JudasPriest.com

Topics List	Inbox	Friends	Search	Admin	Information
You are not logged in.

Message

Search For:

TOPIC: Grammy nomination

[jimmyjames] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:12:39 PM

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.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:32:42 AM)

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

1 Messages Displayed.