Lew: Iron Maiden released their second album, Killers, in February of 1981. In the spirit of Aaron’s observations about his musical taste at the time The Cure released “A Forest,” I should say that I was not aware of Iron Maiden at the time, or even aware that rock music could sound like Iron Maiden. My family was essentially radio-centered – it wouldn’t be until a couple of years later that we would join Columbia House and start listening to more albums as a family – so my experience of music was pretty well limited to the kind of light rock that one could hear on the radio in Washington County in 1981. I think the heaviest contemporary song that I knew of was probably “Start Me Up” by The Rolling Stones. Also like Aaron, I was a pretty big fan of “Take It on the Run,” which, along with “Kiss On My List” by Hall & Oates, was probably my favorite song. So, with that said, it’s probably unnecessary to note that the New Wave of British Heavy Metal would have been a very unfamiliar concept to me at the time.
As a brief introduction, The New Wave of British Heavy Metal (or NWOBHM, as it’s often abbreviated) was a movement that formed in reaction to two conditions: One, the seminal metal bands of the 1970s, such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath, had generally abandoned their original sound or deteriorated in other ways. Two, the punk movement, which had dominated British rock in the mid-late ‘70s had declined and begun to give way to New Wave and post-punk. NWOBHM bands looked to the original metal bands for inspiration, but filtered those influences through the faster, more urban sounding punk. Where Zeppelin and Sabbath looked to the blues for the foundation of their early sound, NWOBHM bands found a more rock-centered urgency to draw on.
Killers was Iron Maiden’s second album, and their last with original singer, Paul Di’Anno. While Maiden is much better known for their work with Di’Anno’s
replacement, Bruce Dickinson, it’s worth noting that the Di’Anno-fronted
iteration of the band has several qualities to recommend it. Killers is a rawer conception of the band, and is more related to the punk bands that preceded it, than the band that would record Dickinson’s debut, Number of the Beast, two years later. At the same time, the hallmark Maiden qualifiers were already in place – namely, aggressive bass playing, dual guitar solos, and songs based on literary works and historical figures. The song we’ll be discussing for this entry, “Wrathchild,” sounds distinctively like Iron Maiden, but is a fairly aggressive, concise statement by their standards.Aaron, a good deal has been made of Iron Maiden’s original incarnation with Di’Anno as being “punkier” than the Dickinson years. As someone who has listened to a fair amount of punk music, how do you feel about that? Do you see any alignment between “Wrathchild” and the punk music of the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, or is that comparison exaggerated?
Aaron: Well, first off, I should say that while I have, indeed, listened to a lot of punk, I’m hardly a die-hard fan or an expert. So, whatever I might have to say about it is certainly open to dispute, either by you or in the comments. Also, at the risk of sounding pedantic, it’s probably worth noting that “punk” is a term loaded with competing definitions. Even by 1981, punk could mean the music of artists as various as Patti Smith and The Ramones, The Sex Pistols and The Clash, or Dead Kennedys and Black Flag. And speaking very anecdotally, the punkers I knew in the ‘80s were a lot less finicky about the qualification “punk” than some punk fans might later become in the wake of ‘90s pop-punk bands like Green Day. I knew punkers back then who were happy to listen to Ted Nugent (really!) and the faster paced metal music of the time. In fact, my introduction to Metallica came through punkers, not my metal-head fans.
 |
| Paul Di'Anno |
On the flip side, however, is the song’s dependence on instrumental prowess - while it’s under three minutes, nearly half its running time is instrumental and solo material. It’s a misconception, to be sure, that punk never engages in instrumental solos, but there’s a musicianship to “Wrathchild” that conveys an intent and a musical aspiration more serious or even lofty than punk generally goes for. So, well, I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I’d have to say that even though “Wrathchild” shares some elements with punk, something about it doesn’t really sound punk. Do you buy that or am I overgeneralizing?
