Metal Reviews :: View topic - Bruce Dickinson

1985 for sure. What you don't take in account is that on the LAD DVD they filmed the last show from that MONSTER tour, and it's clear that Bruce was worn out. And it was a 4 nights in a row, sold out event. But even so you can hear the POWER in his voice, and the flexibility. Listen to the end of HbtN and compare it with Gothenburg 2005.He had more range AND power The same goes for Revelations, Flight Of Icarus, Powerslave, Rotam. It's clear that he struggles, but it's the fatigue ... Again in '88, Maiden England, he had the flu or something AND again it's late in the touring schedule. So... it's true that 85-88 weren't good years for him (some bootlegs from Somewhere On Tour sound horrifying), but they toured every year extensively, and he didn't know how to preserve his voice like nowadays. That's why he sounds "better" now than then, but surely he had a better voice 20 years ago. Take the albums for example: SiT and SSoaSS and compare them with ...everything else from 1990 - 2008, mostly his vocal low-point AMOLAD (it's like they didn't "produce" his voice,no "studio trickery", call it want you want but it sounds...well, old and BAD.) Listen to him in 1982 (Hammersmith)... first tour... he owned! But for his age he still has a good and powerful voice, especially live. I'll be seeing them in Prague 08.08.08 and I'll let you know

:):)

Bruce's 88 XD... In the 7th son's tour.

Well, bruce had better voice in 85 than now. That's a fact. But as years pass, a good singer learn how to do more things with his voice, and how to adapt the way of singing to the changes in his voice. And Bruce is not a good singer, it's a great one. That's the reason he can sing so incredible being almost 50 years old.

This is what I've been talking about:

Run To The Hills Live 1982 (Hammersmith)

Run To The Hills Live 1983 (Dortmund)

Run To The Hills Live 1985 (Live After Death)

Run To The Hills Live 2001 (Rock In Rio III)

Run To The Hills Live 2003 (Rock Am Ring)

Run To The Hills Live 2005 (Ullevi)

Check out the chorus, specially the "Run for you lives" part. To me, the only occasions Bruce really nails it are 2001, 2003 and 2005. Hammersmith version is GREAT overall, but even in 1982 Bruce avoided going that high in the chorus ...

[/url]

Y think that Bruce is still kicking ass :dio:

y just saw him last Wednesday and he nail haven cant wait , cant y play whit madness and moonchild perfectly better that the cd versions

ODIN wrote:

Y think that Bruce is still kicking ass :dio:

y just saw him last Wednesday and he nail haven cant wait , cant y play whit madness and moonchild perfectly better that the cd versions

(Scratching my head).... I didn't understand a thing you just said ...

I cant see how as a 20 something metal vox . youre vocal would sound better in there 50's ....

Could it have something to do with when youre in your 20's , your going out every night , drinking and partying till the wee hours and as you mature you change your habits and take better care of yourself.....

Just my 2 baht's worth...

Author:	Pasqua [ Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Bruce Dickinson - 1985 vs. 2008
Last Sunday I was in Iron Maiden's concert and got amazed at how well Bruce Dickinson is singing. So my friends and I began discussing if Bruce sounds better nowadays than 20 years ago. IMHO, Bruce 2008 kicks Bruce 1985 ass. Just watch Aces High in Live After Death (1985) and this tour's version of Aces High....

Author:	Thomas [ Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:
I actually agree with you.. But, we should take into consideration that the production was slimmer then and we didn't have the same equipment and such. Bruce is still top notch, which is an awesome achievment.

Author:	FlickoftheSwitch [ Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:
That's really a tough one. Theoretically, there is no way Bruce's voice can be "better" than it was 23 years ago. However, there are other factors. The tremor of his voice has deepened. And it gives it more of a commanding presence, in my opinion. I still think the power was greater during Live after Death, but I like the sound quality & tone of his voice a bit more now. But it's like picking between incredible and spectacular. A win win.

Author:	Tompa [ Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Ugh. You only need to listen to A Matter of Life and Death to hear that his voice isn't that great anymore. His high notes just sound so nasal and thin. However his voice is in better shape than most other singers his age. But yeah, he was alot better 20 years ago IMO.

Author:	Trooper Of Steel [ Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:46 am ]
Post subject:
Hmmm Tough choice, but i think the '85 Bruce has it. I was at Maiden in Feb and i noticed that he did struggle at times and sometimes i couldnt hear him properly cos he didnt have the microphone right next to his mouth. That was kinda annoying. Despite that, Bruce still has a fantastic voice, but you can hear a few glitches here and there now

Metal Reviews https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/

Bruce Dickinson - 1985 vs. 2008 https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10931	Page 1 of 2

Author:	ganeshaRules [ Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:13 am ]
Post subject:
Bruce's 88 XD... In the 7th son's tour. Well, bruce had better voice in 85 than now. That's a fact. But as years pass, a good singer learn how to do more things with his voice, and how to adapt the way of singing to the changes in his voice. And Bruce is not a good singer, it's a great one. That's the reason he can sing so incredible being almost 50 years old.

