I don't want to hear it yet....."nanananananananananananana" <===fingers in his ears.
icecreamman wrote:
... we won?
[guidogodoy] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:00:25 PM
I don't want to hear it yet....."nanananananananananananana" <===fingers in his ears. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by icecreamman from Sunday, January 31, 2010 5:57:54 PM)
Haha I know what you mean. Fingers crossed Priest finally wins! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by icecreamman from Sunday, January 31, 2010 5:50:44 PM)
icecreamman wrote:
I am getting intensly nervous now! We may finnally win it!!!!
[icecreamman] Sunday, January 31, 2010 5:50:44 PM
I am getting intensly nervous now! We may finnally win it!!!!
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 5:40:40 PM
Just thought I'd add, I just downloaded the pre-telecast program, and after the current performance the metal category is not far behind! YAY! Link! http://www.grammy.com/live
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 5:38:57 PM
Ok so I'm watching the Grammy pre show awards at the moment, on the grammy website, and I can't believe how many R&B awards there are. Taking ages for all of them to be handed out.
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:19:54 PM
Yep indeed I do Ron! A fantastic show! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:46:19 AM)
ron h wrote:
Hey there Becks...do you have the Live Memphis '82 DVD? Copy to CD and there you have a live SFV CD!!
Becks wrote:
Well by just about all accounts I have read, the recent British Steel tour was the best Priest have been since the 'reunion' tour. I have never had the pleasure of seeing them live so can't comment on a personal level. I can however comment on Touch Of Evil Live, which I think isn't too bad. Bar Painkiller, the rest isn't bad and I enjoy listening to it when the mood strikes me - I do agree it's not the best live album ever, hell if they have a live SFV tour recording somewhere I'd be in heaven lol. But I also think that, if you don't like it, there's no need to be so vehemently negative about it. Same goes for anything, if you don't like something, fine, but constant bitching goes nowhere.
jimmyjames wrote:
Touch of Evil Live is shit. One of the worst live albums ever. Funny how theres no live album for British Steel tour, SFV tour, DOTF tour or Painkiller tour yet Priest decide to release live albums from the tours of their most abysmal and divisive albums, Turbo and Nostradamus. I would say that Priest is playing with less prowess live nowadays than they ever have in the past, Halford overweight and limping around the stage or hunched over the teleprompter, It's ridiculous that they get nominated on those grounds now, especially for a song that was written in 1977. That makes the nomination even more worthless to me. I think some kind of longevity or life time achievement award would be more fitting for Priest. At least thats recognition of a career and takes in all of their body of work rather than a second rate rendition of a 33 year old song.
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
The nomination is for the recorded version of Dissident Aggressor from the A Touch of Evil Live album, which is a tad younger than the Death Magnetic album (correct me if I'm wrong), not the original. If anything, the people of the Grammys are acknowledging the prowess of Priest when it comes to playing live (I think?). While the song itself is 33 years old, the live version is pretty "young". But then again, that depends on what you see as Grammy-worthy music: Metallica's latest album, or Judas Priest's most recent live album. I'll go for the latter. (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:45:49 PM)
jimmyjames wrote:
Why did you say you hope Priest win then? How can you have a problem with Metallica being nominated for an album that is a year and a half old and not with priests 33 year old song?
Becks wrote:
True. I suppose I just think that a song/album should only be nominated for the grammy awards that is directly after it's release (therefore Death Magnetics year would have been last year, that's it). I agree, the album is not very good. I found it to be rather self indulgent, look how long we can play for type stuff. But that's another story LOL.
jimmyjames wrote:
Death Magnetic actually came out in Sept 08 so it is less than a year and a half old. Also Metallica tend to release singles long after the album comes out. I'm pretty sure they are still touring the album as well .as their tours tend to stretch out to a couple of years on and off. Therefore the only problem I have with them being nominated is that the album is shit. However time wise I have no problem with them being nominated. It's not like they are being nominated for Seek And Destroy. 33 years is really pushing it.
Becks wrote:
One thing I found weird about grammy noms this year is, Metallica is nominated for songs from the Death Magnetic album, which is what, 2 years old? The just HAD to nominate them for something I guess
Deep Freeze wrote:
That is such a great point, jj. I mean, the fact is there is VERY little in the way of "quality" music available. Too much pre-recorded, over-dubbed crap. There are only so many "I'm so hot, look at my ass" songs one can do before it becomes terribly redundant, no?
