You do not have enough Respect Points to post in this topic.
[GLORIAROMANA S.-THE QUEEN OF METAL GOD-ROB HALFORD] Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:42:44 AM
ABOUT JUDAS PRIEST NOMINATION AT GRAMMY TITLE IN THE BEST METAL PERFORMANCE SECTION WITH THE DISSIDENT AGGRESOR SONG FROM TOUCH OF EVIL LIVE ALBUM,BUT ORIGINALY FROM SIN AFTER SIN ALBUM
ABOUT THE JUDAS PRIEST POSSIBLE NOMINATION INTO THE INTERNATIONAL ROCK ROLL HALL OF FAME AND WINNING THE TITLE INTO THE BEST HEAVY METAL BAND SECTION,AND ROB HALFORD INTO THE BEST METAL SINGER SECTION.
1.Related to the rules of nominations and the titles into Grammy:
I am very very sad cause the Judas Priest didn't got a Grammy title,in any other section,long long time ago,how they deserved,and just nominations and i am very very bad surprised about how the things go there at Grammy,i mean i don’t know who can vote there for nomination and if the peoples who vote are authorizated musicians or not,then on what criteria are the votes and how many votes is need for to win a title,etc.but certainly,speaking as a musician,not just as a fan,in my opinion,with sure exist there musicians which was nominated many many times,and others not even once,or musisicians who win lots grammies,and others nothing,and some musicians which didn't deserved to win some so fast and others which won after lots years,and finnaly some musicians which didn’t deserved to win ever but I repet,I don’t know how exactly go the things there,its just my opinion,and I think the same for other titles such as Music Awards Title,and for Rock Roll Hall Of Fame titles,etc.
2.Related to their nomination and the title into Grammy:
I was very very happy when i red on the internet news about the Judas Priest nomination at the Grammy title,in the section of Best Metal Performance,and i was very very surprised when the news announced that they won the title,and i expected to see the entire show on Tv,where i saw how they were announced for the title and when Rob and Scott cames and picked the title finnaly and when Rob,in his....wooow,cool black costume,spoke so beautiful about their honour to pick this title,and about their thanks to their special peoples,and to their fans.For sure they already deserved to win more many nominations already,and more many titles,in my opinion they deserved to be nominated not just for the old albums,and old songs,from which also I think they already deserved to win the title for British Steel album with the song Breaking The Law,which in my opinion,is one of their most popular song,and for which they made the most interesting video,they going to a bank but not for steel money,but a title ,the title which they thought they already deserved at that period,but also even with some from Painkiller album,from which they already deserved to win the title with Painkiller song,and even from Angel Of Retribution album from where they deserved to win a title with Hellrider song,another king of Painkiller,in my opinion,a little hard one,and finnaly even from Nostradamus album from which they deserved to already win the title with Nostradamus song,another kind of Painkiller,a little symphonic one.
3.Related to their nomination and Rob Halford nomination and winning a title in Rock& Roll Hall of Fame :
I hope I will see finnaly and one day soon that Judas Priest will be inducted into the International Rock Roll Hall Of Fame as best heavy metal band,and ofcourse Rob Halford,into the best metal singer section,reason for which i already start a petition into Go Petition site and which i administer this for his induction in this,and which i invite you to look over,to read it,and finnaly if you are agree with it to sign it to put together hand by hand into a simple signature,which not cost us anything,just a minute from our time, for to help as that miracle to happen soon,now when he is still alive,and not after his death,how ussualy the things goes.
Edited at: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:44:16 AM Edited at: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:48:18 AM Edited at: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:49:15 AM Edited at: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:56:35 AM
[icecreamman] Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:54:36 PM
I have to agree with you J.D., Dissident Agressor is much heavier to me. Death is a great song, but it does pale in comparison to Dissedent Agressor. Both songs have killer solos in them.[Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by J.D. DIAMOND from Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:38:14 AM)
J.D. DIAMOND wrote:
Huh,I actually think the 1977 studio version of Dissident Agressor is heavier than the song "Death" although Death is pretty heavy,I don't think its hard core,to me its another "Lockness".Dissident Agressor to me is more "heavy metal" than Death,but to each his own.
Screamin' Demon wrote:
It's not that it sucks that it didn't. It's that Death is much more hardcore heavy metal than Dissident Aggressor is. I'm just surprised that Dissident Aggressor got such a good rating in comparison...
J.D. DIAMOND wrote:
Well it may suck for you that the song 'Death" didn't get the nomination but I am cellebrating that "it didn't" because to me "Death" is a very boring lame song that makes me wish they never would of written Nostradamus.Dissident Agressor steamrolls "Death" into oblivion without question.