Lew: I buy it. There are a lot of things that one might say about the punk of this era, but maybe one of the first things that I’d point out is the distinction that I generally make between early punk, which was firmly rooted in early rock ’n roll, and what became known as hardcore, which has very little to do with early rock. In the first instance, it’s not unusual to hear Chuck Berry guitar licks, and I-IV-V chord progressions (The Ramones, The Cramps, The Sex Pistols, etc), albeit aggressively played. Conversely, with hardcore, jagged sounding chord progressions are more typical, and the overall sense of aggression is dialed up even higher (Black Flag, The Germs, Circle Jerks, etc). Obviously, these are not hard divisions – any number of bands landed on either side of the line at different times. I think that’s part of what made punk fans of the ‘80s fine with liking The B-52’s, The Violent Femmes, Suicidal Tendencies, and DRI all at once. That being said, I don’t recall ever hearing any of my punk rock friends characterizing Iron Maiden as a punk band, and I’m not surprised that they didn’t.
Using the distinction I made above, between punk and hardcore, I think it’s pretty clear that, structurally speaking, “Wrathchild” doesn’t really fit into either. In terms of attitude, it’s probably closer to hardcore, but it lacks the free form, unstudied approach taken by hardcore bands. As you noted, there’s a strong focus on technical facility and tightness, which were generally eschewed by punk bands of the ‘80s. Punk, at its best and worst, seems to thrive on a general sense that it doesn’t matter that much if the music is well performed or written. I guess that probably sounds like a pretty harsh indictment of punk as a form, but that’s not really what I mean. The quasi-slacker mentality that comes along with punk served a great function in offering an alternative to the prog rock of the ‘70s, and ostensibly reminding rock fans of what rock music was originally intended to be – in a sense, turning back the clock on the developments of the late ‘60s. I don’t think “Wrathchild” gives any sense of that ethos. It seems to pull most of its musical cues from the post-Led Zeppelin hard rock landscape (to the extent that a good part of the chord progression is similar to Zeppelin’s “Achilles’ Last Stand”), with allusions to punk – the tempo, the vocal performance, the brevity of the track itself – seeming more cosmetic than sincere to my mind.
At the same time, I think there’s also a type of intensity to the track that you don’t find in a lot of the other metal from the era. I don’t generally think of Maiden as a blue collar band – the Crimean War and Samuel Taylor Coleridge poems are not typical working class topics – but “Wrathchild” seems less lofty (to borrow your term), and more urban, which is probably the most punk thing about it.
Aaron: Well, I guess if we’re going to be talking about ‘80s musical subcultures, it’s worth spending a bit of time on punk. After all, most music fans - particularly fans of non-mainstream music - have an opinion about punk, and a lot of ‘80s music operated at least partially in a dialogue with punk, either by embracing elements of it or rebuking it. That likely includes most of the bands we’ll be talking about during this entire series.
I think it’s worth clarifying, or perhaps arguing, that what you describe as punk’s “quasi-slacker mentality,” and its “sense that it doesn’t matter much if the music is well performed or written” could both be considered contested assertions. Much of punk has certainly thrived on a DIY, three chords and the truth garage mentality, which, as you point out, often imbues punk with a sense of immediacy and vitality that a lot of other popular forms would either kill for or eschew completely. But there’s a good deal of punk that, while maintaining a commitment to brevity and a disdain for what it might label unnecessary adornment, nevertheless strives for a fair amount of technical mastery. I think Dead Kennedys are a good example. Probably London Calling-era The Clash, later Husker Du, and maybe even some of the early hardcore thrash of Suicidal Tendencies and the like, could all probably be lumped in there as well, as different as they may be from each other on the punk spectrum.
