lifetime of listening to music, swirling around in my mind. When I write: It's all there. It's not "metal time" or "soft piano song" time... it's just... music.

Jeez, elitist much? You know I too can and do play music that's not metal? I was in jazz band in school, I do lots of acoustic gigs, write my own stuff on piano and acoustic guitar, have taken 2 or 3 years of music theory classes, etc. Just because I'm defending the viewpoint of sticking to what you're known for and loved for, doesn't mean I'm some close-minded short-sighted wannabe musician.

And I agree that obviously Maiden is about 10x more popular than Queensryche, but that's why I used percentages and not numbers of people. My point in that department still stands.

By the way, I'd like to thank everyone for making this probably the most civil, well-behaved argument we've had on here in a long time.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 11:25 AM
I think Iron Maiden was a little more experimental in the 80s with song formulas, but I think since Fear of the Dark they've expressed a lack of willingness to do much experimenting or exploring (I mean how many songs use the "Fear of the Dark" formula now?) And I say that as someone who enjoys both Dance of Death and Brave New World.

I'd say that's the "X Factor" formula. I think that's honestly where they moved into the general sound they're still in today.

SomewhereInTime72
03-11-2010, 11:25 AM
I'm not saying the majority is always right, but at the end of the day - it rules. If you read 20 reviews of an album, 18 saying it sucks and 2 saying it's amazing, be fucking honest, which one are you going to figure is more close to the truth?


Definitely whichever ones are the more well written and explain their opinion most clearly and thoroughly. ;) :tongue:

JRA
03-11-2010, 11:26 AM
Definitely whichever ones are the more well written and explain their opinion most clearly and thoroughly. ;) :tongue:


lol and if 1 of 2 guys sayin it rulz is ultraboris. amirite!!?

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 11:27 AM
Jeez, elitist much? You know I too can and do play music that's not metal? I was in jazz band in school, I do lots of acoustic gigs, write my own stuff on piano and acoustic guitar, have taken 2 or 3 years of music theory classes, etc. Just because I'm defending the viewpoint of sticking to what you're known for and loved for, doesn't mean I'm some close-minded short-sighted wannabe musician.

And I agree that obviously Maiden is about 10x more popular than Queensryche, but that's why I used percentages and not numbers of people. My point in that department still stands.

By the way, I'd like to thank everyone for making this probably the most civil, well-behaved argument we've had on here in a long time.

If you want to call me an elitist to prove your point, I hope it's because that's the best you've got. My point is this: Musicians rarely come from a single background, so why should their output fit a single genre? I can only speak for myself, but I when I sit down and write, I don't think genres, I just think music. But your argument seems to be that that's all well and good... unless you're a band.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 11:31 AM
If you want to call me an elitist to prove your point, I hope it's because that's the best you've got. My point is this: Musicians rarely come from a single background, so why should their output fit a single genre? I can only speak for myself, but I when I sit down and write, I don't think genres, I just think music. But your argument seems to be that that's all well and good... unless you're a band.

You're missing the point.

You can incorporate whatever the hell you want into the music you make, and in many cases really make it work. If Queensryche had been a band that started from the early days with tons of outside influences, with ANY hint of what they became, people wouldn't care like they do. It's one thing (and a totally acceptable thing) to be eclectic. It's something else entirely to have one sound, then turn around and completely change it.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 11:33 AM
You're missing the point.

You can incorporate whatever the hell you want into the music you make, and in many cases really make it work. If Queensryche had been a band that started from the early days with tons of outside influences, with ANY hint of what they became, people wouldn't care like they do. It's one thing (and a totally acceptable thing) to be eclectic. It's something else entirely to have one sound, then turn around and completely change it.

Why is that even a difference though? It's so arbitrary. I mean, let me show you how arbitrary it is: Maybe we can make a rule. By your 3rd album, if you haven't moved much past the sound of your first, we'll hereby decree that that's your appointed genre. Or maybe the 4th album. Or 2nd. Or maybe you have to have at least one song on an album outside of the main genre to qualify for multi-genre status down the road.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 11:35 AM
Why is that even a difference though? It's so arbitrary. I mean, let me show you how arbitrary it is: Maybe we can make a rule. By your 3rd album, if you haven't moved much past the sound of your first, we'll hereby decree that that's your appointed genre. Or maybe the 4th album. Or 2nd. Or maybe you have to have at least one song on an album outside of the main genre to qualify for multi-genre status down the road.

Jesus christ.

Alright - you win. Queensryche are amazing, and everything they've ever done, no matter how much it sucks - rules, and is defendable from an artistic standpoint.

I just don't care enough to argue about this anymore, and you're clearly just completely unwilling to see where I'm coming frm.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 11:37 AM
Jesus christ.

