Co.Down Hibee Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Inspired by a beer soaked debate the other night with myself and a couple of guys I think the best way of deciding this is leaving it up to the P&B faithful, Without question the two leading metal acts over the past 30 years IMO , most would agree that their best recording days were in the 80s although the latter years had many a fine moment and as live acts have gone from strength to strength . i know it is the norm for such polls that someone will post "Black Sabbath" or "Megadeth" or something, this isn't to decide the best metal act ever just the best between the two. Personally I'm saying Maiden, have consistently performed well, some of the albums in their heyday are classics ,Piece of mind being my personal favourite and as a live act edge it for me ,mainly thanks to the energy and talent of Bruce. , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Having been a metal head for 30 years, and been tightly bound emotionally to both those bands, I'd have to agree with your last paragraph to swing it. Basically, which band's work would I take if only allowed one, and the Maiden lads triumph for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Parr Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Maiden can't touch those first four Metallica albums, particularly ...And Justice for All. Metallica every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Megadeth lolololol Metallica's best albums are better than Maiden's best albums, but for their overall consistency it's Maiden. Not that I want to get into a tedious as f**k discussion about Metallica post-black album, but Maiden's material in the last 20 years is vastly superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audaces Fortuna Juvat Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Almost said "refuse to choose", but Maiden are the better overall for consistency. Just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Co.Down Hibee Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 In fairness one thing that should be said is that Maiden have played it safer than Metallica, Maiden have done pretty much the same type of thing over the years ,Somewhere in Time and Seventh Son a little more melodic but ultimatley they have stuck to a similair vein whereas Metallica have experimented more and changed their image more so than Maiden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Maiden have been far more consistent over the years and their first 5 albums tops anything by Metallica, who only really have 2 great albums (1st 2) and 1 good album (puppets). Maidens newer albums have also been of abetter standard than Metallicas and have evolved into a more proggy version of themselves. Live and it has to Maiden again, they put more into their shows and aren't cringey as Hetfield and co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richey Edwards Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Maiden descended into self-parody during the 90's but Brave New World was an impressive "comeback" and AMOLAD was also better than anything Metallica have done since 2000. St Anger was unlistenable. Metallica at their best were better than Maiden at their best though, so I'm going to vote Metallica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrestersKTID Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Maiden by a mile for me. Second favourite band to AC/DC Metallicas first 5 albums are good but they lost it after that in my opinion and have only released 4 more studio albums in 23 years. Maiden on the other hand have gone through various personnel changes and still managed to produce great music. 15 studio albums and every one has at least 2 classic tracks. Seen Maiden Live 3 times and the performances have been epic. Twickenham somewhere back in time tour a particular highlight. Metallica on my to do list but they rarely tour the UK. It says a lot that Metallica were influenced by Maiden and have covered their songs on occasion. Up the irons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 In fairness one thing that should be said is that Maiden have played it safer than Metallica, Maiden have done pretty much the same type of thing over the years ,Somewhere in Time and Seventh Son a little more melodic but ultimatley they have stuck to a similair vein whereas Metallica have experimented more and changed their image more so than Maiden. I don't think that's entirely fair on Maiden. Sure, the changes in their sound have been made at a much slower pace than Metallica, but for example Dance of Death and A Matter of Life and Death are hugely different sounding albums to Number of the Beast and Piece of Mind. I don't think that similar sound is a reason to criticise Maiden for playing safe. There's still been a huge progression in their sound, just that it has been exactly that: a gradual progression as they became increasingly experimental, whereas with Metallica's changes in sound have been more erratic jumps than a natural progression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mik Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Gads....Huge Maiden and Metallica fan..but Maiden all the way for me. As far as consistency goes...as much as Death Magnetic was a decent album, Metallica havn't had a great album in a long long time. Whereas Maiden are still producing fantastic records from