which is the better band, Pantera or Iron Maiden and why?

I've been thinking recently, Pantera are supposedly brilliant, they sound awful to me, especially the vocals. Iron Maiden are over rated a bit but they are heavy metal legends. out of these two bands, which do you think is the better?

I for one prefer Iron Maiden, Bruce Dickinson and Steve Harris can sing much better then anything I've heard from Pantera. Number of the beast and Seventh son of a seventh son are the Iron Maiden albums to consider pushing into the battle here. I also liked powerslave. I apologize if the poll is limited but I want to see your opinions, it's these two bands only, no other bands to be mentioned, clear? This is just a matter of which band do you think is the better. I maybe going to see IM live this December anyway. 8-)

Pantera, simply because I'm not a big fan of the whole showing-of-soloness in metal, and am a huge fan of the whole groove metal genre.

Iron Maiden

PanterA had MORE potential but didn't use it (kinda like MetallicA, but at least MetallicA used it for a while).

Iron Madden. But personally I don't like either.

I don't see why Pantera are considered excellent, the guys are more drunk then Dave Mustaine in 1982 and the the vocals make my ears bleed and go emo. I'm a massive Iron Maiden fan on the other hand but I've been questioning what made Pantera as good as they were said to be, that's why I made this thread to see if there would be any major fans that would say they surpass bands such as Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple.

Iron Maiden because they actually never sucked, whereas Pantera always have.

Iron Maiden smurfing rule. Like, a lot. They're legends. Pantera are alright, not really that special to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoden

I don't see why Pantera are considered excellent, the guys are more drunk then Dave Mustaine in 1982 and the the vocals make my ears bleed and go emo. I'm a massive Iron Maiden fan on the other hand but I've been questioning what made Pantera as good as they were said to be, that's why I made this thread to see if there would be any major fans that would say they surpass bands such as Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple.

---

Pantera were more about an attitude than their music. They generally appealed to the gutter-snipe, beer-guzzling middle-class suburban white males. Phil (lead singer) was notorious for being smashed out of his face at gigs, and quite often was a very bad performer. I wouldn't say that Pantera are a particularly aggressive band by todays standards. In my opinion there's bands today that do much more sloppy and awful vocals (some kids just shout into a microphone. I saw a band totally ruin a Machine Head song this way, and actually slapped the lead singer for his trouble).

Iron Maiden have been going since lord knows when, and technically speaking they far surpass Pantera. Putting aside the trademark soloing, most of their music is generally well-structured, lyrically flagrant and performed live almost perfectly. If I have one major criticism of them is that they haven't made much of an effort to change their style over the years. Perhaps more seasoned Maiden fans can tell the difference between one Maiden-era song to the next (barring changing vocalists), but to me a 1980s Maiden song sounds very similar to a 2000's Maiden song. At least by the end of Pantera's career they were trying out new sounds (especially ironic if you consider they were a Hair Metal band when they first started out a la KISS).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxx Powar

If I have one major criticism of them is that they haven't made much of an effort to change their style over the years. Perhaps more seasoned Maiden fans can tell the difference between one Maiden-era song to the next (barring changing vocalists), but to me a 1980s Maiden song sounds very similar to a 2000's Maiden song.

---

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's no need to really switch the style up because Iron Maiden kick ass at what they do. But you can definitely tell the difference between the different era's of songs. I know the majority of Maiden fans prefer the older stuff, but my favourite album is Dance of Death. 'Dance of Death' and 'No More Lies' are two of the best songs they've ever written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyono

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxx Powar

If I have one major criticism of them is that they haven't made much of an effort to change their style over the years. Perhaps more seasoned Maiden fans can tell the difference between one Maiden-era song to the next (barring changing vocalists), but to me a 1980s Maiden song sounds very similar to a 2000's Maiden song.

---

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's no need to really switch the style up because Iron Maiden kick ass at what they do. But you can definitely tell the difference between the different era's of songs. I know the majority of Maiden fans prefer the older stuff, but my favourite album is Dance of Death. 'Dance of Death' and 'No More Lies' are two of the best songs they've ever written.

---

If only MetallicA would listen to you.

