I must say that at first I didn't like the album very much. But I must say that I like it more and more as I listen to it again and again. I had a similar feeling with their previous album which I didn't like at first and now I love it. The only exception so far is Isle of Avalon - I really cant convince myself to like that song. The Final Frontier as a whole may not be as powerful as some older Iron Maiden pieces since the songs are quite long and rather slow, but I believe that to be a feature and not a bug.

Written by RavenKing on 18.08.2010 at 14:27

Written by HallowedBeMyName on 18.08.2010 at 05:44

Written by Guest on 17.08.2010 at 22:16

Seriously the most overrated band EVER

Yeah they are SO overrated, that's why you hear them ALL over the radio and you hear them hyped up on MTV all of the time....Get a life troll

You can see lots of their videos on mainstream music channels here and you very often hear Maiden songs on 'mainstream metal special' radio broadcasts.

As for "Seriously the most overrated band EVER", I would not have told that in the 80s but it's definitely the case since Dickinson's comeback. Also, I believe lots of fanboys are frustrated by the piss poor quality of the new album (something they will never admit, of course) and can't find any solid argument to defend the material, so all they do is flaming those who dislike it.

And being overrated on the metal scene has very little to do with radio or TV. It has to do with getting way too much recognition by releasing shitty material, something Maiden specialized themselves at during the last decade.

Even now they aren't "overrated'. Why don't you explain why you think their newer songs are not good? You just keep saying that "new songs are shit" "80's was good" really, what is the difference? Maiden haven't lost their 80's edge, at least not to my ears.

Written by HallowedBeMyName on 20.08.2010 at 04:16

Why don't you explain why you think their newer songs are not good? You just keep saying that "new songs are shit" "80's was good" really, what is the difference? Maiden haven't lost their 80's edge, at least not to my ears.

I will explain it politely. Let's hope you do the same in return. I don't mind if we agree or not, as long as the discussion remains on a reasonable level.

What I think is the songs since Bruce's comeback lack the sharper edge Maiden had in the 80s, that they are in general slower, repetitive and way too long, so they drag. Some parts are way too soft for Maiden too. And most songs tend to sound alike, generic and uninspired. The old Maiden songs were often kinda complex and progressive but they were more 'straight to the point' and focused. Also, Bruce has lost much of the raw power he had in the 80s. Compare songs like "Powerslave" or "Moonchild" to any recent song and, imo, it's impossible to not see a difference in vocals. The new Maiden is more hard rock-ish and less metal. Also, guitars are less sharp and lower in the mix. They might use 3 guitars now but they could do with 2 guitars as well because they don't use them at their potential. The production makes their albums sound softer.
Another thing is on some songs and parts, Nicko's drumming is quite basic. His playing was generally more complex and varied in the 80s.

Put all this together and I think the new Maiden is more hard rock-ish, repetitive, uninspired and forgettable, imo. And I think they have no aggressivity and raw power left, exactly like Iced Earth on "The Crucible Of Man" (which, by the way, I consider worse than any Maiden album since the reunion).

There is surely a difference, because I still can listen to old Maiden without any problem (and that even if I moved to more extreme music long ago), while I find the new stuff utterly boring.

I hope it answers your question. Feel free to ask any precision or argue on some points. I'm not here to force my opinion through you or convince you of anything. As long as you're not harsh, I'm fine.
I would have explained it earlier but, to be honest, I don't really see the point in giving long explanations when I know in advance people won't even care for what I can write and will only reply by a bunch of insults, no matter what I'm saying.
Also, sorry but I have to say I have a hard time trusting you, considering the previous exchanges we had on this board. I can get over it and forget about it if you prove in the long run that you can be correct, no matter if our opinions are different.

Written by RavenKing on 20.08.2010 at 04:49

Written by HallowedBeMyName on 20.08.2010 at 04:16

Why don't you explain why you think their newer songs are not good? You just keep saying that "new songs are shit" "80's was good" really, what is the difference? Maiden haven't lost their 80's edge, at least not to my ears.

I will explain it politely. Let's hope you do the same in return. I don't mind if we agree or not, as long as the discussion remains on a reasonable level.

What I think is the songs since Bruce's comeback lack the sharper edge Maiden had in the 80s, that they are in general slower, repetitive and way too long, so they drag. Some parts are way too soft for Maiden too. And most songs tend to sound alike, generic and uninspired. The old Maiden songs were often kinda complex and progressive but they were more 'straight to the point' and focused. Also, Bruce has lost much of the raw power he had in the 80s. Compare songs like "Powerslave" or "Moonchild" to any recent song and, imo, it's impossible to not see a difference in vocals. The new Maiden is more hard rock-ish and less metal. Also, guitars are less sharp and lower in the mix. They might use 3 guitars now but they could do with 2 guitars as well because they don't use them at their potential. The production makes their albums sound softer.
Another thing is on some songs and parts, Nicko's drumming is quite basic. His playing was generally more complex and varied in the 80s.

Put all this together and I think the new Maiden is more hard rock-ish, repetitive, uninspired and forgettable, imo. And I think they have no aggressivity and raw power left, exactly like Iced Earth on "The Crucible Of Man" (which, by the way, I consider worse than any Maiden album since the reunion).

