Iron Maiden - The Book Of Souls

It's particularly puzzling with Rush who've even gone so far as to remix an entire album that was over a decade old at the time to address complaints about an overly-compressed mix. And, of course, the remix was brickwalled as hell too, so...

I'm just puzzled every time I hear an album that clearly has a lot of layers and detail rendered a muddy wash by production, mixing or mastering. Why go to all the trouble of laying stuff down nobody will ever hear?

S.D. wrote:

Well, one thing Iron Maiden and Rush have in common since 2000 is I'm not crazy about the production sound on any of the records from either band. I like the material enough to give it a pass, but I'd love to hear these bands with a recording that actually has some instrumental separation and dynamic range for a change. Especially since both bands have past discographies that feature those very things.

Well then you haven't listened to A Matter of Life and Death, because it sounds very live and not compressed at all. Not very dynamic obviously, since it wasn't mastered, but there is clear separation of instruments.

It's also my favourite Maiden album ever.

I have listened to it and I dislike Kevin Shirley's EQ choices and instrumental balance in the mix.  I ended up doing my own remaster of that album.

Whether it was mastered or not has absolutely nothing to do with dynamics (unless you squash the crap out of it in the mastering stage, which doesn't apply to this release). By contrast, Death Magnetic was already brick walled in the mixing stage...before it ever went to be mastered.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of long albums myself.

I like a nice lean record.

The worst was in the, I don't know, earliest 90s, when hip hop/rap records started making FULL use of the CD running time capabilities...so every album was a good 78 minutes long. So much fat that really, really needed to be trimmed.

I like long albums for the same reasons you said. The "fat" that needs to be trimmed can be done in a lot of different ways by the listener. No-one ever likes all the same songs.

If I have 30 minutes of time, and I have an album that's 40 minutes, I'll skip 2 tracks. That gives maybe a couple of choices as to what "version" of the album I wish to listen to. But if the album is 70 minutes, I can get a lot more variations.

As a music consumer, I don't understand complaints about long albums. The only people I can imagine would have a problem with them are professional critics who have to work more to listen to all the tracks. For me, every extra song is a plus. Better on the actual CD than hidden in some private studio archives, or as a b-side to a limited edition Japan single.

I always said, a SONG can be too long. An ALBUM can not.

Painkiller wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Why release a 27 second clip from a 90 minute album?

No matter the length, it will always generate lots of fanboy hype. It could be a studio clip of Bruce Dickinson attempting to do death growls, and they'd lose sleep over it.

i was thinking of him gurgling mouthwash but your point is well taken...

Lari wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of long albums myself.  

I like a nice lean record.

The worst was in the, I don't know, earliest 90s, when hip hop/rap records started making FULL use of the CD running time capabilities...so every album was a good 78 minutes long. So much fat that really, really needed to be trimmed.

I like long albums for the same reasons you said. The "fat" that needs to be trimmed can be done in a lot of different ways by the listener. No-one ever likes all the same songs.

If I have 30 minutes of time, and I have an album that's 40 minutes, I'll skip 2 tracks. That gives maybe a couple of choices as to what "version" of the album I wish to listen to. But if the album is 70 minutes, I can get a lot more variations.

As a music consumer, I don't understand complaints about long albums. The only people I can imagine would have a problem with them are professional critics who have to work more to listen to all the tracks. For me, every extra song is a plus. Better on the actual CD than hidden in some private studio archives, or as a b-side to a limited edition Japan single.

I always said, a SONG can be too long. An ALBUM can not.

I can see that point of view...certainly makes sense in that you can't add songs on your own to a 40-minute album but you can take away whatever you want from a 70-minute album.

But in my personal experience, the albums that just come shorter from the get go are more focused and punchy. I don't know. And most of the time when a regular length album is later reissued with bonus tracks or a bonus disc of stuff that was left on the cutting floor...I mean, the instances where I come across something that I truly felt should've been part of the proper album...well those occasions are rare. Often I end up just removing the bonus stuff from my iPod and just having the regular album.

There are exceptions of course. But at the end of the day, I've never refused purchasing or listening to an album I wanted because of length. It's just a personal preference. I will do the same stuff you mentioned, like making my own playlist with the stuff I do like (see Use Your Illusion threads).

I just read through six pages of chat about an album that isn't even out yet. Haha!

ultmetal wrote:

I just read through six pages of chat about an album that isn't even out yet. Haha!

Well, you know...anticipated albums tend to generate discussion, chatter, rumors, preconceptions, interest, hype, theories, speculations, hopes...all of that.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

I just read through six pages of chat about an album that isn't even out yet. Haha!