Way too much has been said in the last two decades about what is or isn’t truly PUNK, and I certainly don’t want to re-hash any of those arguments. I only think it’s worth pointing out that even circa 1981, punk constituted a pretty wide range of styles, talents, and approaches to both skill and lyrical content. Unfortunately, however, pointing that out only makes it more difficult for me to articulate just why “Wrathchild” isn’t punk. Perhaps it’s the vocal stylings, perhaps it’s the length of the solos. Or, perhaps it’s that Maiden here are onto something new. As you said, they were no longer playing the blues-based heavy metal of the 1970s. Are they pretty much inventing NWOBHM music here, throwing earlier metal, punk, and a bit of straight up rock n roll into a furious mix all their own? Who else was pushing music in this direction at the time, and did their sound crossover with Maiden, or does Di’Anno-era Maiden pretty much stand on their own in regards to the way they were reconfiguring hard rock music?
Lew: I like your observation that a good deal of ‘80s music operates in a dialogue with punk. I think it’s a statement that points to the source of the tension between metal and indie, and within metal itself, during the ‘80s. There’s definitely a spirit of traditionalism (or occasionally, even conservatism) in metal that attempted to maintain its ties with what was becoming “classic” rock at the time, and ignore punk’s attempts to deviate from the trajectory that rock music was on in the ‘70s. Steve Harris has said on a number of occasions that Maiden felt no kinship with punk bands, and were generally jealous that punk bands were getting more gigs than they were, annoyed that most punk bands didn’t play as well as they did, and completely unwilling to change their image to court the attention of punks fans. At the same time, there’s no getting around the fact that bands like Maiden, Motorhead, and Saxon (along with several other notable NWOBHM acts) were introducing a faster, grimier version of metal that certainly shared a sense of urgency with punk, if not a musical vision.
In speaking of the musical objectives held by punk bands, as opposed to those pursued by NWOBHM bands, I think it’s worth bringing up briefly, if only to show what the relationship of a band like Iron Maiden to the punk scene might have been. As you’ve said, there has probably already been too much discussion over which music is or isn’t punk, and what defining characteristics allow for that division to be made. However, I do want to address that, at least in passing, as a way of partially validating your statement that there’s a broad spectrum of musicianship in punk. I think that you’re right to say so, and I’d admit that my remark that it doesn’t matter whether punk music is well-written or not, is hyperbolic at best, and fairly insulting to punk bands, which wasn’t really my intention. However, I will stick to my guns with regard to the sheer craftsmanship that one finds in punk bands of the ‘80s. While you’re absolutely right that there’s a substantial divide between, say, The Germs and Dead Kennedys in term of musicianship, neither of them are a patch on Iron Maiden in terms of sheer instrumental facility. Again, that’s not intended as a criticism of punk bands. I don’t think that more instrumental fussiness would improve punk albums or songs – at all. But, I do think it’s the difference that gets to the heart of why NWOBHM bands weren’t punk bands. I think it points back to the sense of traditionalism that I mentioned above, where metal players seemed to have a sense of responsibility to participate in a timeline of rock bands and learn the craftsmanship that went into creating the music that preceded them. I think punk makes an appeal that those aspects of craftsmanship are less important than songwriting and creativity. It’s definitely an open debate.
 |
| '80s-era punkers |
Aaron: Okay, I think we’re really getting to the heart of things here. Although we might have covered some well-trod ground, I think the points you make about musicianship will guide us a fair bit throughout this series. It seems to me that musical prowess itself matters less than the approach to musicianship - whereas certain punk rockers might have turned out to be very good musicians, that was likely secondary to their other musical motivations, whereas for metal players, musical prowess was a primary element of their self-image. Is that fair to say? Furthermore, I think that aesthetic extends beyond the bands to the fans as well. In my own experience, it’s been rare for me to hear punk fans wax at length about the amazing solos or picking style or fretwork of their favourite guitarist whereas such conversations seem de rigueur for the metal fan. I remember an old punker friend of mine telling me if a song had a guitar solo in it, he just didn’t want to listen to it at all (still, somehow, loving “Holiday in Cambodia,” though); whereas I can distinctly remember, during my own metal phase, thinking any song that didn’t feature a guitar solo was, to put it mildly, very lame indeed. In both cases, I think the fans - as much as or mores than the actual bands themselves - where these distinctive approaches to musicianship as badges of honor.
