@Neu!: Die first, you jerk! (with affection and sympathy:))
@Scemochilegge: "yes, but Iron Maiden and Metallica haven’t done anything decent after the 80s and early 90s, but maybe you consider Load, Reload, and similar crap to be decent, in that case, poor child, it’s you." Well, Maiden and Metallica have in common that their true masterpieces were produced in the '80s, and there's no arguing about that; the difference lies in the aftermath: the Metallica "changed," particularly with Load and Reload they made a true genre shift: the problem is they did it for the worse, much worse. Judas Priest, if we want to bring someone else into the mix, also evolved with Painkillers (and onwards) compared to before, but their evolution was in some aspects an improvement, considering Painkillers is regarded as their best work (or at least among the top 3 without a doubt). Iron Maiden, on the other hand, have always maintained their style; they haven’t changed much: of course, it's obvious that there’s a difference between "Iron Maiden" and "A Matter of Life and Death," they're different albums; however, their style has remained virtually unchanged. And while Metallica, in my opinion, after "Metallica" haven't presented anything interesting and have instead fallen deeper and deeper (losing thousands of old-school fans, and becoming quite trendy in recent years among posers and even among "truzzi"), the Maidens have risen again with the return of Bruce, releasing three excellent albums in the 2000s that may not reach the levels of the '80s, but are certainly of great caliber: "Brave New World," "Dance of Death," and the challenging (and not always understood) but remarkable "A Matter of Life and Death." As for LIVE shows, nothing to say: they're bands that totally rock.
@Holdsworth "There were bands like the LZ (LZ 4), the Pink Floyd (The Wall), the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the King Crimson, the Deep Purple, Lou Reed, Miles Davis, Frank Zappa, ............. that even after several years from their first album continued to kick ass." Uhmm, I also partially agree with you, and I side with Gbrunoro: first of all, we must say that bands like the Beatles and Led Zeppelin lasted "only" 10-12 years, so they had much fewer opportunities to "flop" compared to the Rolling Stones and Deep Purple, for example, who, although with various splits, reunions, and new members have overall amassed 30 to 45 years of career. But the fact of "flopping" I believe transcends any logical sense: it’s simply a matter of inspiration, ideas, and pure creative genius. The Deep Purple from '70 to '76 + "Perfect Strangers" were rich in inspiration and ideas; over time, those ideas have faded, and our guys didn’t find other ways to regain the inspiration of the past; Frank Zappa, on the other hand, from the first to the last album (averaging 2-3 albums a year, which is scary, he probably has the largest discography!), has always been inspired, it’s a hard thing to explain because it depends on what an artist feels within and it's not tangible. It depends on the artistic vein one has, which is not quantifiable or explainable: it also depends, besides mere genius, on experience, and then on problems that may arise within the group, on "yes" and "no" periods, and even on private life, which is far more decisive for the success or failure of an artist's work than one might think. @Starblezer: the least successful album by the Maidens, I'd say a narrow pass.
