grammy winner

I just feel they should of been placed in a different category. Maybe just "rock" performance and nothing else. They were so out of place in that category especially compared to who else was nominated.

Crest was hard edged then their 80's stuff but not hard rock or "hard" enough imo to be nominated for that category. To me it would be like putting Slayer and Poison on the same category.Anyways jmo.

As for maiden's comment, haven't heard about that... and yes there should be a prog rock category perhaps...
 
And Justice for All is considered by many including Metallica to be one of the poorest recording quality production
No, it's not bad at all. There are a few things I don't like about the production (Namely that there's virtually no bass), but it's not a bad sounding record. It certainly sounds better than St. Anger and Kill 'em All.
 
No, it's not bad at all. There are a few things I don't like about the production (Namely that there's virtually no bass), but it's not a bad sounding record. It certainly sounds better than St. Anger and Kill 'em All.
I'm not a fan of AJFA but i do agree with you on the production... but nonetheless I like Kill Em All better and it's production... KEA would not be a good album if it was "polished".... but nonetheless AJFA did deserve to win that year and certainly not JT...
 
I thought Justice sounded like a mess from the first time I heard it and there is critizm about it elsewhere, I hate critics myself when they go after the music. I was inspired by the lyrics though and some of the composition. I could make the statement that they deserved to not get any award for the way they treated Newstead, period, regardless that album, but that was not a player in those results, but it could have been the sound. It was also them struggling with a new catagory that should not have been new in the first place, hard rock was well over 20 years strong at that time. Nor as we know should metal and hardrock be combined together at that time. It was changed the following year.

Tull was slaged for it and they didnt even expect to win. I have little doubt there is alot of metal fans that just cant bring themselves to find merit in Tull just because of the outrage and twisting of the full story at that time. Fortunately the younger guys I was playing metal with at that time already were fans of Tull, so I didnt have to tolerate any foolish Tull hate spured by that incidence. I just wanted to clear the air that it was not a specific catagory to metal and I believe that and the desire to acknowledge Tull FINALLY and that it was a new release after 3 years, and a turn back toward earlier Tull, plus success, were the players in the nominations. Im not sure how the voting is done but chances are pretty good it was just a matter of a few votes based on preference.

They lost me when Chapman was chosen over Etheridge for new female artist or whatever the catagory was. They picked a lathargic sounding vocalist over one of the most expressive and intense since Joplin. Which shows they were more interested in the Biaz kind of thing as opposed to the raw edge of Joplin. Which brings us back to the same attitude of finally acknowledging hardrock after over 20 years. As if "we should have been honoured"... decades late and awards short. Prior to that harder edged rock bands were thrown in the "rock" catagory, as equally screwed up as the 89 catagory. They had gobs of classical, jazz and pop catagorys though...