Quote:
Originally Posted by Plankton
This is one of the type of comments that comes from having a preset opinion formed from exposure to other elements (bands) that have permeated into ones mind. When the album came out, there was nothing like it and thus this was what was presented in it's intended form. Why does this "HAVE TO BE" a metal album, and not avant-garde? Who made that rule? NO ONE. The peaks and valleys of the tracks were what made this special for me.
|
Because they're Iron Maiden. They're a metal band and not an avant-garde metal band. They've gone more progressive and they've experimented, but they've always been a pure metal band at heart and their albums are at their best when they reflect this. On later albums, and earlier albums in fact, they rectified this mistake.
And you've pretty much illustrated one of the great points many have said over and over again. With regard to the
history of metal it is certainly an important, even a landmark album. But with hindsight and without the obscuring lens of nostalgia we can see that this isn't as great an album as it was once made out to be. Even you've said as much...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plankton
For the given time, and what they were during that time, it was revolutionary (for me).
|
If you have to preface it with "For the given time" then you are tacitly admitting what I've already been saying. That in the present it's overrated.