Not Your Mammy's Grammys: A Word On Your 2007 Nominations - Comments Page 2

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 26 - Vern Halen

  Dec 10, 2006 at 12:13 am

  Details, details.... I seem to remember that at least for a while around the Aqualung era album, Tull was considered "Heavy Metal" along with Sabbath, Deep Purple, Zeppelin, and pretty much anything loud, oddball or English.
  
  Still, I'm sure Ian Anderson has his award hanging up somewhere at his salmon farm... Poisson d'Avril indeed!

• 27 - Glen Boyd

  Dec 10, 2006 at 3:18 am

  Vern,
  
  True enough. But that was at least ten years before Tull won the Grammy.
  
  And Dave, again the point here is one of intent. Whatever they decided to call the actual category, the intent was to honor hard rock and heavy metal and as history bores out, Tull was not an appropriate winner for that type of music. Now if you had a "prog-rock" category for example, and Tull was up against say, Yes or Genesis or Marillion -- now that I could see.
  
  Tull has simply never been a hard rock or a heavy metal band. Period. Even on their first three records before Aqualung, they were doing a sort of British blues-rock thing. It was basically Savoy Brown with a flute.
  
  By the time they won the hard rock, heavy metal, or whatever the category was -- Tull was basically a prog-rock band with heavy english folk overtones. They were closer to somebody like the Strawbs or Fairport Convention then a hard rock band.
  
  Again, I stand by my statement.
  
  Thanx for the comment.
  
  -Glen

• 28 - Vern Halen

  Dec 10, 2006 at 11:26 am

  Totally in agreement, Glen about Tull not ever actually being a metal band. But, for the sake of argument - if in the public's eye, you're a metal band (or whatever genre they think you are)... then, you are, aren't you? No... that's not right... I mean to say, at least the public thinks you are, and that's the section where they find your albums at Tower Rec... no, that's not right either.
  
  Never mind. I don't care about the Grammys or their lack of taste anyway. They ought to just award eveything based on sales, and make sure they've got good bean counters. Sales stats are sometimes interesting at least.

• 29 - Grateful Dread Radio

  Dec 11, 2006 at 1:19 pm

  Chicks with dicks? Geez.
  
  

  The fact of the matter is this. The Grammys have never, ever honored artistic achievement. They honor commercial achievement. Look at the stats. If a recording just happened to be something that struck a nerve in the zeitgeist, and just happened to be something meaningful, it was only a happenstance relative to its commercial success.
  
  That being said, I don't really see why anybody's surprised at the nominations.

  
  
  My sentiments exactly. Grammys.... feh. Nothing new.

• 30 - TH

  Dec 11, 2006 at 9:50 pm

  I'm not totally thrilled about the Grammy nominations. I don’t particularly like how there's always three or four artists that seem to get all the nominations. They should just rename the Grammys this year to "The Mary J. Blige Show". Not that I have anything against her, she's got a great voice, but I wish they'd spread the nominations out a little better. Nickelback wasn't nominated at all, and they've had a really good year. It doesn't really matter though cause I know I'll still end up watching the show!

• 31 - notJustin

  Dec 30, 2006 at 3:46 pm

  trust me, justin definitely will "NOT" win album of the year. it is true that grammy gets "stupid" from time to time but it never gets that ridiculous and it won't. justin won't get the award.