There are young, flashy groups that aren't absolutely awful out there too you know. There are plenty of modern rock bands out there that both the kids would have loved and the adults. Just because you aren't going classic rock doesn't mean you have to go with a terrible pop group
I think a group that got big in the 90's and is still fairly popular would be a good way to bridge the age gap, a band like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Offspring, something like that.
It was bad, but it wasn't the worst. Some parts were very, very bad. You could hear some boos in the end.
"Kathy Perry"?? Who is that?? This post is hilarious because the poster is criticizing others for slamming the halftime performance and then he can't even get one of the most popular acts' names right. Which, honestly, sounds about right for the people that like this garbage. They know how the songs go because they have heard them a billion times on the radio but they don't even know their names. And of course, that halftime show blew donkey balls. My daughter who is going to be 11 in little over a week said, "I only like one song by the Black-Eyed Peas." She would have been in heaven if they had Gaga perform instead and quite honestly, Gaga would have given a better performance than the horrid BEPs.
Kanye West would have been a great choice. "All of the Lights" with Rihanna and "Stronger" would have been great inoffensive songs for a halftime show. However, if they're worried about another "incident" he is probably the last person they would ever want to be on stage. This pretty much eliminates any remotely edgy act from performing. The choice is pop music for the young people or older rock acts that the baby boomers can remember. Just the way it is.
Since everyone seems to b**** about the halftime show every year like clockwork, I'm all for bringing in a band like "Rush" to play the half time show in the future. Since you are not going to like it anyway, it might as well be a band I like. They know how to do live better than these other bands. A mini Neil Peart drum solo will liven that sh_t up.
Get real people. The Superbowl halftime show is not meant for you: the average every Sunday football watching fan. It is meant for my three girl cousins age 5-18. The SB halftime show up until the 90's consisted of marching bands. Why? Because when they would come out making all that racket it told the average football fan that is was time to get up, use the restroom and grab another beer before the second half started. Since the 90's, the SB has taken on a life of its own; mainly due to the fact that there are throngs of people who watch it for the commercials. So it makes sense that the halftime show is geared toward the preteen girl who watches the SB because she wants to be like mommy who watches it for the commercials. So why not give them a good halftime show that they would enjoy? You will have men whose only football experience each year will be the SB. And for those guys and your average joe fan, yes, they could do much better. Classic rock bands? This appeals to the most wealthy portion of football fans: the guys that have worked for the past 30-40 years and are now retiring. So how do you reach such a wide spectrum of male audience members? Think of a band whose music has been considered original, dynamic, and fresh while remaining in the lime light over the past 30 years. The only band I can think of is Metallica.
Prince did kill it in Superbowl 41. But there's not exactly that many musicians under 50 with super mass appeal and the skill to boot out there. I don't watch the Superbowl halftime wanting, or expecting, music quality to be the centerpiece of the show.
Good ones or bad ones, I always just want the goofy Super Bowl halftime show to be over to get back to the actual game.....
The sound was awful but I thought it was cheesy/fun. More so for all the lights than the actual performances. I did get tired of all the 60's-ish rock acts. After Janet's nipple, it all got so horribly safe. Tom Petty? Great music. Bruce? Promoting a new album at the time that was rushed into stores to coincide with the 2008 election results. The Who? Look, I love their music, but seriously...the Who? At least it wasn't like that year where they had 4 acts singing 2 minutes of a hit and then jumping aside for the next act to appear (Clint Black, Wynonna). If you want a great concert, pay some money and go see a great concert. Now, if you want to b**** about something, let's b**** about the commercials.
Agree with most people in this thread. Halftime show was one of the worst in recent memory. It's like they didn't do a soundcheck, levels were all off, half of the peas didn't have their mics turned on til 1/4 of the way in, Fergie's voice is NO good live, no control...slash, usher and the wonderful dancers on the field with the lights still couldn't save this halftime show from crashing and burning. And it really doesn't have anything to do with not my "style" of music or whatever, it has to do with basic aspects of a live performance, sound quality, artist voice talent, and ability to rock a crowd. It wasn't there and seemed really really forced. Maybe it was nerves that got the best of em. Overall I'd rather have live acts with live band perform, just delivers a much better performance.
Too much auto-tune. I thought the entire show was just GOD-AWFUL. I love the people here saying anyone who didn't like the show is just too old. As if the only choices for a halftime show are the Black Eyed Peas or Bob Dylan. Nothing in between. LOL.
Just watched the concert of Paul McCartney "Space between us" in blu-ray. It was awesome. I think he's the closest artist that can satisfy the majority of SB viewers.
Yea but how many times do we have to see Paul McCartney play the same Beatles hits he's been playing forever? In my opinion, he and it has gotten old. People would still be complaining.
