Yeah, that's true. It seems as though Metallica are the "darlings" of the Grammy world every year. I suppose they feel that they "must" have representation from the "hard rock" world and Metallica is the soup d'jour each time. Shows what they have become, doesn't it? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Monday, January 18, 2010 2:49:16 PM)
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?