Yeah and I somewhat agree with what you're saying. Look at PanterA, they started out with a heavy and thrashy sound, then started getting HEAVIER slower........and HEAVIER...and it all just started going the wrong direction.

This is something that plagues ALOT of metal bands, they MUST understand that when you start out ONE way, you SHOULD end up the same way but IMPROVING in each album and adding some fresh things here and there.

Overhauling your style is the crappiest thing a band can do, example: MetallicA(Load/ReLoad).

It's not necessarily bad to change styles, if it's an evolution into something better. But really, what else would you want Iron Maiden to do?

If you look at Metallica they've experimented alot musically, soft sounds, thrashy sounds, heavy sounds, country sounds, but there is a time when a band similar to this style need get serious and back in the groove, it happens to bands, they get out of groove with experiments for a while. Look at the difference between "Bring your daughter to the slaughter" and "The Wicker Man" serious rif difference and vocal styles. Even Iron Maiden have experimented a little. If a band sticks to one style it gets old and they no longer seem fun.

There's no option for they both suck. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aisle_s

There's no option for they both suck. :)

---

*modwhores*

I'm still hoping for the tickets to their gig in December in Newcastle (Iron Maiden) they're worth seeing because they rarely muck up the songs live.

Iron Maiden. =)

I had a couple Pantera CD's, and they were okay, but I got over them pretty fast.

Sticking knitting needles in my ears and bursting my eardrums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Sticking knitting needles in my ears and bursting my eardrums.

---

I've got something I'll stick in your ear. :aimkiss:

Iron Maiden. They consiste of a great bass player, two great guitarists a great drummer, and a great singer. Its pretty much one huge entity of talent.

Iron Maiden,i've been on their concerts that have took place here and they totally rule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Venom

Iron Maiden. They consiste of a great bass player, two great guitarists a great drummer, and a great singer. Its pretty much one huge entity of talent.

---

It USED to be.

And to Shoden. Experimenting is good, but I preferr bands which expriment WITHIN their own gerens. What the smurf is MetallicA doing playing country-like song? pathetic! MetallicA established themselves as tough, fearless, powerful Sons of B*tches and they go soft...softer....and even softer? I mean experimenting in their own genre "Fade to Black" THAT'S good, but going too far..is going TOO FAR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathKnight

And to Shoden. Experimenting is good, but I preferr bands which expriment WITHIN their own gerens. What the smurf is MetallicA doing playing country-like song? pathetic! MetallicA established themselves as tough, fearless, powerful Sons of B*tches and they go soft...softer....and even softer? I mean experimenting in their own genre "Fade to Black" THAT'S good, but going too far..is going TOO FAR.

---

Experimenting doesn't have to be limited to just having to play for one genre. They are musicians free to do what they want, they have some sort of limits by their producers, but all in all, they play what their hearts want them to play.

This isn't a bad thing at all. Being a musician and engineer myself, I feel it's great to have a wide variety of styles in song writing / playing. Everything starts to get too dull when you've been playing it for over 20 years (in Metallica's case).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omecle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathKnight

And to Shoden. Experimenting is good, but I preferr bands which expriment WITHIN their own gerens. What the smurf is MetallicA doing playing country-like song? pathetic! MetallicA established themselves as tough, fearless, powerful Sons of B*tches and they go soft...softer....and even softer? I mean experimenting in their own genre "Fade to Black" THAT'S good, but going too far..is going TOO FAR.

---

Experimenting doesn't have to be limited to just having to play for one genre. They are musicians free to do what they want, they have some sort of limits by their producers, but all in all, they play what their hearts want them to play.

This isn't a bad thing at all. Being a musician and engineer myself, I feel it's great to have a wide variety of styles in song writing / playing. Everything starts to get too dull when you've been playing it for over 20 years (in Metallica's case).

---

If it DOES? why do they play 90% of their songs live from the first 5 albums??? and not the last 3??? I wonder whyyyyyyyy?

I believe that a band should ALWAYS be the BEST at what they do. And MetallicA's potential is portrayed the best when they keep their music in the thrash/heavy metal genre.

Pop stars CAN wander off into other genres, but when it comes to some genres, such as metal it ain't pretty.

Probably Pantera, if only because I haven't heard enough of IM.