Super Stones let down [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Super Stones let down



3-LockBox
02-06-2006, 11:09 AM
Ok people. Can we finally close the book on the superbowl halftime show...can we? They just cannot get it right. I don't think its the peformers, its the staff and sound crew that seem to have no clue. Aaron Nevill looked like he was having trouble hearing or there was something wrong with his earpiece, the vocals for all the performances were way too hot...I'm convinced you can't do any act justice by trying to put on a first rate show in a 30 minute timeframe...it isn't working; bad sound, bad mixing, stupid, fake concert audience on the field. Now people are talking about how bad The Stones sounded/looked, and why are they still playing and why won't they hang it up...

I don't care who you put out there at haltime; unless they lipsync, they're going to sound bad. Let's let the Superbowl be about football and stop trying to cater to the non-fan. Screw the non-fan! Go watch Lost or Desperate Housewives or whatever tired old hopital show they've recycled (code black, anyone?)...stop having Superbowl parties...stop asking stupid questions - how many of those people would like it if I broke right in the middle of '24' or 'Lost' and said, "Catch me up"?

At least we could laugh at Up With People :p

Dave_G
02-06-2006, 11:21 AM
Dood,

they gotta continue to do halftime entertainment so we cannot miss any ball and go to get more beer or pills or have sex or kill the neighbor's dog or start a fire or wash the car or mow the lawn or clean an lp.

I would watch it if the halftime show was a Victorias Secret modeling session.

LOL!!!!!

Maybe next year they will have The Flower Kings play.

Dave

3-LockBox
02-06-2006, 11:30 AM
I would watch it if the halftime show was a Victorias Secret modeling session.

LOL!!!!!

Maybe next year they will have The Flower Kings play.

Dave
Anything would be better than the California Raisins...errr...The Stones

Hyfi
02-06-2006, 11:32 AM
My gripe is:

Why let a band play songs that have been censored?

You make a dead man.....................................

Also, in Satisfasction, doesn't he say Can't get no Girly Action more than one time?

The Stones sounded like crap 30 years ago, why would they be any different now?

Duds
02-06-2006, 12:28 PM
Lets end the half time shows, and stop having people butcher the national anthem. Just play a recorded version with no vocals, and get the game started!!!!


Ok people. Can we finally close the book on the superbowl halftime show...can we? They just cannot get it right. I don't think its the peformers, its the staff and sound crew that seem to have no clue. Aaron Nevill looked like he was having trouble hearing or there was something wrong with his earpiece, the vocals for all the performances were way too hot...I'm convinced you can't do any act justice by trying to put on a first rate show in a 30 minute timeframe...it isn't working; bad sound, bad mixing, stupid, fake concert audience on the field. Now people are talking about how bad The Stones sounded/looked, and why are they still playing and why won't they hang it up...

I don't care who you put out there at haltime; unless they lipsync, they're going to sound bad. Let's let the Superbowl be about football and stop trying to cater to the non-fan. Screw the non-fan! Go watch Lost or Desperate Housewives or whatever tired old hopital show they've recycled (code black, anyone?)...stop having Superbowl parties...stop asking stupid questions - how many of those people would like it if I broke right in the middle of '24' or 'Lost' and said, "Catch me up"?

At least we could laugh at Up With People :p

-Jar-
02-06-2006, 01:29 PM
The Stones performance was more "real" than most of the pompus performances of years past. They might have been sloppy and yes, they're old, but to me, they rocked. The sound over my tv was good, in that I thought the mix was good, I could hear everything, even the bass.. I guess I didn't have high expectations, so I was able to relax and enjoy it. I don't know, I don't care much about the Stones, so I'm glad to see the old geezers still rocking out. Given everything that *could* have gone wrong, they were on. Probably because they know how to play stadiums. Unlike some of the crap bands and singers they've had on in past Superbowls.

My 2 cents.

-jar

3-LockBox
02-06-2006, 02:09 PM
The Stones performance was more "real" than most of the pompus performances of years past. -jar
Oh I didn't have real high expectations for this SB's halftime anyway. Its got to be a logistics nightmare. Yeah, The Stones are used to playing large arenas and stadiums, but with their own gear. You just can't pull off the kinda show w/ a 10 min set-up the way they (SB crew) are trying to do it. Anyone is going to sound 'off' because they either can't hear themselves, or the sound in their ear is ahead of or lags the rest of the band.

