In researching and compiling the tour dates found at the end of each chapter, I used several primary sources, listed here in order of precedence and reliability:
1. MEDIA-REPORTED CONCERT REVIEWS. Concert reviews coming from newspapers, magazines, and major media websites tend to be the most reliable source of information. This is because these media groups have earned a reputation for accuracy by using control measures such as fact-checking, and they provide the “trifecta” necessary to confirm that a concert did happen: date, location, and event details. Media groups also usually publish their concert reviews shortly after the concert occurred, thus reducing the likelihood of incorrect date and location information while, at the same time, establishing for fact that the concert did happen. The closer the review’s publication date is to the date of the concert, the better, which means that daily publications tend to be more reliable than those published less frequently. One caveat: No matter how good the control measures are that these groups implement, they do sometimes make mistakes. The most common error is publishing a review after its originally intended publication date without correcting the date-related language of the review. For example, when a review that reads “last night…” is held back from publication until a later date without being edited, the date-related language becomes misleading. Such examples are obvious when the “last night” error wrongly refers to a date and location already established to be another date and location by other evidence.
2. FAN CONCERT REVIEWS. A fan review is a reliable source as long as the fan writes in a journal or publishes on a website his or her account of a concert shortly after the event occurred, preferably within a week. Several things have to be taken into consideration, however. The fan must have the “trifecta” listed in his or her review. Without all three key pieces of information tied together in one source, a tour date and location has not been listed as verified unless there is corroborating evidence from another source to support it. Also keep in mind that a fan review can be misleading. Many fans dig up old journal entries and post them on their own blogs or websites, and in the absence of any component of the trifecta, they research information from another website and list the researched information as part of the original journal entry. In most cases of an online fan source, an email to the individual can help to determine the authenticity and reliability of the source. Many fans do not realize the historical value of their online expositions; fortunately, when confronted with this information and how it is valuable to conducting research about the band, most are honest and willing to help.
3. MULTIPLE ISOLATED FAN ACCOUNTS, LONG AFTER THE EVENT OCCURRED. If several fans with intimate knowledge of the event recount the same dates, locations, and other details (i.e., the aforementioned trifecta) months or years afterward, then this can very well be considered a reliable source. However, there is one major issue with collective memory that makes the reliability of this type of source questionable. Psychological tests have revealed that memory can be manipulated even on a massive scale: If enough people are exposed to the same piece of misinformation over a period of time, they will remember that misinformation as part of their original experience. This was the case with the Moscow 1993 shows. Several fans, having believed the dates listed by the band in the multimedia reissue of A Real Live Dead One to be correct, actually remembered those dates despite a Moscow newspaper review that listed different information. Still, because collective memory mishaps such as this are rare, and because most collective memories can be corroborated by other evidence, this type of source usually can be of benefit.
4. PUBLICIZED INDIVIDUAL TOUR DATES. Print publications and institutional websites receive press releases from management and report tour dates as they are informed of them, yet they rarely, if ever, make corrections to these dates and locations as itinerary changes occur. However, if a local newspaper announces a concert date within approximately a week of that date, then this resource tends to be reliable because of the proximity of the report to the actual date. The greater the span of time between the announcement and the planned date, the less reliable the report is. See “Tour itineraries” below for more information on publicized tour dates.
5. CONCERT FLYERS. While these are very good resources indicating city, date, and venue, they can cause quite a bit of confusion when the band is forced to cancel and/or reschedule dates. One thing to note: They have a slight edge over concert tickets because concert flyers sometimes are reprinted for a rescheduled date, whereas new tickets are rarely, if ever, reissued for a rescheduled date. Concert flyers also pose an additional problem: Because they have no publication dates on them, it can be difficult to determine which one has the correct date when there exists a flyer with a conflicting date. In cases such as this, other resources must be used to help determine which flyer is the original and which is for the rescheduled date.
6. CONCERT TICKETS. While these are very good resources indicating city, date, and venue, because they are not printed unless final arrangements have been made between management and the venue, they can cause quite a bit of confusion if the band is forced to cancel and/or reschedule dates. Tickets with the original date and location are usually used for the new date and location as a convenience and cost-cutting measure by the venue and/or promoter. This is why it is not uncommon to come across a ticket stub with the wrong date, and in some cases, with the wrong date crossed out by a fan who attended the concert and the correct date written in its place. This was the very case with the Portsmouth gig originally scheduled for June 3, 1980. Two tickets were discovered with the date crossed out and “1 July” written in its place. The mystery was solved by an account from a fan who attended the show, and it was further corroborated by a Sounds article establishing that the band had rescheduled the date.