Screamin' Demon wrote:
I still can't understand tho as to why Dissident Aggressor got the nomination. Death, from ATOE Live is simply bone-rattling to listen to. What an amazing live performance. Why didn't Death get the Nomination instead?
Still...congrats to winning the award Judas PriestIt was also very awesome to see my 2 favourite Priest members up on that stage if not all the band.
Edited at: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:56:21 PM
[J.D. DIAMOND] Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:38:14 AM
Huh,I actually think the 1977 studio version of Dissident Agressor is heavier than the song "Death" although Death is pretty heavy,I don't think its hard core,to me its another "Lockness".Dissident Agressor to me is more "heavy metal" than Death,but to each his own. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Screamin' Demon from Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:27:08 AM)
Screamin' Demon wrote:
It's not that it sucks that it didn't. It's that Death is much more hardcore heavy metal than Dissident Aggressor is. I'm just surprised that Dissident Aggressor got such a good rating in comparison...
J.D. DIAMOND wrote:
Well it may suck for you that the song 'Death" didn't get the nomination but I am cellebrating that "it didn't" because to me "Death" is a very boring lame song that makes me wish they never would of written Nostradamus.Dissident Agressor steamrolls "Death" into oblivion without question.
Screamin' Demon wrote:
I still can't understand tho as to why Dissident Aggressor got the nomination. Death, from ATOE Live is simply bone-rattling to listen to. What an amazing live performance. Why didn't Death get the Nomination instead?
Still...congrats to winning the award Judas PriestIt was also very awesome to see my 2 favourite Priest members up on that stage if not all the band.
[Screamin' Demon] Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:27:08 AM
It's not that it sucks that it didn't. It's that Death is much more hardcore heavy metal than Dissident Aggressor is. I'm just surprised that Dissident Aggressor got such a good rating in comparison... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by J.D. DIAMOND from Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:22:58 PM)
J.D. DIAMOND wrote:
Well it may suck for you that the song 'Death" didn't get the nomination but I am cellebrating that "it didn't" because to me "Death" is a very boring lame song that makes me wish they never would of written Nostradamus.Dissident Agressor steamrolls "Death" into oblivion without question.
Screamin' Demon wrote:
I still can't understand tho as to why Dissident Aggressor got the nomination. Death, from ATOE Live is simply bone-rattling to listen to. What an amazing live performance. Why didn't Death get the Nomination instead?
Still...congrats to winning the award Judas PriestIt was also very awesome to see my 2 favourite Priest members up on that stage if not all the band.
[J.D. DIAMOND] Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:22:58 PM
Well it may suck for you that the song 'Death" didn't get the nomination but I am cellebrating that "it didn't" because to me "Death" is a very boring lame song that makes me wish they never would of written Nostradamus.Dissident Agressor steamrolls "Death" into oblivion without question. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Screamin' Demon from Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:40:21 AM)
Screamin' Demon wrote:
I still can't understand tho as to why Dissident Aggressor got the nomination. Death, from ATOE Live is simply bone-rattling to listen to. What an amazing live performance. Why didn't Death get the Nomination instead?
Still...congrats to winning the award Judas PriestIt was also very awesome to see my 2 favourite Priest members up on that stage if not all the band.
[Screamin' Demon] Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:40:21 AM
I still can't understand tho as to why Dissident Aggressor got the nomination. Death, from ATOE Live is simply bone-rattling to listen to. What an amazing live performance. Why didn't Death get the Nomination instead?
Still...congrats to winning the award Judas PriestIt was also very awesome to see my 2 favourite Priest members up on that stage if not all the band.
[guardian angel] Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:10:11 AM
CONGRATULATIONS PRIEST!! \m/ \m/ You guys worked very hard for many years delivering the goods. Though we the fans appreciate all you do, it's nice to get recognized once in awhile, for whatever it's worth. \m/ \m/
[Head banger] Monday, February 01, 2010 5:40:47 PM
not saying I agree with it but... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Mr. Dave Genocide from Monday, February 01, 2010 4:18:01 PM)
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
"Peace Sells, but who's buying?" is all I have to say. But you do have a good point, it's all advertising.
Head banger wrote:
yeah, but they dont care about that. what the show is for is to sell advertising and records. what sells gets aired.
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
It's not just the Grammy's, though.. This happens throughout other "award" ceremonies... Cut the crap and give everyone their due is my motto for this.
Head banger wrote:
the show is about the show, the awards are just the excuse to have a show. I was reading a review of it (no mention of priest) where they made this same point as some useless pop star could not accept her award as she was backstage and the next act on.