I for one am not saying The Stones are washed up. This just serves as exhibit 'XL' as to why it doesn't work.

But Tagliabu himself has as much as conceided that the SB is an event that transcends the game. That is a shame.

Mr MidFi
02-06-2006, 02:16 PM
I'm with Jar on this one. I really didn't mind their set. I probably would have opted for a closer besides the incredibly shop-worn 'Satisfaction'...but hell, at least they rocked.

NP: "Ruby Tuesday" (sometimes the shuffle-gods are listening!)

Troy
02-06-2006, 02:20 PM
Wow, the Stones sucked and appeared old. Who'd a thunk it? This has been old news for 20+ years.

People still pay literally thousands of dollars to see them, why SHOULD they stop? When the boomer generation ever grows up and stops trying to constantly relive it's youth, that's when The Stones will fade away. Until then, we continue to see Charlie Watts stare blankly off into the middle distance like he's got alzheimers, while he boom-chucks off into the sunset.

I love the planted "audience" all wearing color-coordinated pastel colors too. Pretty. Again, old news.

But to me the big thing was, as HyFi said, the censoring of "Cocks" from that awfully boring new song that is really nothing but a corporate jingle. It flies in the face of EVERYTHING the Stones were supposed to stand for.

The Super Bowel has gone SO FAR past being about football. And that's a shame.

3-LockBox
02-06-2006, 03:11 PM
The Super Bowel has gone SO FAR past being about football. And that's a shame.Now with pre- and post-game 'entertainment', throw in a third rate officiating crew and the Superbowl is inching ever closer to being as superfilous as the Pro Bowl. Since when did Vince McMahon start running the Superbowl anyway?

Slosh
02-06-2006, 03:19 PM
First off I totally agree that the entire event should be about football. I'm mean, look who was playing. The Steelers don't even have cheerleaders for jah's sake. Also the halftime should be 15 minutes like every other game.

But if you are going to do a halftime show why not get a local act? What, they couldn't find anyone in MoTown? :confused: Sheesh. Or at least get The White Stripes.

I'll give the Stones a little credit here for not doing any of those annoying medlies, however.

MindGoneHaywire
02-06-2006, 03:23 PM
They were sloppy as hell. Outside of the vocals, which I thought just plain sucked, I loved how sloppy it was, especially at an event like that. Their guitars sounded like guitars. Through overdriven amps. Which generally don't sound good at all in large spaces.

I just don't understand what anyone who claims to be disappointed expected. Top-notch musicianship? Stellar vocals? Guitars firmly at 440? I was indifferent before, and in spite of how much I hate the 1st song they did, I don't think I've heard a live performance by them in more than 30 years that sounded as good as this. And it's not like I thought it was all that good, either. But the complaints I'm seeing seem to be predicated on what I thought were the positives in the performance.

As for what the Stones 'were supposed to stand for...' what is that, exactly? These are the same people who agreed to 'Let's Spend Some Time Together...' 39 years ago, at a time when I think people who didn't know of Jagger's study in economics might've actually had a reason to think they stood for something resembling rebellion. Maybe they did...but it seems to me that rebels wouldn't have agreed to have Jovan sponsor a tour...in 1981. Or for Atlantic Records to change the name of a song to Star Star. Or allow Microsoft to license the rights to Start Me Up. Or do credit card commercials. Or to present School Boy Blues to Decca knowing that was the ONE way to assure that it'd never see the light of day. Or to choose to not issue 'Claudine.' Or to have booted Eric Easton in favor of Andrew Loog Oldham (who has a good program on Sirius on Little Steven's channel, btw).

These are business moves, and they don't strike me as insane, but then I'm pretty skeptical on the topic of what they're supposed to stand for, I guess. There's an element of rebellion there, obviously. But only an element, firmly held in check by good business sense going back more than 40 years at this point. Outside of that, I agree with most of what Troy said.

