You're right Freeze, the nominations do matter, and I'm sure that Priest are very proud to be on the list, although I think that (being the nice guys they are) if they don't win they will still be chuffed for whichever band does- because all the bands on the list thoroughly deserve to be there- the grammys have a much better understanding of the genre than they used to, so its unfair to keep harking back to the Jethro Tull incident every time we disagree with who wins. It might be Priest. It might not be. But its cool that they can even put 'Grammy nominated' on Dissident Aggressor now. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:07:49 AM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
You know, I am probably going to get a considerable amount of heat for this BUT, I find it interesting how we always qualify a comment about the Grammys with a statement like, "They really don't mean anything.." I have to say, I disagree completely. While they may not be as "legitimate" as we would like them to be, I think they mean an awful lot.
It is quite natural for us, as fans of Priest, to dismiss these "awards" as inconsequential but they are VERY meaningful in the music industry and actually quite coveted by artists. They are a vehicle through which an act can skyrocket sales. They are an acknowledgement of achievement. They are prestigious. There is a lot to be said for an act that can put "Grammy Award Winning" in front of their name.
I think that we, as Metal fans especially, tend to look upon the Grammys in a different way simply because our genre rarely receives the recognition we feel it deserves. And , when it does, we remember the debacle that was "Jethro Tull". Our music just does not generate the kind of respect we feel it should. Nonetheless, when a member of Rage Against the Machine gets SO upset that he stops the show by climbing onto the stage and refusing to leave, we must take note and understand that our 'heroes" think quite highly of these things. They do mean something.