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
It's sad how today's society won't accept EVERY genre equally. PRE-TELECAST!? That's fucking embarrassing! My god, knock off the lame ass performances during the Grammy's and present all the awards LIVE. This is why I hate watching the Grammy's, it's never gonna change. Congrats Priest!
[Mr. Dave Genocide] Monday, February 01, 2010 4:18:01 PM
"Peace Sells, but who's buying?" is all I have to say. But you do have a good point, it's all advertising. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, February 01, 2010 4:11:52 PM)
Head banger wrote:
yeah, but they dont care about that. what the show is for is to sell advertising and records. what sells gets aired.
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
It's not just the Grammy's, though.. This happens throughout other "award" ceremonies... Cut the crap and give everyone their due is my motto for this.
Head banger wrote:
the show is about the show, the awards are just the excuse to have a show. I was reading a review of it (no mention of priest) where they made this same point as some useless pop star could not accept her award as she was backstage and the next act on.
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
It's sad how today's society won't accept EVERY genre equally. PRE-TELECAST!? That's fucking embarrassing! My god, knock off the lame ass performances during the Grammy's and present all the awards LIVE. This is why I hate watching the Grammy's, it's never gonna change. Congrats Priest!
[Head banger] Monday, February 01, 2010 4:11:52 PM
yeah, but they dont care about that. what the show is for is to sell advertising and records. what sells gets aired. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Mr. Dave Genocide from Monday, February 01, 2010 3:51:25 PM)
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
It's not just the Grammy's, though.. This happens throughout other "award" ceremonies... Cut the crap and give everyone their due is my motto for this.
Head banger wrote:
the show is about the show, the awards are just the excuse to have a show. I was reading a review of it (no mention of priest) where they made this same point as some useless pop star could not accept her award as she was backstage and the next act on.
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
It's sad how today's society won't accept EVERY genre equally. PRE-TELECAST!? That's fucking embarrassing! My god, knock off the lame ass performances during the Grammy's and present all the awards LIVE. This is why I hate watching the Grammy's, it's never gonna change. Congrats Priest!
[Mr. Dave Genocide] Monday, February 01, 2010 3:51:25 PM
It's not just the Grammy's, though.. This happens throughout other "award" ceremonies... Cut the crap and give everyone their due is my motto for this.
the show is about the show, the awards are just the excuse to have a show. I was reading a review of it (no mention of priest) where they made this same point as some useless pop star could not accept her award as she was backstage and the next act on.
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
It's sad how today's society won't accept EVERY genre equally. PRE-TELECAST!? That's fucking embarrassing! My god, knock off the lame ass performances during the Grammy's and present all the awards LIVE. This is why I hate watching the Grammy's, it's never gonna change. Congrats Priest!
[Becks] Monday, February 01, 2010 3:13:31 PM
Yeah that sucked eh but in saying that they know how much real metal fans love and admire them. The audience there was all about the Black Eyed Peas and other rubbish music. Man, when I was watching the pre-telecast thing, I had to sit through about a million hip hop and r&b awards - what a load of trash LOL! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:59:13 PM)
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
Watching the Grammys (on mute) right now, and I'm feeling a tad mad at the moment. Rob and Scott got a half-assed applause in the pre-telecast. Sucks.
[Head banger] Monday, February 01, 2010 1:34:02 PM
the show is about the show, the awards are just the excuse to have a show. I was reading a review of it (no mention of priest) where they made this same point as some useless pop star could not accept her award as she was backstage and the next act on. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Mr. Dave Genocide from Monday, February 01, 2010 12:10:28 PM)
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
It's sad how today's society won't accept EVERY genre equally. PRE-TELECAST!? That's fucking embarrassing! My god, knock off the lame ass performances during the Grammy's and present all the awards LIVE. This is why I hate watching the Grammy's, it's never gonna change. Congrats Priest!
[guidogodoy] Monday, February 01, 2010 12:36:20 PM
Oh AMEN about those lame performances. I fell asleep twice during the hip-hop (Ummmmm....seemingly every other number with 20 people on stage). [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Mr. Dave Genocide from Monday, February 01, 2010 12:10:28 PM)
Mr. Dave Genocide wrote:
It's sad how today's society won't accept EVERY genre equally. PRE-TELECAST!? That's fucking embarrassing! My god, knock off the lame ass performances during the Grammy's and present all the awards LIVE. This is why I hate watching the Grammy's, it's never gonna change. Congrats Priest!
[Mr. Dave Genocide] Monday, February 01, 2010 12:10:28 PM
It's sad how today's society won't accept EVERY genre equally. PRE-TELECAST!? That's fucking embarrassing! My god, knock off the lame ass performances during the Grammy's and present all the awards LIVE. This is why I hate watching the Grammy's, it's never gonna change. Congrats Priest!