the Brave New World "comeback" to the latest album "The Final Frontier". In fact, the only Maiden albums I dont like are the Blaze ones....Metallica have 4.5 albums in total that I like. Infact, the only album I like start to finish is Ride The Lightning, the rest have at least 1 iffy song. I can think of at least 7 Maiden albums I can listen to start to finish without skipping a track Live - I've saw Metallica....6 times and Maiden....4 times. Both are f*cking fantastic live and it's hard to choose between them. Both put on a fantastic show, both have great frontmen in Bruce and Hetfield (although Hetfield has gotten extremely cheesy these days). I saw them both at Sonisphere this year (Maiden on Saturday and Metallica on the Sunday) and out of the two I would say the best performance was Metallica. That said, If they were playing on the same day in Glasgow.....I'd still go see Maiden. Also, as a bass player myself, I f*cking love Steve Harris...he is an absolute hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorge Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Ahh, this old chestnut. Would lean towards Maiden even though they've been a bit rubbish for a while now. Actually respect the way Metallica knew releasing St Anger/Lulu would likely torch huge chunks of their fanbase, I admire that attitude in a slightly perverse way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Not sure if Iron Maiden have been a bit rubbish. I've been a massive fan of their recent albums. No Prayer for the Dying and Fear of the Dark are the only two albums from them that don't really appeal to me. Everything else ranges from good to incredible. They've got some discography. They're also the better of the two bands live if you ask me. Metallica always have a special place for me, but the better of the two? Iron Maiden. Comfortably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Co.Down Hibee Posted November 18, 2014 Author Share Posted November 18, 2014 I don't think that's entirely fair on Maiden. Sure, the changes in their sound have been made at a much slower pace than Metallica, but for example Dance of Death and A Matter of Life and Death are hugely different sounding albums to Number of the Beast and Piece of Mind. I don't think that similar sound is a reason to criticise Maiden for playing safe. There's still been a huge progression in their sound, just that it has been exactly that: a gradual progression as they became increasingly experimental, whereas with Metallica's changes in sound have been more erratic jumps than a natural progression. very good point and in fairness I wasn't saying it as a criticism of Maiden, most metal bands don't do a huge amount of progression in their music and any that Maiden have made as you say has been slow, Maiden have been the best at what they have done and know what they are good at ,sticking to that formula has won them a huge and loyal fanbase and have been the flagbearers for metal(in Europe certainly) ,nothing wrong with that if the quality is there which by and large it has been, Metallica taking more risks has lead them to praise and critics , one thing they have attempted to do is open thrash and metal to a wider audience, the black album and what followed may not have been for the purists but it gave the heavier side of metal exposure on MTV and alike, Enter Sandman was played constantly for a while on the main MTV channel as was Fuel and quite often on mainstream radio, with that came umpteen appearences on MTV specials , concerts with orchestras, hit singles of Whiskey in the Jar ,movie soundtracks and so on, changing the leathers and denims for designer suits and hairstyles also enhanced the new thinking mans metalheads which opened the door for the cries of sellout at the same time. In fairness though it did bring a new audience to metal ,some may have liked the older stuff,most probably didn't but at least people got an interest . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 I'm a former metal head who was really into it in the 80's but doesn't really like it any more and the last Maiden album I went out and bought was pre Blaze. For me, looking back at it, Iron Maiden have a lot of prog rock in them, so they are basically a throw back to a previous age of rock and it all seems a bit ossified to me now. Lyrically they are a bit Boys Own silly and I'd rather hear my own balls go through a wood chipper than Bruce Dickinson bellowing on like a testosterone injected howler monkey. I'm also not keen on the 'British Bulldog' bollocks than Maiden love to trot out, some members of the band have made questionable comments and have dodgy pasts. They seem to me like the perfect band for the Essex based UKIP voter. Thrash metal seems much more interesting to me. At the very least it was going into new areas and was more cutting edge than trad metal like Judas Priest or Maiden, although having said that Judas Priest did experiment more than Maiden did. Out of all the major metal bands of that era I'd rate Slayer as the best but Metallica were part of the same vanguard although I think you can hear a much more obvious link to 'traditional metal' in Metallica than Slayer. On a negative Lars Ulrich and James Hetfield are two of the biggest bell ends in the entire music industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Maiden...easy choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.