I think it's almost too close to call. I actually enjoyed Sir Paul a bit more, I guess. Either way, new rule: Your first album must have been released 25 years prior to qualify to perform during halftime at the Super Bowl. And how about John Fogerty during the pre-game? Can't believe FOX let him play "Fortunate Son". Or "Bad Moon" for that matter. He was a bit uneven (who wouldn't be playing in front of the tens of people that showed up), but "Fortunate Son" is always good times.
On a side note: Randy Travis was on that community home building show last night. He looks old. He also talks old. But damn. When he started singing it was like he was in perfect tune. I was shocked. Then turned the channel to watch the game.
I agree with almost everything in this quote. It sums up almost all my feelings on Paul. I understand why Paul played the pop favorites, but wish he would have gone a little more obscure than Hey Jude. I love the song, but I get it all the time.
He never uses symbols, it seems, which I love. He uses the kick drum as punctuation (see: Helen Wheels). I guess he played on Jet, which is pretty cool too. Also "Eat At Home" on Ram is good, I think that's him. He plays drums like he plays bass, which is just very fundamentally sound support for the song; 90% of why the Beatles were good was not what they played, but what they did NOT play - they don't ever embarass themselves, it's all about making the song / album work. It's probably why that group was not sustainable for more that six or so years of recording (how freaking amazing is it that their enitre body of work was completed in about 6 years...); they did not really parse out allotments of creativity for each member on albums, everything sort of had to pass the unanimous approval of all four, which in the end was too constricting. George Harrison is all over Abbey Road, but nowhere on Let It Be, for instance; Lennnon could sort of disappear (Sgt. Pepper) and reappear (White Album) whenever he was feeling it. Paul was pretty much always on his game (except for , I think, With The Beatles). For the most part, the idea had to be good to get airtime, and the vetting process - what's good and what is not, which is hard to know when you're doing it - sorta killed the, artistically speaking. But the good side of that is, no one ever got too freak out and embarass the band with some self-loving solos or indlugences. That discipline is all over their playing, too. Ringo's drum :"olo" on "Birthday" is a prime example; it's not even a solo. But when he smashes the eight-count into the "party party" bridge, it rocks harder than any wanking solo ever could. They were just so musically discilplined. And when they split, they loosened that discipline (Lennon's politics, McCartneys sap, Harrisions lecturing religion, and Ringo's showbizzy thing), but you still catch it once and again. "Imagine" is one damned disciplined piece of songwriting, George's slide guitar playing was a craft he put alot of thought and energy into. Paul's drumming is one of those things: fundamentally solid, outside-the-box, less is more, make-the-song-shine drumming. I think its cool, not totally unlike Ringo's - subtle, funky, good.
I'm almost 30, but still liked the Paul halftime. I thought the light show ROCKED. The drummer was great, too. I want to hold his haaaaAAaaaand...
Actually Ringo was begged to come back by the rest of the band, and they appreciated it so much that they decorated his drums with loads of flowers all over his drums. Then as soon as he came in he saw the decorations etc. I also disagree that Ringo could have been replaced. If Ringo wasn't in the band it wasn't the Beatles. The whole is more than the parts of the sum. Other drummers might have been able to play Ringo's parts but he couldn't have been replaced. Ringo takes a lot of crap for his drumming, but the guy actually swings. I use 'swing' in the jazz venacular. Ringo swings. His parts may no be the most complicated, but he does swing. That is something a lot of great drummers don't have. I think Keith Moon is a better drummer in most respects, but Keith Moon doesn't swing when he plays.
Decent performance. But I'll have to admit I was a little turned off when Justin Timberlake ran on stage and pulled McCartney's pants down exposing his unit.
No kidding. I was really shocked when McCartney at the end sang "we all want my little yellow submarine" and dropped trou. He needs to grow up.
The past halftime shows were booked and directed by MTV, they know nothing about substance, only sizzle. MTV brought us Aerosmith/Britney/NSYNC the year before Houston. MTV=nothing but fluff. I think as long as MTV is taken out of the equation, things will be fine. It will be interesting if going forward they will stick with one artist and let them do a mini-concert like this year. I guess you take the chance of totally alienating I really don't care one way or another as I would prefer a nice in-depth recap of the first half. But that's just me.
Maybe. Problem is - who else but Paul McCartney could do that gig like that? Few - if any - other acts have that sort of cross-generational appeal. The Stones? The Police? Eric Clapton? Billy Squier? The Fat Boys? Still not as appealing as a Beatley thing, and they would never do it. So what happens next is, they go by record sales over the past ten years and up with some trainwreck like Celine Dion, Whitney Houston or something, or a poor-man's-McCartneys like Billy Joel. The got through it okay this year, but they should probably just axe the music and have dancing monkeys or marching bands or something.
One thing I liked was that it was a complete halftime show. It wasnt thrown togeather bits and peices with 50 different "Singers". It was much better then the old revolving door, 20 seconds worth of a song, look at this, look at that crap we've seen in the past. The U2 performance in 2002 was the other one that stands out for me. You couldnt help but shed a tear during that moving show.