[astarup] Monday, February 01, 2010 2:39:46 AM
Congratulations to the band !!
[neoxpriest] Monday, February 01, 2010 12:41:54 AM
congratulations to the metal gods!! finally they got the grammy!!! yeaaaaahhh
[acolyte55] Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:51:11 PM
finally!
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:13:59 PM
They're on the pre-telecast show in the Grammy website. They won't show up on TV, unfortunately. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Jeanine from Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:07:40 PM)
Jeanine wrote:
you saw them on the television?
[Jeanine] Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:07:40 PM
you saw them on the television?
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:59:13 PM
Watching the Grammys (on mute) right now, and I'm feeling a tad mad at the moment. Rob and Scott got a half-assed applause in the pre-telecast. Sucks.
[hellrider 31038] Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:35:11 PM
wow this is a huge day for THE MIGHTY PRIEST BEAST METAL MACHINE.finally winning a grammy award and getting this very positive exposer across north america.imagine all the people checking out PRIEST right now some for there very first time.
[guidogodoy] Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:15:39 PM
Let me get this right....I have been watching this crap for hours and it was only in the PRE-broadcast?!? I have been watching band after band destroy this song or another, a freaking 3D Michael Jackson horrible tune and now have Bon Jovi playing "Living on a Prayer?!"
Still CONGRATS. BOYS! ABOUT FREAKIN' TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:59:43 PM)
Becks wrote:
Hopefully it's not their last grammy, they sure as heck deserved it today! In 1991, Stone Cold Crazy (Metallica covering Queen), beat out PAINKILLER! I mean, seriously, WTF?!?!?!
On a side note, Korn somehow won a metal grammy - they suck donkey balls! LOL! (Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:56:30 PM)
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
ME THREE!!!!
Becks wrote:
I don't know either. All I know, I'm fucking STOKED!!! LOL!
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
For one thing, the category doesn't really specify how old the song being performed should be...just that it had to be a recent rendition of it, I guess. So in a way, Judas Priest was able to get nominated for that. I don't know...
ron h wrote:
Ya know, we've been on the opposite end many times, complaining about who won what while we got denied, so I expect to see posts on varying sites claiming Megadeth got screwed and things like it's messed up they won with a song written before most in attendance were born. BUT, the category was Metal PERFORMANCE!!! No stipulation it had to be the performance of a NEW song...so what gives???
Edited at: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:00:06 PM
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:09:52 PM
I just heard Painkiller a half-hour ago, and I agree: it's such a great shame they didn't win the Grammy for that. It just had to be Metallica. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:59:43 PM)
Becks wrote:
Hopefully it's not their last grammy, they sure as heck deserved it today! In 1991, Stone Cold Crazy (Metallica covering Queen), beat out PAINKILLER! I mean, seriously, WTF?!?!?!
On a side note, Korn somehow won a metal grammy - they suck donkey balls! LOL! (Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:56:30 PM)
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
ME THREE!!!!
Becks wrote:
I don't know either. All I know, I'm fucking STOKED!!! LOL!
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
For one thing, the category doesn't really specify how old the song being performed should be...just that it had to be a recent rendition of it, I guess. So in a way, Judas Priest was able to get nominated for that. I don't know...
ron h wrote:
Ya know, we've been on the opposite end many times, complaining about who won what while we got denied, so I expect to see posts on varying sites claiming Megadeth got screwed and things like it's messed up they won with a song written before most in attendance were born. BUT, the category was Metal PERFORMANCE!!! No stipulation it had to be the performance of a NEW song...so what gives???
Edited at: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:00:06 PM
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:59:43 PM
Hopefully it's not their last grammy, they sure as heck deserved it today! In 1991, Stone Cold Crazy (Metallica covering Queen), beat out PAINKILLER! I mean, seriously, WTF?!?!?!
On a side note, Korn somehow won a metal grammy - they suck donkey balls! LOL! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:56:30 PM)
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
ME THREE!!!!
Becks wrote:
I don't know either. All I know, I'm fucking STOKED!!! LOL!
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
For one thing, the category doesn't really specify how old the song being performed should be...just that it had to be a recent rendition of it, I guess. So in a way, Judas Priest was able to get nominated for that. I don't know...
ron h wrote:
Ya know, we've been on the opposite end many times, complaining about who won what while we got denied, so I expect to see posts on varying sites claiming Megadeth got screwed and things like it's messed up they won with a song written before most in attendance were born. BUT, the category was Metal PERFORMANCE!!! No stipulation it had to be the performance of a NEW song...so what gives???