7. OFFICIAL IRON MAIDEN PUBLICATIONS AND MERCHANDISE. This category is not to be confused with tour-related merchandise. This is, instead, regular merchandise unrelated to concerts, such as DVDs, CDs, and books. While one would think that these kinds of merchandise would have accurate information, they tend to be fraught with inaccuracies. Management has made it clear that tour dates and locations are considered bonus material to merchandise and not worthy of being thoroughly checked for accuracy. For example, when the band rereleased all of their CDs in the Eddie’s Head box set, tour dates were included in the multimedia section that propagated the same longstanding errors bootleg traders have known to be incorrect. However, it is clear that these dates go through at least minimal checking because some errors listed on tour merchandise have been corrected. On the other hand, sometimes merchandise includes band interviews or quotes from the band, management, or tour support crew that occasionally provide a few nuggets of reliable information.
8. IRON MAIDEN BIOGRAPHIES AND COLLECTOR BOOKS. These things tend to be hit or miss. One would expect an author to do a good deal of research before presenting anything as fact, yet many authors print incorrect tour dates and locations because they either borrowed them from other authors or they took them directly from tour programs or tour itineraries without checking for accuracy. Nonetheless, biographies and collector books can and often do provide a good amount of fairly reliable information in the form of band interviews and tour narrations. Any date or location written about with detail can be considered potentially accurate, but dates and locations merely listed without commentary should be suspect. It should also be noted that biographies and collector books make for excellent resources when they feature reproductions of concert flyers, tickets, tour shirts, programs, etc., such as Marco Gamba’s Iron Maiden Collectibles.
9. TOUR SHIRTS. Tour shirts are problematic as a resource because they are sometimes printed before the band’s management has the tour arrangements finalized. Additionally, plans do change mid-tour for various reasons, and it is too expensive to reprint shirts with the correct dates. Therefore, many tour shirts have the wrong information on them. However, some tour shirts prove to be more beneficial than others. Localized “event” shirts, i.e. those specialized for just a specific portion of the tour, tend to be more reliable because management does not print them as early in the tour as the rest of the shirts. It’s quite difficult, or at least quite embarrassing, to sell a shirt specific for one concert location (e.g., Chicago Mutants, September 30, 1983) with an incorrect date or location, but it still happens—the band printed a shirt for Essen, dated July 9, 2000, but they had to reschedule for November 6 after Janick’s accident the night before in Mannheim.
10. TOUR PROGRAMS. Tour programs are questionable for the same reason tour shirts are questionable: They are usually printed before the tour starts and are never reprinted to reflect midtour changes. These are also considered less accurate than tour shirts due to the fact that management does not normally print programs specialized for just one concert or one region, although management does print separate programs for separate tour legs. This is important to note because the band traditionally has played Japan at the end of their tours, and management has waited as late as possible before printing programs for that particular leg. As a result, Japanese tour programs usually reflect more accurate dates—not just for the Japanese leg, but for the entire tour since these programs tend to reflect the previous changes in the tour itinerary.
11. TOUR ITINERARIES. As a source coming from the band and/or reputable media outlets, one would expect tour itineraries to be a great way to verify dates and locations, especially since they list the whole tour. The problem is that these are usually published before the tour begins. While updated tour itineraries are commonplace on the Internet, older media sources rarely published updates. As such, tour itineraries have no more value than providing a baseline from which to work to corroborate or negate individual dates and locations through other resources. The No Prayer on the Road Tour presents a great example of the problems with tour itineraries. The band released several different itineraries before starting the tour, but because none have a publication date on them, it is difficult to discern which dates and locations are correct without using other resources.
12. ISOLATED FAN ACCOUNTS. Any single fan account that comes months or years after the fact tends not to be reliable because of the nature of the human mind to forget details over time. Fans who did not attend the event are especially not reliable because they base their information on other accounts and not on firsthand knowledge. However, if a fan reveals an associative memory, such as a concert date coinciding with a birthday or some other notable personal experience, then this source should be considered potentially reliable. It should also be noted that any information about primary sources (e.g., ticket stubs, programs, etc.) coming from another party that is not considered authoritative or scholarly should not be accepted as fact unless that party provides verifiable proof of the source. In other words, it is not prudent to take someone’s word for it that “such and such piece of evidence exists because my friend told me about it” or “such and such piece of evidence exists because I saw it with my own eyes!” While Iron Maiden fans have proved to be mostly honest and very helpful, their memories can betray their good intentions.
13. FAN-CREATED TOUROGRAPHIES. This is the bottom of the barrel—and for a valid reason. Most fansite tourographies propagate the same errors from other fansites by copying information and accepting it as fact without making any serious effort to check its accuracy. However, not all fansites are like this, and some prove to be of value because the authors conduct their own research and publish their sources and findings. Nonetheless, because of the problems inherent in many fansites, and because these sites are secondary sources of information, most should be disregarded.