There is surely a difference, because I still can listen to old Maiden without any problem (and that even if I moved to more extreme music long ago), while I find the new stuff utterly boring.

I hope it answers your question. Feel free to ask any precision or argue on some points. I'm not here to force my opinion through you or convince you of anything. As long as you're not harsh, I'm fine.
I would have explained it earlier but, to be honest, I don't really see the point in giving long explanations when I know in advance people won't even care for what I can write and will only reply by a bunch of insults, no matter what I'm saying.
Also, sorry but I have to say I have a hard time trusting you, considering the previous exchanges we had on this board. I can get over it and forget about it if you prove in the long run that you can be correct, no matter if our opinions are different.

Thank you for being mature about the whole thing. I agree that Bruce's vocals aren't what they used to be, but they still aren't that bad. And I don't exactly see a problem with the three guitars, you said that they aren't being used to their full potential, that may be true in some cases, but wouldn't YOU specifically not mind it? If you think that it still sounds like two guitars, wouldn't that be more like a throwback and a reminder of the 80's Maiden? 80's Maiden tend to "drag on" in some cases too, like Seventh Son of a Seventh Son and Rime of the Ancient Mariner. New Maiden isn't really "soft", at least listen to Montsegur and Paschendale off of their 2003 album, Dance of Death, these songs get pretty heavy, lyrically and musically. Well, you said you moved on to more extreme music, so I guess it sounds soft to you, oh well. To each their own.

Written by HallowedBeMyName on 20.08.2010 at 06:36

Thank you for being mature about the whole thing. I agree that Bruce's vocals aren't what they used to be, but they still aren't that bad. And I don't exactly see a problem with the three guitars, you said that they aren't being used to their full potential, that may be true in some cases, but wouldn't YOU specifically not mind it? If you think that it still sounds like two guitars, wouldn't that be more like a throwback and a reminder of the 80's Maiden? 80's Maiden tend to "drag on" in some cases too, like Seventh Son of a Seventh Son and Rime of the Ancient Mariner. New Maiden isn't really "soft", at least listen to Montsegur and Paschendale off of their 2003 album, Dance of Death, these songs get pretty heavy, lyrically and musically. Well, you said you moved on to more extreme music, so I guess it sounds soft to you, oh well. To each their own.

About Bruce's vocals, I would say it depends on songs and even on parts of songs. Sometimes I find his vocals ok, sometimes they make me cringe. I started to have this problem with him on FOTD.
He definitely shows signs of aging, imo, (I know it is normal), just like Mille (Kreator) started to show on "Hordes Of Chaos".

The three guitar thingy is not really important. Only a detail. I think it comes down to my dislike of Gers and that I believe they should have fired him when Adrian came back. After all, the classic line-up I was used to didn't feature Gers. I think he's completely useless and I also dislike the way he looks on stage (his dancing annoys me).

"Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son" and "Rime Of The Ancient Mariner" are among my favorite Maiden songs. Sure, they are long but I don't have the feelling they drag. Matter of tastes, I guess.

Some songs are heavier, indeed. The two songs you mention are from DOD. I can't say I like this album but it's the one I dislike the least since their reunion. But, yeah, I'm so used to Black Metal and Thrash that Maiden tends to sound quite soft for me in comparison. I mean, even early Blind Guardian sounds a bit soft for me now (but only a bit and I still enjoy it).

And I wish to add that even if I don't enjoy post-2000 Maiden, I still consider this stuff quite superior to NPFTD, at least half of FOTD and the Blaze era (which I find utterly atrocious). It was a mistake to hire Blaze in Maiden and, if it weren't for Bruce's return, I'm sure we would not even talk of this band now because it would have died long ago.
(they were playing before audiences of 5000-6000 people back then and it decreased more and more as time went by)

Written by Guest on 17.08.2010 at 22:16

Seriously the most overrated band EVER

Personally, I think your very existance on this planet is overrated. However, if you REALLY want to see some overrated bands, just take a good look at your own shitty pofile. Those black, death, and "so called" melodic death bands you have listed are the most overrated bands in music history.

Ironic seeing as you have some of the same bands he has. And yours are even more overrated.

Written by Guest on 20.08.2010 at 16:31

Written by Guest on 17.08.2010 at 22:16

Seriously the most overrated band EVER

Personally, I think your very existance on this planet is overrated. However, if you REALLY want to see some overrated bands, just take a good look at your own shitty pofile. Those black, death, and "so called" melodic death bands you have listed are the most overrated bands in music history.

That's list that hasn't been updated in a while. And what about amon amarth and arch enemy in your profile? Aren't they like melodeth???? But oh yeah you're an american you can't respect other people's opinions and respond to them with an insult. Nice going COUNTRY NUMBER 11 ON NEWSWEEK lol

Quote:
But oh yeah you're an american you can't respect other people's opinions and respond to them with an insult. Nice going COUNTRY NUMBER 11 ON NEWSWEEK lol

Great, ad hominem attacks based on nationality. Next thing I know, someone's going to get compared to Hitler...