I have no idea how they decide what will be nominated but it is just ridiculous.
jimmyjames wrote:
This grammy nomination is a fucking joke. Dissident Aggressor was written and recorded in 1977. If your going to nominate someone for and award in 2010 the song should have been written in 2009. Obviously there can't be much good stuff out there these days if a 33 year old song is being nominated. Wonder if Elvis is up for any awards this year?
Edited at: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:55:03 AM
[ron h] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:46:19 AM
Hey there Becks...do you have the Live Memphis '82 DVD? Copy to CD and there you have a live SFV CD!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:30:26 PM)
Becks wrote:
Well by just about all accounts I have read, the recent British Steel tour was the best Priest have been since the 'reunion' tour. I have never had the pleasure of seeing them live so can't comment on a personal level. I can however comment on Touch Of Evil Live, which I think isn't too bad. Bar Painkiller, the rest isn't bad and I enjoy listening to it when the mood strikes me - I do agree it's not the best live album ever, hell if they have a live SFV tour recording somewhere I'd be in heaven lol. But I also think that, if you don't like it, there's no need to be so vehemently negative about it. Same goes for anything, if you don't like something, fine, but constant bitching goes nowhere.
jimmyjames wrote:
Touch of Evil Live is shit. One of the worst live albums ever. Funny how theres no live album for British Steel tour, SFV tour, DOTF tour or Painkiller tour yet Priest decide to release live albums from the tours of their most abysmal and divisive albums, Turbo and Nostradamus. I would say that Priest is playing with less prowess live nowadays than they ever have in the past, Halford overweight and limping around the stage or hunched over the teleprompter, It's ridiculous that they get nominated on those grounds now, especially for a song that was written in 1977. That makes the nomination even more worthless to me. I think some kind of longevity or life time achievement award would be more fitting for Priest. At least thats recognition of a career and takes in all of their body of work rather than a second rate rendition of a 33 year old song.
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
The nomination is for the recorded version of Dissident Aggressor from the A Touch of Evil Live album, which is a tad younger than the Death Magnetic album (correct me if I'm wrong), not the original. If anything, the people of the Grammys are acknowledging the prowess of Priest when it comes to playing live (I think?). While the song itself is 33 years old, the live version is pretty "young". But then again, that depends on what you see as Grammy-worthy music: Metallica's latest album, or Judas Priest's most recent live album. I'll go for the latter. (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:45:49 PM)
jimmyjames wrote:
Why did you say you hope Priest win then? How can you have a problem with Metallica being nominated for an album that is a year and a half old and not with priests 33 year old song?
Becks wrote:
True. I suppose I just think that a song/album should only be nominated for the grammy awards that is directly after it's release (therefore Death Magnetics year would have been last year, that's it). I agree, the album is not very good. I found it to be rather self indulgent, look how long we can play for type stuff. But that's another story LOL.
jimmyjames wrote:
Death Magnetic actually came out in Sept 08 so it is less than a year and a half old. Also Metallica tend to release singles long after the album comes out. I'm pretty sure they are still touring the album as well .as their tours tend to stretch out to a couple of years on and off. Therefore the only problem I have with them being nominated is that the album is shit. However time wise I have no problem with them being nominated. It's not like they are being nominated for Seek And Destroy. 33 years is really pushing it.
Becks wrote:
One thing I found weird about grammy noms this year is, Metallica is nominated for songs from the Death Magnetic album, which is what, 2 years old? The just HAD to nominate them for something I guess
Deep Freeze wrote:
That is such a great point, jj. I mean, the fact is there is VERY little in the way of "quality" music available. Too much pre-recorded, over-dubbed crap. There are only so many "I'm so hot, look at my ass" songs one can do before it becomes terribly redundant, no?
I have no idea how they decide what will be nominated but it is just ridiculous.
jimmyjames wrote:
This grammy nomination is a fucking joke. Dissident Aggressor was written and recorded in 1977. If your going to nominate someone for and award in 2010 the song should have been written in 2009. Obviously there can't be much good stuff out there these days if a 33 year old song is being nominated. Wonder if Elvis is up for any awards this year?
Edited at: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:55:03 AM
[Vaillant 3.0] Saturday, January 30, 2010 11:45:04 PM
Well, the Grammy awards show is tomorrow. Will Judas Priest win the nomination, or once again leave empty handed? Guess we'll have to wait and see...
[Mr. Dave Genocide] Saturday, January 30, 2010 8:35:45 PM
Lamb Of God, Megadeth, Ministry, and Slayer... IMO toughest competition would be from Slayer, but the Priest should definitely win this award.
