So I've been taking a very deep tour through Iron Maiden's discography to make sure I'm ready to see them in October (hell yeah).  Most of the albums simply kick ass - I knew some of their bigger albums, but this is the first time I've listened to some of them (hey, there's 14 studio albums including the new one, give me a little bit of a break).  Other than the fact that the band rocks hard, there's one thing that stands out strongly: the two albums without "classic" lead singer Bruce Dickinson just aren't up to snuff.

Now, I've seen lots of bands with altered lineups before, and they've all had varying degrees of quality.  Lynyrd Skynyrd, for example, was great (though hardcore fans probably disagree).  And as much of a purist as I am, I will admit that Pink Floyd's Pulse CD/DVD is great even though it's sans-Waters.  Apparently Alice In Chains put on an excellent set at Musikfest Layne Staley-less.

But Iron Maiden's albums without Bruce Dickinson just don't have the same edge as the rest of the band's albums.  It's not a question of aging - after Dickinson rejoined the band in 1999 the quality rises again significantly.  This year's A Matter Of Life And Death is right up there with the best albums in their catalog, and it holds its own against most of the crap that's spewed on the Metal scene today.

So yes, do some serious homework before catching a band without their "original" or "classic" lineup.  It might not make a difference, but sometimes it can completely make or break the sound.  I'm just really psyched I can look forward to seeing Iron Maiden tear things up with the "good" lineup at the Tweeter Center in October.

    -Tucker