The Jethro Tull incident and six other Grammy mistakes
There’s a certain segment of the population unwilling to let go of the fact that Jethro Tull received the Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance in 1988. Granted that Metallica probably deserved the award; the band members have said as much without even bothering to give Jethro Tull the experience props. Good sense would dictate that Lars and Jimbo did realize some time in the nineties that they were, in fact, Metallica and had a standing army of tattooed, bemulleted warriors ready to kill for them on command. Who cares about the lousy Grammy? Apparently Adam Brown, who has topped his list of the Grammy’s seven deadly sins with the Metallica snub. Making a list of Grammy mistakes is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Rather than chronicling the predictable losses of musicians like Public Enemy, Nirvana, and Radiohead, how about trying to compile a list of the times the Grammy voters actually got it right? [Cracked]
Posted in:
METALLICA
More features, reviews, photos, mp3s, and video for:
7 Responses
February 7, 2008 at 4:27 a.m.
| brian |
good suggestion, let's try listing the times the grammys actually got it right. however, i'm not sure 3 items counts as a 'list' |
February 7, 2008 at 6:17 a.m.
| Ministry |
Only... Jethro Tull *didn't* receive the Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance in 1988. The award was for 'hard rock or heavy metal', and Tull's 'Crest Of A Knave' album did qualify as 'hard rock'. The category was split in future years, but people still make the mistake of applying the current name to the old category. I suppose it makes too good a story for people to worry about whether it's true. |
February 7, 2008 at 8:03 a.m.
 |
Agreed, narfish. I had a lot of friends who gave me some super strange looks when I'd throw on the Steely D. |
February 7, 2008 at 4:11 p.m.
 |
Ministry, your point is well taken but Metallica's "...And Justice For All" beats "Crest of a Knave" whether you consider it metal or hard rock. If the median age of NARAS voters that year was under 75, Metallica would have won handily. |
February 7, 2008 at 4:37 p.m.
 |
i heard a story from a girl whose dad received Grammy nominee ballots...she said he'd hand the ballots over to his toddler-aged daughters to be filled out. |
February 12, 2008 at 12:39 p.m.
| phlam |
As a committed Steely Dan aficionado, and of an age that dates my appreciation of Donald and Walter from the early seventies, I still think "Two Against Nature" is the best album in the Steely Dan discography. My real surprise at their win consisted entirely of an incomprehension at their inclusion in the Grammy affair in the first place. |
As much as Eminem and Radiohead deserved that 2000 Best Album award more than Steely Dan, I did love Two Against Nature, and in any other year would have been satisfied with its winning. Those dudes are under-appreciated by people under 40, especially white people under 40.