Metal Reviews

Agreed with Crash here.

They also compound the problem by not choosing all the best material from their newer albums (which I personally like, but don't love).

'You can make some of the people happy all the time, all of the people happy some of the time but you can't make all of the people happy all of the time.'

For real. Last time I saw The Wildhearts they just came out and said "we're going to play the whole of the new album back to back" and that got a more enthusiastic reaction from the crowd than any bigger band I've seen playing a classics set, and at the time I thought that said something quite special about the band. The question being is Maiden still a functioning, creative band or is it a nostalgia trip?

And I am saying that there is no reason why they can't be both.

Dream Theater know this perfectly. They still play a shit load of their new stuff, but it is rare that they don't play at least one song off of Images and Words. They balance it by trying to play at least one song off of each album and 2 or 3 songs from the new album. This is the PERFECT way to do a setlist. Not only that, but they make sure that every show is different than the last and according to area. So if you saw them play Pull Me Under and Metropolis on the last tour, you probably are going to get Under a Glass Moon and Surrounded next time.

Do Iron Maiden have to play EVERY classic? No. But to go an entire hour and a half without one song before the year 2000 is a little bit extreme. It is them saying, "We are NOT a greatest hits and you all are going to suffer for it."

Take the setlist, the same setlist, and change the play order:

The Wicker Man, Ghost of the Navigator, Iron Maiden, El Dorado, Some new song, Dance of Death, Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg, Fear of the Dark, These Colours Don’t Run, Blood Brothers, Wildest Dreams, No More Lies, Brave New World, Number of the Beast, Hallowed be Thy Name, Running Free.

I prefer this one, for sure.

Truth is an Iron Maiden concert IS a nostalgia trip for at least two thirds of the audience. I know when I saw they were playing the entirety of AMOLAD on their tour, I chose not to go. I'm okay with them supporting their newer stuff (and by newer I mean post Dickinson's departure) but the classics should be a minimum of half the tracklist to interest me. That doesn't mean the band cannot surprise us by playing songs they have rarely played live like Prodigal Son, To Tame a Land or The Duellists...

I'm just happy that Steve Harris doesn't solicit an outside opinion for how to run his band. I think over the past 30+ years he's demonstrated that he has sound judgment. I hope they play 'The Final Frontier' in it's entirety on the next tour so this whinefest may continue.

IMO the material they've produced since 2000 has been the strongest of their career and I most certainly am grateful that they've taken new musical directions. Eternal Idol's post sums up the nostagia topic very well. A band must stay fresh and try new ideas otherwise they become a caricature of themselves. I don't want Iron Maiden to become Poison. A band that tours every summer and just plays songs from 'the good 'ole days'.

I respect your opinion, but can't fathom that assessment.



Poison isn't putting out new albums consistently. Maiden IS. That's how they're staying fresh. That's how they're showcasing their creativity. And that's why the two are not comparable. Maiden can feature their huge songs, and also sprinkle in the new stuff. Very simple. And that's the ratio that works for me, as a long-time fan. When Maiden puts out a new album, I buy it on the first day. But when I go to a live Maiden show, I want to see the classics. I have no problem with them changing them up a bit....but I'm not there to see a brand new album in its ENTIRETY (or close to it). It's not going to be as compelling, live, for me to see that, versus music from their genre-defining creative peak.

Hey, if you want to see the entirety of Final Frontier on the next tour, minus anything from Iron Maiden, NOTB, Piece of Month, Somewhere in Time, SSOASS or FOTD, all the power to you. I'll be at the show too - but I sure won't like it as much.



Who said anything about not liking the new stuff? I'm simply saying I don't want to see all (or mostly) new songs LIVE. The critique of who is and who isn't a true fan is ridiculous and generalizing. I'll tell you what a true fan is in my opinion - supporting the band by buying everything they put out - AND not getting "sick" of their classics. I'm NOT sick of Run to the Hills. I've heard it a 1000 times, but still love hearing it live. If you can actually utter the words "I don't ever want to hear that song ever again", I'd say YOU'RE not a true fan.

I agree completely.

A 30 plus year MEANS automatic nostalgia. And that's not a bad thing. That's something good - that they've EARNED. What they are NOT is some new, hot, up-and-coming band with nothing else to play besides their entire new album. That does their past an injustice. Surprises from the archives, are welcome too.

If you happen to love their new album, and aren't in love with their past material (or are "sick of it'), then, of course, you won't agree. But I would think the predomination of the fans seeing Maiden live have - at the very least - an appreciation for their long, fruitful career...and would enjoy seeing those songs that helped define it. (In some combination.)

Fair enough- nothing wrong with being a nostalgia band, I guess. Though, it makes me wonder why we bother listening to their new stuff

Because we love the band and want to listen to what they're doing in the silly hope that it could be as good as what they've produced in their young years.
I know that's why I buy each and every album Iron Maiden releases and though I find their newer stuff to be okay I'm still a little disappointed with it. But I'll keep buying it just like I do with Metallica, Judas Priest, etc.

So basically they're washed up old men who should stop recording and just tour playing stuff from their first fifteen years?

Iron Maiden post 2000 > Iron Maiden Pre-2000

Iron Maiden 80s > Iron Maiden 00s > Iron Maiden 90s

Obviously depending on exactly what album we're talking about, but in general it works.

Hmm. I find it very hard to compare 80s Maiden to 00s Maiden. I love both, but they are surely different beasts. I'd have to say:

80s = 00s > 90s.

True enough, but I'd say Seventh Son easily beats Brave New World, if we're taking the best examples. Eh, each to their own.

That. At least, imo.

It's not what I said but, while still a good band, they cleary are not at the peak of their game.

And =
Iron Maiden with DiAnno>Iron Maiden with Bruce 82/92>Iron Maiden with Bruce 2000/2006>Iron Maiden with Blaze.

+1 i dont have a problem with the setlist but the order is kinda wrong.