Author:	Thy Serpent [ Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:
'85 Bruce, definitely. He sounded more energetic. It was apparent that his vocals took a dip in AMOLAD. He's still amazing though.

Author:	dreaming_h [ Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:38 pm ]
Post subject:
1985 for sure. What you don't take in account is that on the LAD DVD they filmed the last show from that MONSTER tour, and it's clear that Bruce was worn out. And it was a 4 nights in a row, sold out event. But even so you can hear the POWER in his voice, and the flexibility. Listen to the end of HbtN and compare it with Gothenburg 2005.He had more range AND power The same goes for Revelations, Flight Of Icarus, Powerslave, Rotam. It's clear that he struggles, but it's the fatigue ... Again in '88, Maiden England, he had the flu or something AND again it's late in the touring schedule. So... it's true that 85-88 weren't good years for him (some bootlegs from Somewhere On Tour sound horrifying), but they toured every year extensively, and he didn't know how to preserve his voice like nowadays. That's why he sounds "better" now than then, but surely he had a better voice 20 years ago. Take the albums for example: SiT and SSoaSS and compare them with ...everything else from 1990 - 2008, mostly his vocal low-point AMOLAD (it's like they didn't "produce" his voice,no "studio trickery", call it want you want but it sounds...well, old and BAD.) Listen to him in 1982 (Hammersmith)... first tour... he owned! But for his age he still has a good and powerful voice, especially live. I'll be seeing them in Prague 08.08.08 and I'll let you know :):)

Author:	Pasqua [ Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:
dreaming_h wrote: 1985 for sure. What you don't take in account is that on the LAD DVD they filmed the last show from that MONSTER tour, and it's clear that Bruce was worn out. And it was a 4 nights in a row, sold out event. But even so you can hear the POWER in his voice, and the flexibility. Listen to the end of HbtN and compare it with Gothenburg 2005.He had more range AND power The same goes for Revelations, Flight Of Icarus, Powerslave, Rotam. It's clear that he struggles, but it's the fatigue ... Again in '88, Maiden England, he had the flu or something AND again it's late in the touring schedule. So... it's true that 85-88 weren't good years for him (some bootlegs from Somewhere On Tour sound horrifying), but they toured every year extensively, and he didn't know how to preserve his voice like nowadays. That's why he sounds "better" now than then, but surely he had a better voice 20 years ago. Take the albums for example: SiT and SSoaSS and compare them with ...everything else from 1990 - 2008, mostly his vocal low-point AMOLAD (it's like they didn't "produce" his voice,no "studio trickery", call it want you want but it sounds...well, old and BAD.) Listen to him in 1982 (Hammersmith)... first tour... he owned! But for his age he still has a good and powerful voice, especially live. I'll be seeing them in Prague 08.08.08 and I'll let you know :):) Well, that's what I'm saying. I think he sounds better LIVE than '85 simply because : 1 - They don't tour as much 2 - He evolved as a singer and learned how to save his voice I watched several bootlegs from the 80s, and in those times he wouldnt sing Run To The Hills chrous hitting the high notes. Now, he sings it way better. Same thing goes for Aces High. And to the people mentioning his performance on AMOLAD ... I was talking about his LIVE performace. OF COURSE he sounds better in 80s studio albums than now. But I really believe that his best LIVE performances are Death On The Road, and Rock In Rio 3.

Author:	The_Voice [ Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:
ganeshaRules wrote: Bruce's 88 XD... In the 7th son's tour. Well, bruce had better voice in 85 than now. That's a fact. But as years pass, a good singer learn how to do more things with his voice, and how to adapt the way of singing to the changes in his voice. And Bruce is not a good singer, it's a great one. That's the reason he can sing so incredible being almost 50 years old. Exactly.

Author:	Caligula_K [ Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:
85 Bruce without question. Right now, his voice is far too nasally; obviously he's still a very good singer, but nothing irritates me more than an extremely nasally voice (Michael Kiske, I'm looking at you).

