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.
[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.
|
|
Edited at: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:55:03 AM |
|
|
|
|