[hellrider 31038] Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:59:50 PM
no offence of coarse jimmyjames but in my opinion if you think age has caught up with the band.YOU,VE GOT ANOTHER THING COMIN .I CAN FEEL THE INTENSE MEEETTT TTTAAALLL POOOOWWWWEEEERRRR AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BURNING IN THEM ALL THE WAY OVER HERE and that is like a few thousand miles away attleast.you are going to get buried in the debrie WHEN THEY UNLEASH THIS NEXT HEAVY MEEETTT TTTAAALLL MONSTER AND YOU WILL SAY THE HEEEEELLLLLLLLRRRRRRIIIIIIDDDDDDEEEERRRRRRRRRR was right. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:08:36 PM)
jimmyjames wrote:
I'm not being vehemently negative or bitching. All I did was state my opinion on the nomination. My comments on Touch Of Evil Live were in response to Vails comment about the grammy being performance oriented rather than song oriented as such. If Priest are being nominated for performance now, why not 25 years ago when the performances were outstanding. Age has caught up with the band and that is normal hence the reason I said that some kind of achievement award for their career would be more fitting.
Becks wrote:
Well by just about all accounts I have read, the recent British Steel tour was the best Priest have been since the 'reunion' tour. I have never had the pleasure of seeing them live so can't comment on a personal level. I can however comment on Touch Of Evil Live, which I think isn't too bad. Bar Painkiller, the rest isn't bad and I enjoy listening to it when the mood strikes me - I do agree it's not the best live album ever, hell if they have a live SFV tour recording somewhere I'd be in heaven lol. But I also think that, if you don't like it, there's no need to be so vehemently negative about it. Same goes for anything, if you don't like something, fine, but constant bitching goes nowhere.
jimmyjames wrote:
Touch of Evil Live is shit. One of the worst live albums ever. Funny how theres no live album for British Steel tour, SFV tour, DOTF tour or Painkiller tour yet Priest decide to release live albums from the tours of their most abysmal and divisive albums, Turbo and Nostradamus. I would say that Priest is playing with less prowess live nowadays than they ever have in the past, Halford overweight and limping around the stage or hunched over the teleprompter, It's ridiculous that they get nominated on those grounds now, especially for a song that was written in 1977. That makes the nomination even more worthless to me. I think some kind of longevity or life time achievement award would be more fitting for Priest. At least thats recognition of a career and takes in all of their body of work rather than a second rate rendition of a 33 year old song.
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
The nomination is for the recorded version of Dissident Aggressor from the A Touch of Evil Live album, which is a tad younger than the Death Magnetic album (correct me if I'm wrong), not the original. If anything, the people of the Grammys are acknowledging the prowess of Priest when it comes to playing live (I think?). While the song itself is 33 years old, the live version is pretty "young". But then again, that depends on what you see as Grammy-worthy music: Metallica's latest album, or Judas Priest's most recent live album. I'll go for the latter. (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:45:49 PM)
jimmyjames wrote:
Why did you say you hope Priest win then? How can you have a problem with Metallica being nominated for an album that is a year and a half old and not with priests 33 year old song?
Becks wrote:
True. I suppose I just think that a song/album should only be nominated for the grammy awards that is directly after it's release (therefore Death Magnetics year would have been last year, that's it). I agree, the album is not very good. I found it to be rather self indulgent, look how long we can play for type stuff. But that's another story LOL.
jimmyjames wrote:
Death Magnetic actually came out in Sept 08 so it is less than a year and a half old. Also Metallica tend to release singles long after the album comes out. I'm pretty sure they are still touring the album as well .as their tours tend to stretch out to a couple of years on and off. Therefore the only problem I have with them being nominated is that the album is shit. However time wise I have no problem with them being nominated. It's not like they are being nominated for Seek And Destroy. 33 years is really pushing it.
Becks wrote:
One thing I found weird about grammy noms this year is, Metallica is nominated for songs from the Death Magnetic album, which is what, 2 years old? The just HAD to nominate them for something I guess
Deep Freeze wrote:
That is such a great point, jj. I mean, the fact is there is VERY little in the way of "quality" music available. Too much pre-recorded, over-dubbed crap. There are only so many "I'm so hot, look at my ass" songs one can do before it becomes terribly redundant, no?
I have no idea how they decide what will be nominated but it is just ridiculous.
jimmyjames wrote:
This grammy nomination is a fucking joke. Dissident Aggressor was written and recorded in 1977. If your going to nominate someone for and award in 2010 the song should have been written in 2009. Obviously there can't be much good stuff out there these days if a 33 year old song is being nominated. Wonder if Elvis is up for any awards this year?