Edited at: Sunday, January 31, 2010 9:00:06 PM
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:56:30 PM
I don't know either. All I know, I'm fucking STOKED!!! LOL!
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
For one thing, the category doesn't really specify how old the song being performed should be...just that it had to be a recent rendition of it, I guess. So in a way, Judas Priest was able to get nominated for that. I don't know...
ron h wrote:
Ya know, we've been on the opposite end many times, complaining about who won what while we got denied, so I expect to see posts on varying sites claiming Megadeth got screwed and things like it's messed up they won with a song written before most in attendance were born. BUT, the category was Metal PERFORMANCE!!! No stipulation it had to be the performance of a NEW song...so what gives???
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:50:43 PM
I don't know either. All I know, I'm fucking STOKED!!! LOL! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:47:41 PM)
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
For one thing, the category doesn't really specify how old the song being performed should be...just that it had to be a recent rendition of it, I guess. So in a way, Judas Priest was able to get nominated for that. I don't know...
ron h wrote:
Ya know, we've been on the opposite end many times, complaining about who won what while we got denied, so I expect to see posts on varying sites claiming Megadeth got screwed and things like it's messed up they won with a song written before most in attendance were born. BUT, the category was Metal PERFORMANCE!!! No stipulation it had to be the performance of a NEW song...so what gives???
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:47:41 PM
For one thing, the category doesn't really specify how old the song being performed should be...just that it had to be a recent rendition of it, I guess. So in a way, Judas Priest was able to get nominated for that. I don't know... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:28:11 PM)
ron h wrote:
Ya know, we've been on the opposite end many times, complaining about who won what while we got denied, so I expect to see posts on varying sites claiming Megadeth got screwed and things like it's messed up they won with a song written before most in attendance were born. BUT, the category was Metal PERFORMANCE!!! No stipulation it had to be the performance of a NEW song...so what gives???
[ron h] Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:28:11 PM
Ya know, we've been on the opposite end many times, complaining about who won what while we got denied, so I expect to see posts on varying sites claiming Megadeth got screwed and things like it's messed up they won with a song written before most in attendance were born. BUT, the category was Metal PERFORMANCE!!! No stipulation it had to be the performance of a NEW song...so what gives???
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:27:58 PM
Where the heck are the horns?? Go Rob and Scottie!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:22:53 PM)
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 8:07:50 PM
Look what I fished out of the Grammy website!!
[Head banger] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:54:11 PM
Outstanding!!!!! long overdue.
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:49:16 PM
Yep they sure did! Also beat out Alice in Chains, Linkin Park (WTF YUCK), and Nickelback (LMFAO WTF). [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:45:45 PM)
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
Holy crap!! They beat Metallica??? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Becks wrote:
Yeah I'm pleased with AC/DCs win too! They beat Metallica which makes it even better LOL!
icecreamman wrote:
Thanks Becks, I was on edge for hours, I NEEDED TO KNOW!!!! AC/DC won best hard rock performance!!! Judas Priest finally won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hell Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:45:45 PM
Holy crap!! They beat Metallica??? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:43:43 PM)
Becks wrote:
Yeah I'm pleased with AC/DCs win too! They beat Metallica which makes it even better LOL!
icecreamman wrote:
Thanks Becks, I was on edge for hours, I NEEDED TO KNOW!!!! AC/DC won best hard rock performance!!! Judas Priest finally won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hell Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:43:43 PM
Yeah I'm pleased with AC/DCs win too! They beat Metallica which makes it even better LOL! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by icecreamman from Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:39:47 PM)
icecreamman wrote:
Thanks Becks, I was on edge for hours, I NEEDED TO KNOW!!!! AC/DC won best hard rock performance!!! Judas Priest finally won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hell Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[icecreamman] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:39:47 PM
Thanks Becks, I was on edge for hours, I NEEDED TO KNOW!!!! AC/DC won best hard rock performance!!! Judas Priest finally won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hell Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:09:04 PM
I say a Priest Feast is in order!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Vaillant 3.0 from Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:08:17 PM)
Vaillant 3.0 wrote:
Sounds like a good idea!!
Becks wrote:
LOL the metal grammy is the only one I am interested in, so now it's done, lets celebrate I say!!!
ron h wrote:
I hear ya Becks. If they are NOT gonna air the Metal Grammy, why suffer for 3 hours??? Let's celebrate it now and then I don't have to watch 3 hours of crap only to be let down by not getting to see it???
Becks wrote:
That's what I mean Ron, sorry if I spoilt anything, but why would anyone NOT want to know? There's no real element of surprise to it, like I said, it WILL NOT be on the main telecast - which sucks but that's how it goes.
ron h wrote:
How can news of this wonderful acknowledgement be supressed?? I'm like Becks in that I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but the fact they won should transcend any other feelings...sorry!!