Getting back to “Wrathchild,” then, perhaps we could talk a bit about its musical characteristics. As has been pointed out, it’s one of the shortest songs in Maiden’s entire catalogue, so not a lot of time for musical fireworks. What is it about the music that makes it metal, that makes it Maiden? That Steve Harris driving bass that kicks it off? Those guitar flourishes sprinkled throughout? Would you call this a good example of Maiden - both generally and in terms of putting their chops on display?
Lew: Well, I hope we’re not splitting hairs, but I think that, while some punk bands were probably better musicians than they appeared at face value, it’s improbable that they would have had the same musical skill set as the guys in metal bands. Again, that’s not intended as a slight on punk players, but just another observation that the goalposts were positioned in different places for them. Metal players, in the ‘80s and beyond, are traditionally obsessed with technical facility – often to a fault. Metal bands seem to experience a need for institutional recognition in a way that punks overtly reject (that’s a blanket statement, obviously). In a way, I think this is what I’ve been trying to get to throughout this conversation, and I apologize for just figuring it out now, but I think that’s the rub: Metal bands think about the critical recognition given to more respected musical forms and wonder why they can’t get a piece of that. Failing the kind of recognition that they’re looking for, they then look to make their work as unassailable as possible – “How could our music be bad or just for kids? Our guitar player is playing Paganini licks, and our singer has a 4 octave range!” That’s kind of a worst case scenario, but it’s not exactly fictional, either. And, it’s a mindset that has its beginning fairly early in metal, with Jimmy Page throwing Bach’s Bourree in E minor into his solo in “Heartbreaker,” Jethro Tull playing the same piece with a full band, and Tony Iommi frequently making reference to Django Reinhardt as a significant influence. By contrast, and in the simplest possible terms, you could almost say that punk’s mission is to not seek the approval of established musical conventions. So, when metal guys get angry about punks not playing as well as they do, it’s not just that they don’t play as well – it’s that they are calling the whole purpose of having that level of technical expertise into question.
 |
| Jimmy Page, shredding |
Aaron: At the risk of turning this dialogue into one that has very little to do with the actual song in question, I’d just like to follow up on some of your points about musicianship again because you’ve got me thinking about some of the questions that might lie at the heart of this series (and maybe even at the heart of these sorts of dialogues in general). What makes music good? It’s easy to say that that’s a very subjective question and different strokes to different folks and all that, and of course that’s all true. But so often when people get into conversations about music, as kindhearted as we want to be, we often think the music we like rocks and other music sucks. And I think your point about the different approaches to musicianship amongst metalheads and punkers touches on that in a way that I hadn’t thought about too much before, at least in relation to this series. A lot of rock musicians and (even more so) a lot of rock fans tend to play/like the music they do because that music is “real.” I’d like to use the term “authentic” if it’s not done to death. In other words, a metal approach might be that authentic rock music (or, more broadly, good music) requires skill, long hours of practice, requires intricacy and dedication to a craft. Whereas punkers often think that authentic music is raw, unadorned, unfettered by fussy over-precision. I use these terms descriptively and not judgmentally, if you know what I mean.