Edited at: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:55:03 AM
[hellrider 31038] Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:50:36 PM
SHI? SHHHIII???? SHHHHHIIIIIII?????????? SHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIII?????????????????.i can not believe you think that man.here is just one of THE JUDAS PRIEST HEAVY MEEETTT TTTAAALLL classics from it CRANK IT.thats totally awesome if you ask me.i just wish that they swaped TOUCH OF EVIL with HELL PATROL would have been great to have HELL PATROL, TOUCH OF EVIL is 1 song from the MIGHTY PAAAAAAAAAAINKILLLLLLLLER album i am not crazy about.and they should have used the toronto 2008 MIGHTY PAAAAAAAAAAAAINKILLLLLLER instead of the one they did.MAN THAT WAS INTENSE. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:12:39 PM)
jimmyjames wrote:
Touch of Evil Live is shit. One of the worst live albums ever. Funny how theres no live album for British Steel tour, SFV tour, DOTF tour or Painkiller tour yet Priest decide to release live albums from the tours of their most abysmal and divisive albums, Turbo and Nostradamus. I would say that Priest is playing with less prowess live nowadays than they ever have in the past, Halford overweight and limping around the stage or hunched over the teleprompter, It's ridiculous that they get nominated on those grounds now, especially for a song that was written in 1977. That makes the nomination even more worthless to me. I think some kind of longevity or life time achievement award would be more fitting for Priest. At least thats recognition of a career and takes in all of their body of work rather than a second rate rendition of a 33 year old song.
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
The nomination is for the recorded version of Dissident Aggressor from the A Touch of Evil Live album, which is a tad younger than the Death Magnetic album (correct me if I'm wrong), not the original. If anything, the people of the Grammys are acknowledging the prowess of Priest when it comes to playing live (I think?). While the song itself is 33 years old, the live version is pretty "young". But then again, that depends on what you see as Grammy-worthy music: Metallica's latest album, or Judas Priest's most recent live album. I'll go for the latter. (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:45:49 PM)
jimmyjames wrote:
Why did you say you hope Priest win then? How can you have a problem with Metallica being nominated for an album that is a year and a half old and not with priests 33 year old song?
Becks wrote:
True. I suppose I just think that a song/album should only be nominated for the grammy awards that is directly after it's release (therefore Death Magnetics year would have been last year, that's it). I agree, the album is not very good. I found it to be rather self indulgent, look how long we can play for type stuff. But that's another story LOL.
jimmyjames wrote:
Death Magnetic actually came out in Sept 08 so it is less than a year and a half old. Also Metallica tend to release singles long after the album comes out. I'm pretty sure they are still touring the album as well .as their tours tend to stretch out to a couple of years on and off. Therefore the only problem I have with them being nominated is that the album is shit. However time wise I have no problem with them being nominated. It's not like they are being nominated for Seek And Destroy. 33 years is really pushing it.
Becks wrote:
One thing I found weird about grammy noms this year is, Metallica is nominated for songs from the Death Magnetic album, which is what, 2 years old? The just HAD to nominate them for something I guess
Deep Freeze wrote:
That is such a great point, jj. I mean, the fact is there is VERY little in the way of "quality" music available. Too much pre-recorded, over-dubbed crap. There are only so many "I'm so hot, look at my ass" songs one can do before it becomes terribly redundant, no?
I have no idea how they decide what will be nominated but it is just ridiculous.
jimmyjames wrote:
This grammy nomination is a fucking joke. Dissident Aggressor was written and recorded in 1977. If your going to nominate someone for and award in 2010 the song should have been written in 2009. Obviously there can't be much good stuff out there these days if a 33 year old song is being nominated. Wonder if Elvis is up for any awards this year?
Edited at: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:55:03 AM
[guidogodoy] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:28:57 PM
JJ. While I agree with you on MANY points...lifetime achievement, them being nominated NOW (WTF??), I would disagree about "Touch of Evil" being the "worst live albums ever." At last count I am into the 200+ bootleg audio / videos. Conservative estimate.
Personally, I like the album and appreciate the evolution that it contains vis a vis the band. Granted, like most, I do think that they had far greater versions of Painkiiller on that tour. I have audio proof to back it up. Why they put it out or haven't released more? No idea. I am with you there, buddy. Perhaps business deals that we will never know.
