cptgaio

No, "Killers" is not punk; "Killers" is metal. If there is any punk in Iron Maiden, it can be found marginally in the first album. I brought up that example to illustrate how much the concept of "extreme" changes over time. The fact that Iron Maiden didn't "harden" and become more extreme was a stylistic choice: they preferred to focus more on epicness rather than roughness because it was probably more in their nature and, above all, because Dickinson was better suited for that evolution. The change of drummer between the second and third albums also significantly influenced their approach to "Metal."

Well, catchy and incredibly melodious tunes, suitable for advertising jingles (as they were later used). The base, in my opinion, is easy listening leaning more towards Pop than Rock; sure, you can definitely hear their hard rock roots, but everything felt so "polished" that now, more than the riffs and the drums, when talking about that album, the intro of the title track or the chorus of "Rock the Night" comes to mind, and those were very little Rock ;-). I don't think the audience of "Cioe'" improved their tastes thanks to Europe (who at that historical moment were absolutely disconnected from the Hard Rock reality and firmly planted in the mainstream chart with a youth-driven target), rather history teaches us that the next step for that magazine was NKOTB...you see what I mean? ;-)

Well, the Europe Pop definitely were, and voluntarily too. That they were born "elsewhere" and then returned "elsewhere" (forced by circumstances rather than stylistic choice) is another story, but they will remain in history for a Pop-Rock album ("The Final Countdown"). Vai and Satriani honestly don't seem to have a "metal" audience. They have a "specialized" one (lovers of guitar hyper-technicality in general) that can be confused with certain "extremisms" of metalheads, but certainly not metal.

Come on, you understood perfectly that I used a rhetorical figure (exaggerating the concept)... Don't make me start something extremely lengthy and boring ;-)

@Giu: sure that Maiden have their clichés, but tell me who doesn't have them... in any genre. Then, of course, there are clichés that annoy and others that you just love, but the Maiden live (and for me even in the studio) are anything but "caricatures."

I don’t know, it depends on what you mean by "raising the bar." If you mean that Metal has become "more extreme," I can agree (although I insist that when you listen to "Killers," for example, you need to remember that the album is from '81, and not many were playing "so hard" back then). If you mean that Metal has improved stylistically or conceptually, absolutely not. My personal opinion is that if we exclude that beautiful exception called Mastodon, Metal (from contemporary bands) today has very little to say. (Then again, it depends: do Tool and Type O Negative, who aren’t exactly young themselves, count as Metal?) The works of old dinosaurs like Slayer or Maiden still sound better than certain derivative "pastiches" (maybe except for Opeth, but even they are no longer fresh). How do Maiden sound today? Their style has fortunately remained the same as in the past (the production has improved), but they tend a bit more towards Prog reminiscences rather than classic Metal, even though there’s the usual abundance of galloping rhythms, classic metal riffs, "chorus moments," and (three-part) solos. They give more space to (almost) acoustic moments with many arpeggio phases. Dickinson has never sung so well (but it's a "well" that might not appeal to everyone). That’s it: you either hate them or love them. However, if you want to get an idea, the latest "A Matter of Life and Death" gives a good approximation.

Indispensable

Let me explain: labels, as Spirit points out, are often attached, if not against, the knowledge of those involved (apart from a few cases, like the mentioned Manowar) by critics but often by the audience as well. There’s no doubt that Maiden is Metal (and in a sense, if the genre exists today, it’s thanks to the “dogmatization” of stylistic characteristics by the NWOBHM between the late '70s and early '80s) but the point is that while their sound is still tied to the genre (only tied; the Rock they propose now, you’ll agree, is much less “metallic” than what it was up to “Fear of The Dark”), their audience can no longer be considered that. I go to Maiden concerts whenever I can, and besides the usual slice of “metalheads,” which is now dwindling, I see more and more people coming from other “genres” (properly rock, perhaps, but not Metal) or, like in my case... and there are not few like me, in fact, who over the years have abandoned metal to dedicate themselves to very different genres (always using myself as an example, I assure you I am not an exception) while remaining “faithful” only to Maiden and a very few others (in my case, I can mention Slayer). That said, the positioning that should be given to Maiden must go in two directions: the first is unidirectional and to the question “What genre do Maiden play?” the answer should be “Maiden”; the second, however, is transversal (as their audience has also become demographically) and to that question, the answer should be “Rock.” I hope I’ve been clearer now. Bye. Ps. To tell you how “futile” I consider the debates regarding the birth of Metal, I seriously think that if you keep “going back” you would end up at Bach ;-) (just joking... but not too much!)

@Spirit: nothing to argue about. It's just that I was speaking in current terms. Fortunately, right now (even though sometimes it's exaggerated) we give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and including the Scorpions in the HM pot would be unfair both to them and to the genre. Regarding your last question, I have a very clear idea: talking about Maiden (because they are the band I know best in HM), it can be safely said that they haven't been (musically, but also conceptually and even "popularly") Metal for at least 10 years, because aside from being now part of a "Rock" concept (beyond individual definitions, I'm talking about the abstract concept), they are simply "Maiden" and that's it. Whether one likes this or not is another story ;-)

Yes, and I must say that when it came out (99, right?) it surprised me quite a bit, I don't know if in a good or bad way, as it was such an "aggressive" Murakami in that book. It's the only one of his that I haven't reread so far. I need to do it. Thank you for stopping by, my niece ;-)