Review Summary: While ultimately an important album for Iron Maiden and boasting some of their most well-known tracks, "Iron Maiden" is merely a first impression and little more.
The most difficult thing about reviewing a band's debut album is being objective. It's their first album, the album that ultimately, in most cases will lay the groundwork for the years of music to come, and in other cases, will end up being the only good thing about their contributions to the music world. And then there are cases where they pale in comparison to the majority of the band's other work; ultimately it's usually the best bands that have this effect. But ultimately, they're important. They're the one and only chance a band has to make a good first impression. So where does that leave Iron Maiden? Well, the answer to that is ultimately wishy washy. See,
Iron Maiden is a funny case because it features less than half of their current lineup (and in this case 40% of the classic lineup), is considerably shorter than the majority of their discography, is mostly known by its remaster tracklisting ("Sanctuary" is not featured on the original release) and is not in any way indicative of their classic sound. Sure, it has the dual guitars and dynamic bass lines, but whereas the band would later adapt to a more traditional heavy sound, here a more punk-ish sound with elements of prog is featured.
If anything, I find that the band's eponymous debut is more memorable for its place in history rather than any of the music featured. Which is, in many ways, a good thing and a bad thing. For one, it is indeed interesting to hear the band's beginnings, and indeed quite a few of tracks are classics, but on the other hand, other than providing mere live setlist staples, the album isn't a whole lot to shout out about. For one, it isn't exactly the best way for new fans to get into since Paul Di'Anno is only featured on this album and the next, and this is also the only album to feature Dennis Stratton on guitar, who would later be replaced by Adrian Smith. And even Steve Harris admits to not liking it at all, citing both the paper-thin production sound and the fact that he doesn't like a whole lot of the songs as reasons.
But that doesn't mean it's not a good album. In fact, there's a great deal of classics here. Easily the most memorable track is "Phantom of the Opera", a seven minute epic that is both intense and absolutely beautiful. Featuring tons of absolutely stunning musicianship and excellent lyricism from the band; tons of tempo and time signature changes and a beautiful instrumental section featuring some of their best riffs and solos to date, it's hardly a wonder it has been a live staple over the years. "Remember Tomorrow" is a track featuring tons of emotional playing from the band and excellent contrast- slower verses and a fast instrumental middle section, powerful lyrics about Paul Di'Anno's grandfather, and an ending that just climaxes over and over, it sure is without a doubt a true classic. "Charlotte the Harlot" is a fun and catchy tune with an interesting tempo change, and also is the first of a four part saga about a prostitute living in London's east end; featuring some blistering solos from Murray and Stratton near its end (one of the first tracks where we get a sense of why Murray is often considered the king of Legato).
However, while there is indeed a lot to love, there's a fair bit too much not to love. I, for one, have never particularly been a huge fan of "Running Free"- sure it's a fantastic live song, and the long bit where Bruce rambles on for a bit while introducing the band (one gig I went to had Bruce make the entire audience get down on their knees) is always fun, but in the studio, it's truthfully pretty dull. The problem is that it stretches itself thin; while there are some great moments, like the dual riff in the middle section, as a whole it's a very unsatisfying song and too repetitive- another problem is that the backing vocals in the chorus are gratingly high-pitched. "Transylvania" is their first instrumental and it isn't at all a bad song, but the first half is easily way better than the second half. It also stretches itself thin and the riff in the second half that repeats for much of it is not interesting enough to justify making up an entire second half of the song. We thankfully do get a nice solo, but it's too low in the mix and is overpowered by the ever-repeating main riff. What about "Iron Maiden"? Again, great live track, weak studio track. There isn't enough variety in it and while it does serve as a good closer, as a song it really is just unsatisfying. The band thankfully do it proper justice live by performing it at a slower tempo, reducing the twin guitars in the bridge to lower notes so they aren't as annoyingly high pitch, and give it one hell of a crash-out ending.
Another problem, as mentioned before, is the production quality. Steve hates the production with a passion and it's hard to blame him; Paul Di'Anno sounds way too thin and weedy in the mix, the guitars are annoyingly bright sounding, and Clive Burr's beastly drumming is buried in the mix. However, all transgressions are forgiven here where you realize it's Maiden's first album. Lots of people consider it a classic, and why shouldn't they? There's enough good here to thankfully outweigh the misgivings, and they're still trying to find their sound. While I myself wouldn't call it a classic, it is a decent first impression, but the problem is, it's hard to look at it as anything more than that. Thankfully Maiden would fall into place with their absolutely ripping next album
Killers, which improves what Maiden brought in here and would pave the way for what was to come.