I guess it is "props" to the bootleggers until then as they have really captured some fantastic Priest moments in time that I will always treasure. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:12:39 PM)
jimmyjames wrote:
Touch of Evil Live is shit. One of the worst live albums ever. Funny how theres no live album for British Steel tour, SFV tour, DOTF tour or Painkiller tour yet Priest decide to release live albums from the tours of their most abysmal and divisive albums, Turbo and Nostradamus. I would say that Priest is playing with less prowess live nowadays than they ever have in the past, Halford overweight and limping around the stage or hunched over the teleprompter, It's ridiculous that they get nominated on those grounds now, especially for a song that was written in 1977. That makes the nomination even more worthless to me. I think some kind of longevity or life time achievement award would be more fitting for Priest. At least thats recognition of a career and takes in all of their body of work rather than a second rate rendition of a 33 year old song.
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
The nomination is for the recorded version of Dissident Aggressor from the A Touch of Evil Live album, which is a tad younger than the Death Magnetic album (correct me if I'm wrong), not the original. If anything, the people of the Grammys are acknowledging the prowess of Priest when it comes to playing live (I think?). While the song itself is 33 years old, the live version is pretty "young". But then again, that depends on what you see as Grammy-worthy music: Metallica's latest album, or Judas Priest's most recent live album. I'll go for the latter. (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:45:49 PM)
jimmyjames wrote:
Why did you say you hope Priest win then? How can you have a problem with Metallica being nominated for an album that is a year and a half old and not with priests 33 year old song?
Becks wrote:
True. I suppose I just think that a song/album should only be nominated for the grammy awards that is directly after it's release (therefore Death Magnetics year would have been last year, that's it). I agree, the album is not very good. I found it to be rather self indulgent, look how long we can play for type stuff. But that's another story LOL.
jimmyjames wrote:
Death Magnetic actually came out in Sept 08 so it is less than a year and a half old. Also Metallica tend to release singles long after the album comes out. I'm pretty sure they are still touring the album as well .as their tours tend to stretch out to a couple of years on and off. Therefore the only problem I have with them being nominated is that the album is shit. However time wise I have no problem with them being nominated. It's not like they are being nominated for Seek And Destroy. 33 years is really pushing it.
Becks wrote:
One thing I found weird about grammy noms this year is, Metallica is nominated for songs from the Death Magnetic album, which is what, 2 years old? The just HAD to nominate them for something I guess
Deep Freeze wrote:
That is such a great point, jj. I mean, the fact is there is VERY little in the way of "quality" music available. Too much pre-recorded, over-dubbed crap. There are only so many "I'm so hot, look at my ass" songs one can do before it becomes terribly redundant, no?
I have no idea how they decide what will be nominated but it is just ridiculous.
jimmyjames wrote:
This grammy nomination is a fucking joke. Dissident Aggressor was written and recorded in 1977. If your going to nominate someone for and award in 2010 the song should have been written in 2009. Obviously there can't be much good stuff out there these days if a 33 year old song is being nominated. Wonder if Elvis is up for any awards this year?
Edited at: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:55:03 AM
[guidogodoy] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:16:45 PM
Silly as it may sound, you are right. I have been given a bunch of awards at work and really had nothing else to do with them BUT put them up in my office. While I never openly asked for any "outstanding" whatever of the month, I do say I was pissed when some other loser got it.
Hell, I am the BEST chimney sweep and everyone should recognize it. Chim chim..... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:26:02 AM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
OK, I will "jump in", as it were. And not with you, Nick although I truly understand what you are saying. I speak of these "awards".
Whether it is Grammys or "Oscars" or Emmys or whatever, the fact remains that it is a natural human trait to desire recognition for your effort. From "Employee of the Month" to the Nobel Prize, people like to be recognized. They like to receive affirmation and especially from their peers. Now, I am not trying to suggest that Rob and the boys are sitting around their mansions, sipping tea and gabbing on about the "what ifs" of this particular award! Please, take pity on this old man, folks! I am stating an opinion of observation.
You may have noticed that I unabashedly promote myself here on the Board. I talk often about my music and the various accolades I have received. I enjoy that recognition. There are even those that revel in it. And, as would make sense, there are those that would capitalize on that by pushing 'Red Carpet" events, "Award Shows" magazines and whatnot. All one need do is look at all the "Hollywood Gossip" magazines to understand how very popular this all is. The *ahem* "buying public" cannot get enough of it and the promoters at large KNOW this!
While there are those of us that continue to say these awards mean nothing and those of us that claim it would be great to see Priest win, both are right. Personally, I get it. I know that it is about being recognized for what you do for a living. For your passion. The long hours of rehearsal, the touring, the shows night after night. Writing and creating. I have yet to hear of even ONE musician that has decided to "turn down" a gold or platinum record award. Seems to me they all put them on their walls.
[jimmyjames] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:15:50 PM