That they would've gone ahead knowing that with a delay there was a possibility that a censor might bleep out a word or phrase that someone might find offensive if they could even understand the delivery enough to grasp the context...seems like something that's very consistent with many decisions they've made over the course of their career. And it was good business sense to risk being censored in order to be seen by more people at one time than they probably ever have, and almost certainly than they ever will be again.

I don't think they'll lose too many sales over a misguided view that all of a sudden, NOW they're sellouts. And I don't understand how it is that people think that sounding like...the Rolling Stones...is somehow disappointing.

3-LockBox
02-07-2006, 08:53 AM
They were sloppy as hell. Outside of the vocals, which I thought just plain sucked, I loved how sloppy it was, especially at an event like that. Their guitars sounded like guitars. Through overdriven amps. Which generally don't sound good at all in large spaces.

The event isn't condusive to anyone sounding good or coming across well. You throw together a good anything in the 5 or so minutes they have after the 2nd quarter ends. I don't think The Stones sucked any worse than any other act has under the circumstances. My only point is that it isn't working, no matter who is up there.

MindGoneHaywire
02-07-2006, 11:09 AM
What you're saying here is something I would say is obvious...except I liked the way they sounded. But then I like those sorts of guitar sounds. Under the circumstances, there was something I liked quite a bit about those sorts of guitar sounds at an event like that. Considering their choices of performers in years past, it's not often those sorts of sounds reach that type of, or size, audience.

But yr last sentence...yr point was 'letdown,' it's the title of this thread, which is why I wondered about people's expectations. In years past I spent halftime doing anything but watching the performers. A couple of years I think I watched the Beavis & Butt-head special they ran against it. But I'd disagree it's not working, because, for better or worse, many eyes are focused on the event as a result of the performers even more than the football game. The NFL understands that there is more money in the non-fans they may attract with flashy names performing during halftime at the Super Bowl, than there is money lost from actual football fans who may or may not decide not to watch the NFL on the basis of their pandering to the non-fans. You think advertisers don't know that people will watch the game for the commercials, and because of the Janet Jackson incident?

As for Vince McMahon, the only audience he pandered to besides non-football fans, were professional wrestling fans. Many of whom also like football. There were some very good football ideas in the XFL, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. There were no competing interests, because there was only one owner; every game offered a further incentive to win besides actually winning, which isn't enough for some athletes, in the form of a bonus for the winning team; it was certainly the first time I ever saw that camera that floats above the field from any & all vantage points; there was an introductory salary cap, which meant that labor/mgmt issues were not likely to cause any strikes; and since the product, which had no preseason, actually became decent towards the end of its only season, it leads me to believe that had there been a preseason, people would've actually watched the first few games. Which were horrible, and obviously due to a lack of a preseason. A fatal flaw. I would've liked to have seen that league, winter night games & all, stick around for awhile. Casually deriding it because of the WWF connection is something I don't agree with.

GMichael
02-07-2006, 11:18 AM
Can we just let the cheerleaders do the halftime show?

Troy
02-07-2006, 11:28 AM
I saw that camera floating above the field about 10 years ago during the ProBowl.

The best thing the XFL did was to put nicknames on the jerseys instead of the player's last name. Hilarious.

MGH, your point about the Stones having sold out decades before is well taken. Still, since when can't you say "Cock" on TV? If the FCC says no, then play a different song without lyrics that have to change/be deleted. Why bring attention to the fact that you are only a "pretend rebel"? They are horrible corporate shills and the whole set rang false to me.

3-LockBox
02-07-2006, 01:05 PM
But yr last sentence...yr point was 'letdown,' it's the title of this thread, which is why I wondered about people's expectations.....As for Vince McMahon, the only audience he pandered to besides non-football fans, were professional wrestling fans.... I would've liked to have seen that league, winter night games & all, stick around for awhile. Casually deriding it because of the WWF connection is something I don't agree with.

No, I did not have high expectations and really wasn't letdown. But I guess, deep down, I'm glad The Stones disappointed a lot of people. I'm glad that your approval of them doesn't seem to be the prevailing sentiment, because I wasn't trying to be contructive or objective. I don't want any act to have a great haltime performance. I want people to tire of the halftime show and the SB to lose its non-football fanbase. That's no going to happen any time soon. Of course I know by now that the SB will only get worse before it gets better. It is only a matter of time before it goes pay-per-view anyway. But you know what? I'd pay the $49.99 to watch it on ppv, if it meant they'd drop the dog and pony show, and just have a regulation halftime.