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:08:17 PM
LOL the metal grammy is the only one I am interested in, so now it's done, lets celebrate I say!!!
ron h wrote:
I hear ya Becks. If they are NOT gonna air the Metal Grammy, why suffer for 3 hours??? Let's celebrate it now and then I don't have to watch 3 hours of crap only to be let down by not getting to see it???
Becks wrote:
That's what I mean Ron, sorry if I spoilt anything, but why would anyone NOT want to know? There's no real element of surprise to it, like I said, it WILL NOT be on the main telecast - which sucks but that's how it goes.
ron h wrote:
How can news of this wonderful acknowledgement be supressed?? I'm like Becks in that I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but the fact they won should transcend any other feelings...sorry!!
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:04:55 PM
LOL the metal grammy is the only one I am interested in, so now it's done, lets celebrate I say!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:03:02 PM)
ron h wrote:
I hear ya Becks. If they are NOT gonna air the Metal Grammy, why suffer for 3 hours??? Let's celebrate it now and then I don't have to watch 3 hours of crap only to be let down by not getting to see it???
Becks wrote:
That's what I mean Ron, sorry if I spoilt anything, but why would anyone NOT want to know? There's no real element of surprise to it, like I said, it WILL NOT be on the main telecast - which sucks but that's how it goes.
ron h wrote:
How can news of this wonderful acknowledgement be supressed?? I'm like Becks in that I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but the fact they won should transcend any other feelings...sorry!!
[ron h] Sunday, January 31, 2010 7:03:02 PM
I hear ya Becks. If they are NOT gonna air the Metal Grammy, why suffer for 3 hours??? Let's celebrate it now and then I don't have to watch 3 hours of crap only to be let down by not getting to see it??? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:58:28 PM)
Becks wrote:
That's what I mean Ron, sorry if I spoilt anything, but why would anyone NOT want to know? There's no real element of surprise to it, like I said, it WILL NOT be on the main telecast - which sucks but that's how it goes.
ron h wrote:
How can news of this wonderful acknowledgement be supressed?? I'm like Becks in that I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but the fact they won should transcend any other feelings...sorry!!
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:59:54 PM
Sweet as, Freeze yeah the delay is a pain in the ass, things should be live. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:57:57 PM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
Not a problem, my dear. I should have just stayed off the computer. I hate how they "delay" the stupid telecast anyway. It is SO friggin annoying. Just show the damn thing when it happens, you know?
Becks wrote:
How would I know it's not on tv there yet or whatever. The metal grammy WILL NOT be on the main telecast!!!! sorry, but I'm not a mind reader, no one said not to tell.
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:58:28 PM
That's what I mean Ron, sorry if I spoilt anything, but why would anyone NOT want to know? There's no real element of surprise to it, like I said, it WILL NOT be on the main telecast - which sucks but that's how it goes. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:56:28 PM)
ron h wrote:
How can news of this wonderful acknowledgement be supressed?? I'm like Becks in that I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but the fact they won should transcend any other feelings...sorry!!
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:57:57 PM
Not a problem, my dear. I should have just stayed off the computer. I hate how they "delay" the stupid telecast anyway. It is SO friggin annoying. Just show the damn thing when it happens, you know? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:50:06 PM)
Becks wrote:
How would I know it's not on tv there yet or whatever. The metal grammy WILL NOT be on the main telecast!!!! sorry, but I'm not a mind reader, no one said not to tell.
[ron h] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:56:28 PM
How can news of this wonderful acknowledgement be supressed?? I'm like Becks in that I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but the fact they won should transcend any other feelings...sorry!!
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:55:31 PM
But the element of surprise is gone now!!! Damn it. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:50:06 PM)
Becks wrote:
How would I know it's not on tv there yet or whatever. The metal grammy WILL NOT be on the main telecast!!!! sorry, but I'm not a mind reader, no one said not to tell.
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:50:06 PM
How would I know it's not on tv there yet or whatever. The metal grammy WILL NOT be on the main telecast!!!! sorry, but I'm not a mind reader, no one said not to tell.