Written by Guest on 20.08.2010 at 16:31

Personally, I think your very existance on this planet is overrated. However, if you REALLY want to see some overrated bands, just take a good look at your own shitty pofile. Those black, death, and "so called" melodic death bands you have listed are the most overrated bands in music history.

The fact you don't like Black or Death Metal doesn't mean those genres are shitty.
I don't know, perhaps you're one of those people who believe every other metal genre apart from traditional Heavy Metal is not good. Some people seem simply unable to accept that metal changed, evolved and got more specialized with time.

Quote:
I don't know, perhaps you're one of those people who believe every other metal genre apart from traditional Heavy Metal is not good.

Take a look at his profile. You'll get your answer.

Written by RavenKing on 20.08.2010 at 16:49

Written by Guest on 20.08.2010 at 16:31

Personally, I think your very existance on this planet is overrated. However, if you REALLY want to see some overrated bands, just take a good look at your own shitty pofile. Those black, death, and "so called" melodic death bands you have listed are the most overrated bands in music history.

The fact you don't like Black or Death Metal doesn't mean those genres are shitty.
I don't know, perhaps you're one of those people who believe every other metal genre apart from traditional Heavy Metal is not good.

True .And maybe I should edit my profile to keep the fucker satisfied then...

Written by RobotPolarBear on 20.08.2010 at 16:53

Quote:
I don't know, perhaps you're one of those people who believe every other metal genre apart from traditional Heavy Metal is not good.

Take a look at his profile. You'll get your answer.

He seems much more into old bands but there are a few more recent ones too.

On a sidenote, I must say I'm a big Black Metal fan but there's very little Death Metal I like. I think there are many good DM bands, it's just that they don't appeal to my tastes.
And I think lots of people are overprotective when it comes to traditional Heavy Metal. Yes, there is good and great stuff in this genre but I believe some people simply stick to this stuff to death, to the point they're unable to see that there's lots of great stuff in other metal genres. There's some conservationism into play, imo.

Ditching the old stuff (something I'm guilty of at times) on the sole principle that it's old is not right but people who say that only this old stuff is good and everything made after is shit are wrong.

Well said. Liberal thinking is they key in everything

Written by vezzy on 20.08.2010 at 16:40

Ironic seeing as you have some of the same bands he has. And yours are even more overrated.

Yes the list was outdated.

Written by RobotPolarBear on 20.08.2010 at 16:47

Quote:
But oh yeah you're an american you can't respect other people's opinions and respond to them with an insult. Nice going COUNTRY NUMBER 11 ON NEWSWEEK lol

Great, ad hominem attacks based on nationality. Next thing I know, someone's going to get compared to Hitler...

A hyperbole went a bit too far in my opinion.

I really don't understand where these bad reviews are coming from, sure it's no Powerslave or Brave New World. but it's the best they have released in a while... Especially after dance of death.

We talk a lot about the golden age of Iron Maiden, but here's the worst record of them: "Killers" .

Written by Vikcen on 20.08.2010 at 18:48

We talk a lot about the golden age of Iron Maiden, but here's the worst record of them: "Killers" .

thta's your opinion; don't make sound like a fact.

Written by Vikcen on 20.08.2010 at 18:48

We talk a lot about the golden age of Iron Maiden, but here's the worst record of them: "Killers" .

Woah, I think that might just be an opinion that is even less widely held than "No Prayer For The Dying" being a classic Maiden album. lol

Written by Guest on 20.08.2010 at 19:10

Written by Vikcen on 20.08.2010 at 18:48

We talk a lot about the golden age of Iron Maiden, but here's the worst record of them: "Killers" .

thta's your opinion; don't make sound like a fact.

Do you think really that is a fact?

Written by Angelic Storm on 20.08.2010 at 19:15

Written by Vikcen on 20.08.2010 at 18:48

We talk a lot about the golden age of Iron Maiden, but here's the worst record of them: "Killers" .

Woah, I think that might just be an opinion that is even less widely held than "No Prayer For The Dying" being a classic Maiden album. lol

Obviously is my opinion .

Written by Vikcen on 20.08.2010 at 19:20
obviously is my opinion .

Yep, which you are entitled to. lol

And the worst of all records of them, even the Blaze era, 2000 era, all!!!!!!!!.

Written by Vikcen on 20.08.2010 at 19:27

And the worst of all records of them, even the Blaze era, 2000 era, all!!!!!!!!.

Yep, I knew you meant you find it to be the worst of all Maiden's albums.

I think "Killers" is the weakest album Maiden released in the 80s.

Angelic Storm: Virtual XI for you, i can see

Written by Vikcen on 20.08.2010 at 19:40

Angelic Storm: Virtual XI for you, i can see

It is, yep. lol

@Hidden_Dictator: Its between the 1st 2 albums for worst Maiden album of the 80's for me. Both are pretty much equal, so its hard for me to pick between those two.

Written by RavenKing on 20.08.2010 at 19:37

I think "Killers" is the weakest album Maiden released in the 80s.

And comparing it with 2000 era? (I know that for you the worst is the Blaze era)