Iron Maiden: Bruce vs Paul

[Trollheart]

I don't usually do these things, but there's been a lot of talk about Maiden recently, much of it slanted against the current vocalist, so let's see how people feel. Who do you prefer, and why?

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

I always find this a really difficult question to answer.
Even though personally I prefer the Di Anno era they let him leave at the right time and they never would have been the band they became had Dickinson not joined.

Not just from the standpoint of the vocals but also the songwriting, I think a lot of Iron Maiden's best songs in that 82-86 period were the ones written by Dickinson & Smith rather than Steve Harris.

[The Batlord]

Didn't we have this discussion in 1987?

[Plankton]

Would IM have become what they are now had Di Anno stayed with the band? No, certainly not. But, I do feel the songwriting would have become stronger coming from the foundation of what they built with Di Anno, and that in itself could have been an amazing thing. On the other hand, Bruce took them to arena status being one of the most powerful vocal voices of metal on the planet. They did veer off into mediocrity after they hit stride though, and Bruce's vocals started to become a bit like nails on a chalkboard, and seemingly forced and strained, but that will come with age for most people. When I weigh in all the facts, I have to go with Bruce, just because the scales tip in his favor just slightly with longevity being the extra weight, and speculation holds no weight at all.

[Key]

Bruce, because the operatic vocals help the band a lot. Yes, Bruce does have operatic vocals, TH. I know you disagree.

[Mojo]

Well Maiden with Di'Anno and Maiden with Dickinson are essentially two different bands. Di'Anno gets a lot of stick and if it were all exclusively for being a **** then I'd be fine with it but 'Iron Maiden' and 'Killers' are great records and I think they wrote a lot of their best songs with Di'Anno in the band.

That being said, I just think Bruce is the better singer, the better frontman, the better person and generally speaking there is no comparison. Bruce 100%.

[FRED HALE SR.]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Well Maiden with Di'Anno and Maiden with Dickinson are essentially two different bands. Di'Anno gets a lot of stick and if it were all exclusively for being a **** then I'd be fine with it but 'Iron Maiden' and 'Killers' are great records and I think they wrote a lot of their best songs with Di'Anno in the band.

That being said, I just think Bruce is the better singer, the better frontman, the better person and generally speaking there is no comparison. Bruce 100%.

Damn you Mojo I just drew Di Anno even with that lil prissy pilot.

[The Batlord]

I love both bands, but they'd gone as far as they could with Paul. They were really able to spread their wings under Bruce in a way that a more limited vocalist like Di'Anno simply wouldn't have allowed. Paul could never in a million years have sung "Aces High", "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner", or "Hallowed By thy Name".

[Trollheart]

Pretty much the same. I have a lot of respect for Di'Anno on the early albums, and some of the early stuff Bruce does (as I noted in the live reviews on Justin's "Devil's Dancefloor") just don't sound the same when sung by him. I mean, only Di'Anno can put the psychotic terror into a song like "Killers", or even tone it back to almost ballad land on "Prodigal son". And I think he definitely does "Phantom" justice. But like people here say, had he not been replaced it's probably unlikely Maiden would have become as big as they did. It's hard to equate them with any other band, and I know Sabbath were wildly successful with Ozzy, so the comparison doesn't really stand, but when Dio joined they went in a different, more progressive direction with a lot more melody driving the songs and a shift away from (ahem) satanic styled lyrics. They almost became another band.

Dickinson brought Iron Maiden to the attention of the world, and they had their biggest hit singles and most successful albums with him. In the footage I've seen of Di'Anno live, he just doesn't seem to be feeling it, and he's almost angry with the audience, almost as if he's up there playing despite them, not because of them, as if he has something to prove. Bruce tends to embrace the audience more (not literally, as that would be gay) and draw them in, with shouts like "Scream for me [insert city here]" and so on. He's definitely a better frontman. Even having left Maiden, Di'Anno still doesn't seem to have the stage presence Bruce has.

And I bet he can't fly a 767!

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

In the footage I've seen of Di'Anno live, he just doesn't seem to be feeling it, and he's almost angry with the audience, almost as if he's up there playing despite them, not because of them, as if he has something to prove. Bruce tends to embrace the audience more (not literally, as that would be gay) and draw them in, with shouts like "Scream for me [insert city here]" and so on. He's definitely a better frontman.

I disagree with this. I've heard hundreds of Maiden bootlegs with both men and I see it like this.

Dickinson's between song patter is rehearsed and especially catered for big arena shows and him being the showman. You hear him do several gigs and you realise nothing he says is spontaneous as he says the same thing night after night.
Not always, but quite a lot of the time.

Di Anno was more like a fan who was on stage and spoke to the audience on their own level, I guess because they were playing clubs for most of his tenure in the band. For example I remember one gig he introduced Innocent Exile (I think) by saying it's his favourite song off the Killers album. I've heard him sing this song loads of time live but can only remember hearing him saying it that one time, and that's typical of the stuff he would say between songs. I don't think I ever heard him repeat anything.