Alright - you win. Queensryche are amazing, and everything they've ever done, no matter how much it sucks - rules, and is defendable from an artistic standpoint.

I just don't care enough to argue about this anymore, and you're clearly just completely unwilling to see where I'm coming frm.

No man, you're missing the point. I don't want you to say Queensryche is amazing. They're not amazing. They're just a god damn band.

I'm asking you why the fuck it's a difference? If you start all wacky crazy experimental how is it different than becoming it? Because you would've ignored it first? Is that the difference? I'm honestly curious. You're the one that is making the case for how music should be, and I want to know why. If it's easier to write me off as an elitist that's trying to make you love Queensryche than fine, but that wasn't my goal, and it doesn't answer my genuine questions here.

ravenheart
03-11-2010, 11:45 AM
When you show me one person who genuinely likes/loves the majority of Queensryche's post-Promised land output, we'll talk.

Me.

I don't think I've ever seen another band who is so universally disliked after a certain point in their career.

Metallica post-Metallica? Ozzy post-No More Tears? For quite some time Iron Maiden post-Seventh Son of A Seventh Son until the reunion with Bruce.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 11:48 AM
No man, you're missing the point. I don't want you to say Queensryche is amazing. They're not amazing. They're just a god damn band.

I'm asking you why the fuck it's a difference? If you start all wacky crazy experimental how is it different than becoming it? Because you would've ignored it first? Is that the difference? I'm honestly curious. You're the one that is making the case for how music should be, and I want to know why. If it's easier to write me off as an elitist that's trying to make you love Queensryche than fine, but that wasn't my goal, and it doesn't answer my genuine questions here.

Alright, I thought I already explained this, but I guess I'm gonna try again. This is the last time. To be honest this is so easy for me to understand that it's destroying my common sense to try to explain this - because it just... is - for me.

There is a huge difference between a band that starts out as one style, and then merely becomes a more experimental, eclectic version of that same style. In many cases I find this completely acceptable. For instance, take my one huge musical fanboyism - love of Tobias Sammet (Edguy/Avantasia). Started out as just plain power metal, but as of late, via Avantasia have started to incorporate more bombastic, orchestral elements with 80s arena rock bombast, as well as sense of humor. It's different, it's more experimental, but I think it's still sticking to the same general formula, merely an elaboration. I find this completely acceptable in theory.
What I'm speaking out against is bands who forge one style, and become known for it, and then turn around and do something completely different. It's not experimental, it's just a black-and-white style change. Queensryche's newer stuff isn't any more eclectic or experimental than the music they made in the 80s - it's not. It's just different. And that's my point. There is a BIG difference between slight evolution/adding outside influences into a band's sound (or as I mentioned in my previous post, being eclectic and diverse from the beginning), and just switching from one general, definable style to another one.

That's my best shot. If you can't understand what I'm saying, there is no point in even continuing this conversation.

And, just to put the thought out of your mind - I'm not saying Case B is always "wrong", or it always sucks. There is an example or two out there that I genuinely like (*cough*FatesWarning*cough*). I'm merely saying there is a big difference, and Case B is far more prone to incite fan turmoil, dissenting opinion, and hatred of a band.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 11:51 AM
Me.



Metallica post-Metallica? Ozzy post-No More Tears? For quite some time Iron Maiden post-Seventh Son of A Seventh Son until the reunion with Bruce.

1) You always have the dissenting opinion, I am in no way surprised.

2) Fair enough. Doesn't force me to retract my statement, about Queensryche, I still believe they are in the top tier of that category, they merely share it with those other bands.

As I said, you can call me a fanboy all you want, but I believe Maiden are out of this category. If we were discussing this in 1998, sure - 100% valid point, but since this is 2010, I think Maiden has done the unlikely and managed to cast off that label.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 11:56 AM
Alright, I thought I already explained this, but I guess I'm gonna try again. This is the last time. To be honest this is so easy for me to understand that it's destroying my common sense to try to explain this - because it just... is - for me.

There is a huge difference between a band that starts out as one style, and then merely becomes a more experimental, eclectic version of that same style. In many cases I find this completely acceptable. For instance, take my one huge musical fanboyism - love of Tobias Sammet (Edguy/Avantasia). Started out as just plain power metal, but as of late, via Avantasia have started to incorporate more bombastic, orchestral elements with 80s arena rock bombast, as well as sense of humor. It's different, it's more experimental, but I think it's still sticking to the same general formula, merely an elaboration. I find this completely acceptable in theory.
What I'm speaking out against is bands who forge one style, and become known for it, and then turn around and do something completely different. It's not experimental, it's just a black-and-white style change. Queensryche's newer stuff isn't any more eclectic or experimental than the music they made in the 80s - it's not. It's just different. And that's my point. There is a BIG difference between slight evolution/adding outside influences into a band's sound (or as I mentioned in my previous post, being eclectic and diverse from the beginning), and just switching from one general, definable style to another one.