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:48:56 PM
I said that ages ago LOL!!!! I was watchin' hehe. Awesome eh? I'm so stoked for them. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:48:10 PM)
BAH!!!!!! It's my own fault. I should have stayed OFF the computer and away from here..... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:45:19 PM)
Becks wrote:
Deep Freeze wrote:
AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHH!!!! You just HAD to say something now??!!!?!?!?!? DAMNA DAMN DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Vaillant 3.0] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:48:28 PM
It's not even on TV here yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:45:19 PM)
Becks wrote:
Deep Freeze wrote:
AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHH!!!! You just HAD to say something now??!!!?!?!?!? DAMNA DAMN DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHH!!!! You just HAD to say something now??!!!?!?!?!? DAMNA DAMN DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:44:15 PM
AAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHH!!!! You just HAD to say something now??!!!?!?!?!? DAMNA DAMN DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Becks] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:43:40 PM
I can confirm what you source has said Ron, Rob is indeed there, so is Scott. I saw them with my own two eyes. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:40:06 PM)
ron h wrote:
I heard from a very reliable source that Rob is at the Grammy's...doesTHAT mean something????
[ron h] Sunday, January 31, 2010 6:40:06 PM
I heard from a very reliable source that Rob is at the Grammy's...doesTHAT mean something????
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
Edited at: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:38:10 PM
[Becks] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:32:40 PM
Unfortunately 25 years ago there wasn't any heavy metal grammy award. Otherwise, they would have cleaned up LOL! [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
[jimmyjames] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:08:36 PM
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.
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
[Becks] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:30:26 PM
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. [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
[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
[Deep Freeze] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:26:02 AM
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.
[Nicky007] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:04:35 AM
OK, I'm posting in the Grammy thread, but that's cause I'm responding to J.D.'s post.
I aint gonna write nothin bout Grammy ! I aint gonna write nothin bout Oscar ! I aint .........
Yeah, I sure noticed how different most regulars' tastes are from mine immediately when I entered this board.
Maiden, AC/DC, Van Halen .... that stuff simply bores me after one or two songs
I go for the deeeeepth of Angel and Nostra - whowee
I foresee more of my type once Nostra makes its way into progworld
And I'm sure it will - might take years - cuz it's soooooo good
Now I'm probably sounding highhanded, but I'l take the rap for that: Maybe some'o ya guys just need to get a bit older
Nicky.
[Vaillant 3.0] Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:32:42 AM
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. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](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] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:50:37 PM
well it would be TOTALLY AWESOME if they won.but if they dont atleast they are getting very good positive exposer.ALLOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE SEEING AND HEARING THE NAME SOME FOR THE FIRST TIME..JUDAS PRIEST HEAVY MEEETTT TTTAAALLL
[Becks] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:16:29 PM
Well the grammys in general are pretty worthless (IMO) when the likes of Lady GaGa get shit loads of nominations for that crap people think is music. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:21:36 PM)
jimmyjames wrote:
I think if Priest win an award for a song that is 33 years old then that award is worthless.
[jimmyjames] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:21:36 PM
I think if Priest win an award for a song that is 33 years old then that award is worthless.
[Becks] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:46:33 PM
I hope Priest win because I am a bigger fan of Priest than the other nominated bands. I never said I have a problem with Metallica being nominated either. I was mostly just making an observation. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](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?
[acolyte55] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:17:31 PM
i just hope we dont get beatin out by a cover of queen like we did in 91
[J.D. DIAMOND] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:41:07 PM
Nicky007 wrote: I have my channels whereby I find the good stuff -Dream Theater, Queensrÿche, Nevermore, Jeff Loomis, SyX, Trivium, Lana Lane, Arena....
Dream Theater,Quennsryche,Nevermore,Jeff Loomis,SyX,Trivium,Lana Lane,Arena???? "Good stuff"????" WOW. It really goes to show how our music opionions "differ".Ouch.!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Nicky007 from Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:36:38 AM)
Nicky007 wrote:
I totally avoid the Grammy, Oscar, and all the other superficial showbiz crap.
I simply refuse to waste my time on that sorta stuff and get annoyed.
I have my channels whereby I find the good stuff - Priest, Dream Theater, Queensrÿche, Nevermore, Jeff Loomis, SyX, Trivium, Lana Lane, Arena, and hundreds of other groups with serious, talented artists who give their music their all - and for whom it's far beneath their dignity to flash around with a*s'n'b*s.
What I really dig about the Priest guys is that they'r musicians to their fingertips. They don't sellout in any way. They do make great shows, but their music is their alpha and omega, and therefore they keep on making great music, and imo it even gets better with every album
And even their album covers are great works of art.
So no more Grammy or Oscar jive from here !
Nicky.
[jimmyjames] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:45:49 PM
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? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Becks from Monday, January 18, 2010 8:31:30 PM)
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?
[Nicky007] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:36:38 AM
I totally avoid the Grammy, Oscar, and all the other superficial showbiz crap.
I simply refuse to waste my time on that sorta stuff and get annoyed.
