Iron Maiden Vocalists

dicky, easy

Bruce by far.

I actually don't mind Blaze, but I don't like him as much as I like Di'anno

and I don't like Di'Anno as much as I like Bruce.

Brucey gets the vote.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Atavachron wrote: yes I recall the Vai one was very different, much less dungeon-like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex099KUPQzs

  well now that was just awful  ..though cool to see Graham is a regular person and not some weird, bleach blond flat-topped freak







Edited by Atavachron - February 19 2008 at 16:10

who the hell voted for Blaze?!?! like seriously, come on people, youve got to be kidding whoever you are!

 ^ the debut and Killers

River-peth wrote: who the hell voted for Blaze?!?! like seriously, come on people, youve got to be kidding whoever you are!

or they could just have a different opinion. you know, it happens sometimes for some reason. plus, the guy above your post is the one that voted for Blaze and I think he gave a fine explanation as to why he prefers him. I personally don't think he's bad, but I think the others suit the Maiden sound better.

damn....

hey Raff... is that guy ..whatever his name is... the one who  got 10 votes.. the same one we saw on the DVD you have?

10 votes?  damn... seems about 10 too many.  He sucked.

Ok, First of all Whistler should listen to a lot more maiden than two albums each (especially should listen past 84).

Second Bruce has sung almost every Paul and Blaze song live and nails them better than Paul or Blaze did on the record.

Third, Bruce's natural voice is gruff and gritty like on the Fear of the Dark record, the classic voice just shows his range and ability to adapt.

Fourth, to go along with third, Bruce can sing in any style (fast, slow, high, low, Punk, Rock, Jazz, Blues and he even Raps on one of his solo records) meaning that he can speak fast (Heaven can wait) or be mind blowingly operatic (loneliness of a long distance runner). Also, he does not posses the cliche metal sound (listen to Grim Reaper for that or Glam metal) but a well controlled Classical influenced vibrato, with rich tone and a diverse methodology of phrasing. If you guys can not tell the difference you are hopeless.

Fifth, Iron Maiden is a live band first and foremost. Bruce got hired because he could hit it perfect pitch every night. The scary thing is that Bruce is a way better singer now than he has ever been and it shows when he does the old songs. Speaking about live, just listen to Bruce to The Clansman as oppose to Blaze or Phantom of the Opera as opposed to Paul. Now listen to Blaze or Paul to the Maiden classics (Blaze when he was with the band or Paul with his various other bands) it will be easy to see why Bruce is a better singer. With all that said, Bruce is a way better showmen than any of the other singers and it comes out in his vocal delivery.

Bottom line

Bruce is a much more accomplished and talented singer than most in the past 30 years. I think most people draw conclusions on his vocal ability without either ever really listing to him or not investigating the context that he is singing in. Iron Maiden is not, was not, nor ever will be cheesy metal (as opposed to a lot of bands of a separate genre that they got lumped with). Paul = Pub band, Bruce = world tour at 24 years of age and headlining festival tours in front of 200,000 people. Not to mention, international critical acclaim and being voted above Sabbath as best metal band ever. They currently hold the status of classic rock, which is actually a huge deal (Pink Floyd, Rush, Led Zeppelin etc...). All of this when Bruce came on board. Up the Irons!!!!!!!!!

Edited by reality - February 20 2008 at 10:41

Bruce is king.

Blaze is underrated, he got a rough deal being on two rubbish albums, If he'd got music of the same quality as Brave New World or Dance of Death he'd get more respect.

Similarly, if Bruce was on X Factor and Virtual whatever they'd still be terrible, they're just poor albums.
That being said, when they do play Blaze songs live with bruce they are much better, not only because Bruce is superior, but more importantly because the band put some effort and energy in. God help me the albums lack so much energy its really unfair to poor old Blaze.

As for Paul,  Personally, I hate His voice on the debut and Love it on Killers, its got a much more Led Zep quality to it on Killers. I Know how good he is but my brain just won't accept him in the same leauge as Brucey or Blaze.

Like anyone in Black Sabbath who isn't Ozzy or Dio, I know they can sing or whatever, but my brain just says 'who care, move on,' and wont allow me to like them, even though by all rights, why shouldn't I ?