That's my best shot. If you can't understand what I'm saying, there is no point in even continuing this conversation.

And, just to put the thought out of your mind - I'm not saying Case B is always "wrong", or it always sucks. There is an example or two out there that I genuinely like (*cough*FatesWarning*cough*). I'm merely saying there is a big difference, and Case B is far more prone to incite fan turmoil, dissenting opinion, and hatred of a band.

Well, I completely agree with you, when you put it like that. :)

It just seemed to me like before now you were making the case that if a band starts as A, and later ends up B, then that's a no go, whereas if they start as a little bit A, and a little bit B, then, that's acceptable.

I just think it's tragic that especially with metal bands when bands do make a shift, people basically stop focusing on the music that's there, and instead on the music that's not.

ravenheart
03-11-2010, 01:02 PM
1) You always have the dissenting opinion, I am in no way surprised.

Yep, I have my own, and I love it. I wish more people could pull off the same stunt so I don't have to hear/read the same bullshit over and over.

As I said, you can call me a fanboy all you want, but I believe Maiden are out of this category. If we were discussing this in 1998, sure - 100% valid point, but since this is 2010, I think Maiden has done the unlikely and managed to cast off that label.

And who's to say any of those other bands won't pull off a similar revitalisation? Maiden are still in it. I do of course disagree with all three of my examples because none of those bands have made a single album I don't like, but they are widely disliked by the majority.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 01:47 PM
Yep, I have my own, and I love it. I wish more people could pull off the same stunt so I don't have to hear/read the same bullshit over and over.



And who's to say any of those other bands won't pull off a similar revitalisation? Maiden are still in it. I do of course disagree with all three of my examples because none of those bands have made a single album I don't like, but they are widely disliked by the majority.

You can say whatever you want, but I'm hardly "the norm" around here. To be honest I've never even heard half the bands most of the folk on here talk about most of the time anymore. In most arguments in singer vs. singer or era vs. era of a band, I'm often going to take the less-loved option. It's just that any time you seem to talk about a band I do genuinely like, we disagree more than agree.

I don't know. I guess anything's possible. But Maiden's slump was, at most, 12 years - Queensryche, Metallica, and post-No More Tears-Ozzy are on the verge of facing 20 years and counting in the eyes of most people. I'm not saying it's NEVER gonna happen, hell - Metallica came pretty close with Death Magnetic - if any of these bands has/will do it, it's them just because they're SO fucking popular. It's hard to say a band packing in arenas is in a slump. But I doubt any of them will ever produce another album that is truly great, or approaching the quality of their "classic" work in the eyes of the majority of fans and critics.

Div
03-11-2010, 05:01 PM
this thread should be renamed to "battle of the long-winded posts", holy shit.

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 05:02 PM
this thread should be renamed to "battle of the long-winded posts", holy shit.

Yeah, I know - it's such a bother when people have thoughts that can't be expressed and compressed in three sentences or less.

Div
03-11-2010, 05:13 PM
Yeah, I know - it's such a bother when people have thoughts that can't be expressed and compressed in three sentences or less.


but the majority of posts here are just paragraphs and paragraphs of each others opinions with no real argumentative basis.

also, when someone needs to post pages worth of rambling text to support a simple statement it makes it seem like theyre grasping for straws.

Sanitarium78
03-11-2010, 05:57 PM
but the majority of posts here are just paragraphs and paragraphs of each others opinions with no real argumentative basis.


Isn't that why people join message boards in the first place? To have a place to state their opinions on things, weather it be long winded or not. Not everything people post has to be argumentative. Sometimes they just have thoughts they need to get out, and once those thoughts start pouring out you can find it hard to stop right away.

I actually thought this ended up being a decent discussion just based on the fact that there were a few people defending Queensryche. You don't see that to often anymore.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 06:02 PM
Even if I accept all that, which I'm not prepared to, you say it like it's a bad thing. Frankly, if this career Maiden has pieced together is all based on one core sound, they couldn't have picked a better one.

Okay, I missed this earlier, so my apologies.

It's not a bad thing, I'm using it to highlight the difference in how bands are treated. I mean, it's kind of like this: Iron Maiden makes steak. You want great steak? Iron Maiden's not going to let you down. Oh sure, each time you come back the steak's a little bit different, but they haven't really changed the core product: It's just steak. If you like steak, you're going to keep coming back for it. Whenever you want a good steak, you know you can count on Iron Maiden.

