So, I completely disagree with the whole Machismo discussion; in my opinion, this is a shallow perspective, but I don't want to waste time on this triviality because the problem is not that. The problem is that, according to me, you have a conception of music as being in isolated, non-communicating rooms. Thus, there is music for kids and then more mature music, for example, and this is a first mistake because (using Maiden as an example) it is certainly true that generally people come into contact with them at a very young age, but it is also true that the majority then grows up (maturing musically as well, meaning listening to other very different stuff, and I believe I am a living example) while remaining close to Harris's band. The second mistake you make is considering certain underground or niche movements as harmed by other movements (such as metal, for example) when in fact this is one of the genres that introduces young people to listening to non-commercial music, shall we say (at least in my time, when to listen to something new, you really had to put in the effort...). The third mistake is classifying some genres as interesting or not based on parameters that you think are objective, but which are dramatically subjective. The only objective thing in music is technique (and even on this, there would be much to discuss) because on other matters, like innovation or creativity, which are very dear to you, there are still blooming debates where no consensus will ever be reached because there is often no common vision, and because often what is passed off as innovation remains (for various reasons, but also artistic ones in my opinion) purely niche and only influential on other niche movements. You see, I'm not saying the majority is right; I'm just trying to help you understand that your fervor is being directed in the wrong way. Metal as a movement is still extremely important, if nothing else because it is the first gateway to music that is not infesting MTV or radio or other mass media. Then, if someone wants to go beyond Metal (I, for example, 21 years after my baptism to this music, now listen to 90% of other stuff, but that, along with New-wave and dark, was the movement that opened the doors to other listening experiences and I think it does so even now) or for various reasons might stay there, it's up to them. But in my opinion, attacking bands that work their asses off just to reach at least the technical potential to play something that is definitely not easy and that will 99.9999999% relegate you for life in a basement is a bit exaggerated.
With regard to Maiden specifically, there's another discussion; the average fan of this band is usually also the first critic (I, for instance, can't stand any albums they made in the '90s) and knows very well that from a musical innovation standpoint, they contribute very little, but this doesn’t matter much. The Maiden fan follows them because they are a safe bet, because they know they'll find in their albums those sounds they are heavily attached to, both out of affection and artistry, because they know that live they will always deliver high-level concerts, both technically and emotionally. It's more of a passionate thing than a cerebral one. In my life, I've had the chance to see the Maiden live 16 times, and they've never fallen below a certain level (helped, of course, by their staging and iconography). That’s enough for me, and that’s what a Maiden fan looks for, who might have also seen Lou Reed three times in their life, for example (I had the experience and always saw mediocre shows, both technically and passionately). You shouldn’t think that bands you like, such as Fugazi for example, are listened to very little because they are less known; maybe this argument held in my times (and not even that much because the true enthusiast, like me, would seek out niche bands), yet they are overshadowed by Metal...but they are (listened to very little) because they don’