I don’t think this striving for authenticity can be applied only to these forms. It comes up in all kinds of musical conversations - for example, the praise people often give to certain pop stars because they “write their own music,” which somehow conveys an authenticity that supersedes whether a particular song is actually good on its own merits. Or the way, at least in North American music, there’s a willingness amongst some fans to overlook untrained, off-key singing because it’s raw, authentic. On the other hand, with the praise of a singer like Whitney Houston or Christina Aguilera, the praise for their work is that they’re such good singers, so their music must be good, too. Emotionally, music hits so close to the bone that we really want to believe that, as we are good people, so our musical tastes must be good, or right, and one way a lot of fans do so, it seems to me, is to define what “real” or “authentic” music is and then look for that. In the end perhaps, those definitions of authenticity are just as subjective as any other forms of taste. Would you agree? And I think a lot of these questions of authenticity, while they’ve been a part of musical discussions forever, really started cropping up in the ‘80s, in the post-classic rock, post-punk, post-disco era when genres started multiplying and commercialization pushed fans more and more towards identifying themselves based on the “brand” (or, less cynically, genre) of music they liked.
And if I can circle back to Iron Maiden, I can certainly see how such a talented group of guys might be unnerved by the success of “less talented” musicians, especially when they place such a premium on, if not technical virtuosity, at least precision of execution. But to be honest, I just love the way they rock out. And following up on what you said about the locked-in rhythm section, I just love the way they do it on the “coming to get you” bits of the chorus. It’s so damned tight that I wish they’d gone for it one more time.
Lew: You make some great points above. I feel like we’re on the brink of a full-scale discussion about questions of art/craft, agency, intention and so on, as they occur in aesthetics. But, I think, considering that these topics are liable to follow us through the discussions that we’re having throughout this series, that I’ll sidestep those thoughts for the moment, in the interest of brevity, and making a few observations about “Wrathchild.”
 |
| Clive Burr, 1957-2013 |
It’s also worth mentioning the sound of the recording. Killers is the first Iron Maiden album produced by Martin Birch, who would go on to produce all of the albums of their classic five-album stretch with Bruce Dickinson. The sounds created on those later albums can already be found on Killers, with all instruments maintaining a tougher, drier sound than was typical of guitars and drums for the hard rock albums of this era (leaving aside AC/DC, of course). The sound created by Iron Maiden and Martin Birch remained relatively distinctive throughout the ‘80s, and “Wrathchild” is a great early example of that partnership.
Aaron: Wow, that comparison with “Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath” is not something I’d ever noticed or ever would have thought of. But giving both a listen now, it makes a lot of sense. And I think it also connects back quite clearly to our discussion about why “Wrathchild” isn’t punk.
Is it fair to say that the elements of “Wrathchild” that give it that sped-up feel are pretty key to NWOBHM? The driving sixteenth notes and the rolling bass, especially? Are those characteristics of bands like Motorhead as well? And, if so, is that what made these bands so influential on the thrash metal bands that came later in the decade? Perhaps that’s a question that will come up later as we get to talking about one or more of those bands.
Lew: Sure, I think it’s fair to say that driving rhythms are at the basis of what makes NWOBHM bands what they are, Iron Maiden included. In general, I think that’s as good a musical summation of what distinguished the British metal bands of that era as anything else. Drilling down a bit, I might add the qualification that, at a more granular level, Iron Maiden (or probably Steve Harris) has an inclination toward a kind of martial feel in their rhythmic and melodic choices that sets them slightly apart from the sped-up blues riffs that were common among other NWOBHM bands. For example, Judas Priest has a number of truly epic metal songs that predate “Wrathchild” by years, but their rhythmic identity - as a unit - never seems to take on the rigid, on-top-of-the-beat vibe that Maiden excelled at from the very beginning (I should probably add, “not to my ears”). Motorhead makes an even starker contrast. “Wrathchild” doesn’t feature the signature Maiden 12/8 gallop, but it definitely has a tightness and sense of purpose to it that distinguishes it as “definitively Iron Maiden-ish,” for me.
 |
| The “Big Four” of Thrash, coming soon! |
Coming Next: As Lew mentioned, we’ll be hopping the pond and finally getting to some American rock music, by way of The Replacements! What is more, with our next entry, we’ve got a special guest coming along to lay it down for the rag-tag Minneapolis foursome!
No comments:
Post a Comment