A band like Queensryche, they're cooking up a variety of things. Maybe they got big doing steak, but now... it's a variety. And it might not appeal to everybody. So it's easy to say, "I love steak - they made good steak, now there's not steak." Or, "Now the steak isn't as good, because they're throwing x, y, or z on it." And that's fine. If you like steak, you might not like the other stuff. And that's fine.

But I'm really waiting to hear an argument about how Iron Maiden's approach to songwriting has changed over the last twenty years in any real way.

Again - it's not a bad thing, it just fits my argument earlier that it's easier to accept a mediocre Iron Maiden album, because if you like steak, you probably like mediocre steak better than, let's say, any type of sushi. So it's really easy to say Queensryche sucks, they should just quit, etc. because they haven't released a good album since whenever, while at the same time saying Iron Maiden should keep releasing albums - even though most people would say Iron Maiden's new albums are not as good as their albums from whenever, because even if they're not as good, it's still very close to the form of steak/music that caught your attention in the first place, so it's easier to accept.

(I realize how retarded this all sounds. :) But hopefully you get my idea here.)

DethMaiden
03-11-2010, 06:04 PM
Okay, I missed this earlier, so my apologies.

It's not a bad thing, I'm using it to highlight the difference in how bands are treated. I mean, it's kind of like this: Iron Maiden makes steak. You want great steak? Iron Maiden's not going to let you down. Oh sure, each time you come back the steak's a little bit different, but they haven't really changed the core product: It's just steak. If you like steak, you're going to keep coming back for it. Whenever you want a good steak, you know you can count on Iron Maiden.

A band like Queensryche, they're cooking up a variety of things. Maybe they got big doing steak, but now... it's a variety. And it might not appeal to everybody. So it's easy to say, "I love steak - they made good steak, now there's not steak." Or, "Now the steak isn't as good, because they're throwing x, y, or z on it." And that's fine. If you like steak, you might not like the other stuff. And that's fine.

But I'm really waiting to hear an argument about how Iron Maiden's approach to songwriting has changed over the last twenty years in any real way.

Again - it's not a bad thing, it just fits my argument earlier that it's easier to accept a mediocre Iron Maiden album, because if you like steak, you probably like mediocre steak better than, let's say, any type of sushi. So it's really easy to say Queensryche sucks, they should just quit, etc. because they haven't released a good album since whenever, while at the same time saying Iron Maiden should keep releasing albums - even though most people would say Iron Maiden's new albums are not as good as their albums from whenever, because even if they're not as good, it's still very close to the form of steak/music that caught your attention in the first place, so it's easier to accept.

(I realize how retarded this all sounds. :) But hopefully you get my idea here.)

You just mad because Maiden don't make cheesesteak. :tongue:

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 06:08 PM
You just mad because Maiden don't make cheesesteak. :tongue:

:lol:

I'm not a huge cheesesteak fan to be honest. :eyes:

And by the way, everything I've said here... Has been said while I'm plotting which Iron Maiden show to attend this summer ;)

SomewhereInTime72
03-11-2010, 07:03 PM
Damn, I could go for some medium-rare goodness right about now.

EvilCheeseWedge
03-11-2010, 08:03 PM
Damn, I could go for some medium-rare goodness right about now.

Yeah. I shouldn't write posts when I'm hungry. :ecw:

Maiden33
03-11-2010, 08:54 PM
But I'm really waiting to hear an argument about how Iron Maiden's approach to songwriting has changed over the last twenty years in any real way.

I really don't think I'm going to have this out, because I just don't care that much.

I think whether or not Maiden "changed their approach to songwriting" depends on how exactly broad-opinioned you are. Judging by everything else, I've seen here in this thread, you clearly are far more than I, so being that Maiden has never taken any HUGE jumps, it's probably very logical that you think they've never changed - because it's still in that one facet of music you listen to.

But I see it very differently. Being that I like a lot of different bands and subgenres that were very spawned by different individual periods of Maiden's career, and not a whole lot that has NOTHING to do with what Maiden are about (self-admittedly), in my eyes they have covered more musical ground.

For instance, I can cite Maiden influence by era. Sometimes I'll be listening to a band, and here some guitar lines and say: "Oh, that's Somewhere In Time/Seventh Son Maiden stuff", or "Damn, that's Powerslave right there". To me, every couple of albums Maiden entered slightly different territory. But really I think if you MUST break it down, there are two big jumps in their evolution. The first is between the sound of the DiAnno years and the true sound of the DiAnno years, which I'm actually willing to argue didn't occur until Piece of Mind, and in a sense, Number of the Beast is more like Killers than Piece of Mind - and the second is between Fear of the Dark, and The X Factor. I think stylistically they have no doubt been riding the same wave-length for 15 years now, but since The X Factor and Virtual XI are my two least favorite and not favorite records with that sound, I enjoy it more, because they didn't maximize the style, then just keep rehashing it in weaker forms.