Author:	Pasqua [ Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:44 am ]
Post subject:
This is what I've been talking about: Run To The Hills Live 1982 (Hammersmith) Run To The Hills Live 1983 (Dortmund) Run To The Hills Live 1985 (Live After Death) Run To The Hills Live 2001 (Rock In Rio III) Run To The Hills Live 2003 (Rock Am Ring) Run To The Hills Live 2005 (Ullevi) Check out the chorus, specially the "Run for you lives" part. To me, the only occasions Bruce really nails it are 2001, 2003 and 2005. Hammersmith version is GREAT overall, but even in 1982 Bruce avoided going that high in the chorus ... [/url]

Author:	FlickoftheSwitch [ Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:23 am ]
Post subject:
Pasqua wrote: This is what I've been talking about: Run To The Hills Live 1982 (Hammersmith) Run To The Hills Live 1983 (Dortmund) Run To The Hills Live 1985 (Live After Death) Run To The Hills Live 2001 (Rock In Rio III) Run To The Hills Live 2003 (Rock Am Ring) Run To The Hills Live 2005 (Ullevi) Check out the chorus, specially the "Run for you lives" part. To me, the only occasions Bruce really nails it are 2001, 2003 and 2005. Hammersmith version is GREAT overall, but even in 1982 Bruce avoided going that high in the chorus ... [/url] I must say, this is a very, very interesting study you've presented. No doubt about it - he realy goes for it in the more recent shows. And while he doesn't hit that "run for your lives" perfect -- though Ullevi is DAMN impressive -- he still really goes after it. Whereas, in the early days, he completely avoids it. So why did avoid it early on? To save his voice? Because he'd burnt it out on the tour? Because he didn't know how to take care of and preserve his voice as well throughout the tour as he does now? Would love to hear him interviewed about this. Would be very interesting.

Author:	ODIN [ Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:01 am ]
Post subject:
Y think that Bruce is still kicking ass y just saw him last Wednesday and he nail haven cant wait , cant y play whit madness and moonchild perfectly better that the cd versions

Author:	derncare [ Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:56 am ]
Post subject:
Checking out those samples really helps. I think it comes down to experience and maturity. He might not be able to get as high as he used to overall, but he has the tools now to extend himself to whatever his current limits are on a night-to-night basis. In his youth, I'm guessing that it was a comnination of confidence and the fact that young singers have a tendency to spend at least as much time "enjoying" life on the road as they do warming up, etc. Bruce is now a middle-aged consumate professional who probably concentrates on keeping his voice at its best consistantly. Granted, Iron Maiden never partied on the same level as many other 80s rock stars, and Bruce was always somewhat of an athlete, but young people still do what they do.

Author:	Metalhead_Bastard [ Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Vote nowadays because I've seen the guy twice and he pwned all. Back in the day however he was harshly inconsistent-I read the band's autobiography and there's extensive sections about Bruce's inadequecies early on as a vocalist. I know I can't spell.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC + 1 hour
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	flying_guitars [ Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:53 am ]
Post subject:
ODIN wrote: Y think that Bruce is still kicking ass y just saw him last Wednesday and he nail haven cant wait , cant y play whit madness and moonchild perfectly better that the cd versions (Scratching my head).... I didn't understand a thing you just said ... I cant see how as a 20 something metal vox . youre vocal would sound better in there 50's .... Could it have something to do with when youre in your 20's , your going out every night , drinking and partying till the wee hours and as you mature you change your habits and take better care of yourself..... Just my 2 baht's worth...

Author:	Pasqua [ Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:
flying_guitars wrote: ODIN wrote: Y think that Bruce is still kicking ass y just saw him last Wednesday and he nail haven cant wait , cant y play whit madness and moonchild perfectly better that the cd versions (Scratching my head).... I didn't understand a thing you just said ... I cant see how as a 20 something metal vox . youre vocal would sound better in there 50's .... Could it have something to do with when youre in your 20's , your going out every night , drinking and partying till the wee hours and as you mature you change your habits and take better care of yourself..... Just my 2 baht's worth... I think its the number of shows. I was watching the Live After Death documentary, and they said it was common to have like 4 shows in a row and Bruce of course was the most affected by this. Some nights he felt really ill and almost couldnt sing. Now, they take their time, they dont have to promote themselves by playing 300 shows per year. And thats why I believe hearing Bruce live now, is a better experience then hearing him live in the middle 80s.

Author:	Thomas [ Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:
Pasqua wrote: This is what I've been talking about: Run To The Hills Live 1982 (Hammersmith) Run To The Hills Live 1983 (Dortmund) Run To The Hills Live 1985 (Live After Death) Run To The Hills Live 2001 (Rock In Rio III) Run To The Hills Live 2003 (Rock Am Ring) Run To The Hills Live 2005 (Ullevi) Check out the chorus, specially the "Run for you lives" part. To me, the only occasions Bruce really nails it are 2001, 2003 and 2005. Hammersmith version is GREAT overall, but even in 1982 Bruce avoided going that high in the chorus ... [/url] I noticed just the same thing while watching Rock In Rio a couple of yeard ago. He still does it including when I saw them live last year.

Author:	Pasqua [ Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:34 am ]
Post subject:
ACES HIGH 2008 Incredible. I couldnt find any performance from the 80s that matched this.[/url]