I have my channels whereby I find the good stuff - Priest, Dream Theater, Queensrÿche, Nevermore, Jeff Loomis, SyX, Trivium, Lana Lane, Arena, and hundreds of other groups with serious, talented artists who give their music their all - and for whom it's far beneath their dignity to flash around with a*s'n'b*s.
What I really dig about the Priest guys is that they'r musicians to their fingertips. They don't sellout in any way. They do make great shows, but their music is their alpha and omega, and therefore they keep on making great music, and imo it even gets better with every album
And even their album covers are great works of art.
So no more Grammy or Oscar jive from here !
Nicky.
[Deep Freeze] Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:08:50 AM
I'm sorry, my dear. I was teasing as well. You're SO right. It IS sickening. I must say that I really do not blame the "powers that be", though. They simply push what sells. As I have mentioned previously, I blame the morons we call the "buying public". They actually pay money for this crap. They actually get in line to see "Lady Gaga" and her ilk. That is where the problem truly lies. I see it first hand when I watch the Princess' youngest and his cousins. They run around in Hollister t-shirts, prancing about while praising the virtues of Gwen Stephani and "Fergie"...... Arrrrrggggggghhhhhhhh..................... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by guardian angel from Monday, January 18, 2010 9:55:19 PM)
guardian angel wrote:
"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?" One of your previous comments. I totally agree with you, and I was just being silly . It's sickening who gets nominated and who the powers that be tell us we should like, even though they did not create the music themselves, or likely even write their own songs. That's the way of music today it seems. The real musicians, like Priest, seem to get overlooked time and again. I don't care. I love them anyway, and always will. I listen to their songs and am amazed at their talent. I just think it's incredible you get to create your own music too and share it live. Enjoy it! I just wish I could sing. I'm a tad jealous!
Deep Freeze wrote:
Umm, not sure if that is a response to something I have related but, my dear, I can assure you I am NOT "hot" nor would I want to put you or anyone else through the trauma of "looking at " my ass...... HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
guardian angel wrote:
Hey Freeze, if you're so hot, and you want us to look at your ass, then you might not want to wear that trenchcoat of yours....
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?
[guardian angel] Monday, January 18, 2010 9:55:19 PM
"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?" One of your previous comments. I totally agree with you, and I was just being silly . It's sickening who gets nominated and who the powers that be tell us we should like, even though they did not create the music themselves, or likely even write their own songs. That's the way of music today it seems. The real musicians, like Priest, seem to get overlooked time and again. I don't care. I love them anyway, and always will. I listen to their songs and am amazed at their talent. I just think it's incredible you get to create your own music too and share it live. Enjoy it! I just wish I could sing. I'm a tad jealous! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, January 18, 2010 9:13:43 PM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
Umm, not sure if that is a response to something I have related but, my dear, I can assure you I am NOT "hot" nor would I want to put you or anyone else through the trauma of "looking at " my ass...... HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
guardian angel wrote:
Hey Freeze, if you're so hot, and you want us to look at your ass, then you might not want to wear that trenchcoat of yours....
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?
[guidogodoy] Monday, January 18, 2010 9:21:31 PM
Hvinaing dooomese sew, IE amm bilnd! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, January 18, 2010 9:13:43 PM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
Umm, not sure if that is a response to something I have related but, my dear, I can assure you I am NOT "hot" nor would I want to put you or anyone else through the trauma of "looking at " my ass...... HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
guardian angel wrote:
Hey Freeze, if you're so hot, and you want us to look at your ass, then you might not want to wear that trenchcoat of yours....
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?
[Deep Freeze] Monday, January 18, 2010 9:13:43 PM
Umm, not sure if that is a response to something I have related but, my dear, I can assure you I am NOT "hot" nor would I want to put you or anyone else through the trauma of "looking at " my ass...... HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by guardian angel from Monday, January 18, 2010 9:01:30 PM)
guardian angel wrote:
Hey Freeze, if you're so hot, and you want us to look at your ass, then you might not want to wear that trenchcoat of yours....
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?
[guardian angel] Monday, January 18, 2010 9:01:30 PM
Hey Freeze, if you're so hot, and you want us to look at your ass, then you might not want to wear that trenchcoat of yours.... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, January 18, 2010 2:44:51 PM)
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?
<< Previous
Message 1 to 100
Messages per page: 2050 [100]
Message display order: [Newest first] Oldest first Page: [1] 2
It was also very awesome to see my 2 favourite Priest members up on that stage if not all the band. 
yeah the delay is a pain in the ass, things should be live.
sorry, but I'm not a mind reader, no one said not to tell.
I was watchin' hehe. Awesome eh? I'm so stoked for them.
I just think it's incredible you get to create your own music too and share it live. Enjoy it! I just wish I could sing. I'm a tad jealous! 