Well, you know...anticipated albums tend to generate discussion, chatter, rumors, preconceptions, interest, hype, theories, speculations, hopes...all of that.

Indeed. Like I said, I read it all.

Gotta say, I'm not expecting much. I haven't been thrilled with a Maiden album in some time. Why they now fancy themselves as a prog-rock band I do not know. I do know that Steve Harris has long been a fan of prog bands, and they have even covered a few classic prog songs such as King of Twilight by Nektar. Still, Maiden is (or was) the definition of heavy metal, so when I want to hear prog, they are not the band I tend to think of or go to.

I don't think Iron Maiden fancies themselves as being anything but Iron Maiden.  Not a single member of the band has described themselves as prog rock, that's the fans trying to figure out some way to label their recent albums.  I think the band is just writing what they want to write.  Really, you compare their recent albums with other modern prog rock bands and there is very little similarity in style.  But you know, metal fans aren't happy unless they can label something....

S.D. wrote:

I don't think Iron Maiden fancies themselves as being anything but Iron Maiden.  Not a single member of the band has described themselves as prog rock, that's the fans trying to figure out some way to label their recent albums.  I think the band is just writing what they want to write.  Really, you compare their recent albums with other modern prog rock bands and there is very little similarity in style.  But you know, metal fans aren't happy unless they can label something....  

I don't compare them to modern prog bands, but you can definitely hear the prog-rock influences from the 70's.

You can hear some influences but I still wouldn't label them as Prog Rock. And really, the influences we're hearing on them now can be found throughout their career, especially in the extended instrumental sections of songs like To Tame A Land, Alexander The Great, Seventh Son, etc.

We had a poll on one of the progressive rock boards recently about Iron Maiden and most people still consider them to be a metal band. So at this point I think metal fans are calling them progressive rock and progressive rock fans are calling them metal.

I wouldn't label them as prog-rock either, when I hear that term, bands like Yes, Pink Floyd and Rush come to mind, and Iron Maiden sounds nothing like them. I'll admit I did not care for A Matter of Life and Death, I thought the songs on that album were too samey-sounding and boring for the most part, though their last album for me was an improvement.

I don't know why but I have a funny feeling that despite it's length, this record will be more metal and less prog influenced than previous albums. I don't know why I think this but I do.

Boris2008 wrote:

I don't know why but I have a funny feeling that despite it's length, this record will be more metal and less prog influenced than previous albums. I don't know why I think this but I do.

There is one guy that posts on a prog board that I frequent who said he's heard the entire album and he said it's actually both. It has some of the most straight ahead metal stuff they've done for awhile...and it has some of the most proggy stuff they've ever done. Whether he's actually heard it or just blowing smoke out his ass is unknown at this juncture.

I have all the Maiden albums from the debut up to Fear Of The Dark, a best of from 90 to 2010 and a few live albums. So far that is all I feel the need for at this time. I do like most of Brave New World and Final Frontier though.

http://classicrock.teamrock.com/reviews/2015-08-11/iron-maiden-the-book-of-souls-review

Can't wait for this!

Red Kitty wrote:

http://classicrock.teamrock.com/reviews/2015-08-11/iron-maiden-the-book-of-souls-review

Can't wait for this!

I started reading the review, then I said, "Eh, f**k this." I want to hear the album without someone else's opinion's tainting my thoughts.

Revisiting Maiden's past catalog over the past few weeks has really got me looking forward to this new album.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Red Kitty wrote:

http://classicrock.teamrock.com/reviews/2015-08-11/iron-maiden-the-book-of-souls-review

Can't wait for this!

I started reading the review, then I said, "Eh, f**k this." I want to hear the album without someone else's opinion's tainting my thoughts.

Revisiting Maiden's past catalog over the past few weeks has really got me looking forward to this new album.

I agree...same here.

First single from the album:

Good song, and the video is a lot of fun.

That sounds alright. And the video is cool.

Overall I like the song. The riffs are great, but the vocal melodies--especially the chorus--are pretty weak. Since the reunion I've consistently found Maiden's lead singles to be some of the weaker tracks on each respective album, though, so I'm still holding out for a killer record.

Fantastic track - I am REALLY looking forward to the whole album. Parts of the song has a 70's vibe (intro/riff), got the melody and chorus that sounds like it could have been on Piece of Mind. Sounds like both Dave and Adrian are playing Les Paul's on this track. Bruce sounds fantastic and age has not yet caught up with him, he does not sound like someone how has yet to discover his cancer.

The song is not bad but the production blows. Why the terrible plonking drum sound???