Of course, if the Seahawks had of won, it might not bother me as much either ;)

Maybe Vince McMahon shoulda tried an Arena League sized venture and not attempt the NFL-size proportioned XFL, which IMO, died a quick and deserving death, like other useless "innovations" such as DiVX and singing cop shows.

MindGoneHaywire
02-07-2006, 03:18 PM
>I saw that camera floating above the field about 10 years ago during the ProBowl.

Interesting. I don't think I've ever watched the Pro Bowl much. I remember there was a competitive game one year, but I think that was probably more than 10 years ago. I do think there's something to the idea that having an all-star contest during the season works better for the audience, I guess it really doesn't work well for the players in the NFL, a lot more so than in other sports. I didn't even watch the Super Bowl for years. The games sucked, and the whole spectacle was unbearable. I seriously don't think it's as bad as it used to be. By the time the conference championships were decided, I was ready for spring training & hockey playoffs.

But I have watched the NFL my whole life & never did see that camera used prior to the first XFL game.

>The best thing the XFL did was to put nicknames on the jerseys instead of the player's last name. Hilarious.

He Hate Me. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>since when can't you say "Cock" on TV?

A couple of years ago, following the Janet Jackson incident, people like Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas or Nebraska or wherever he's from starting making a lot of noise. Howard Stern was talking about it within a couple of weeks after the Super Bowl. He was a touch melodramatic in suggesting that he was thisclose to being taken off the air, but then Clear Channel did in fact drop him. Around this time I saw a conservative radio talk show host, from Ohio, I think, but a guy who was a legitimate pundit, complain about not being able to use the word 'boob' to describe someone. Apparently it was a term he was fond of, and he was advised by his station's attorneys that 'boob' was now off-limits. Probably still is. The guidelines & criteria for what the FCC can decide is 'indecent' are unbelievably vague. It's a joke. But not a funny one.

No, you can't say 'cock' on TV. Someone might think you're talking about a rooster.

>Why bring attention to the fact that you are only a "pretend rebel"?

Because...it works? They're also the band of 'Would You Let Your Sister Marry A Rolling Stone,' peeing on a gas station's wall, drug arrests, tax exile, cursing & drug references in the songs, and so on. Like I said, the elements of rebellion are still present. They've molded that together with the business sense to create an unstoppable juggernaut. No matter how many times someone might point out things along the lines of what I described above, they're still going to be thought of as rebels & even outlaws. But they were always more Prince Rupert Lowenstein than the Hell's Angels.

>They are horrible corporate shills and the whole set rang false to me.

Again, I don't understand. They were ALWAYS corporate shills--for themselves. Going back to leaving Decca Records more than 35 years ago. I don't understand how it is that people point this out this way, which makes it seem like you've given them a free pass all these years. Like they weren't horrible corporate shills when they contracted with Jovan? I would think you'd dislike the set for musical reasons. That I'd understand, because it speaks to yr tastes. But because they're big business? That makes no sense. They always were.

>But I guess, deep down, I'm glad The Stones disappointed a lot of people.

Well, I will say one thing: Anyone who was disappointed apparently has no memory of the fact that this band remains what they always were at their core: a sloppy rhythm & blues band that sounds like they should be in a smoky bar, not a football stadium. And the other night was the first time in more than 30 years that I've heard them sound like they could actually have been in a smoky bar. That set was more genuine than side 3 of Love You Live. Anything else I've heard live from them, outside of Stripped, sounds no better than the rest of Love You Live or Still Life. Remember those records? "The Stones sucked at the Super Bowl." I guess you guys have never seen their performance at Hyde Park in 1969, or listened to any of these horrible live records. Their live act has always been horribly inconsistent. That was the most spunk I've heard out of them in a very long time. If they disappointed a lot of people, I say it's because those people just haven't been paying attention.

>I don't want any act to have a great haltime performance.

That's a different story. I'd be happier myself if there was no halftime show, but I'd rather hear the Rolling Stones than have to turn the sound off on the Judds or Gwen Stefani or Justin Timberlake, which is what I did for years if I didn't change the channel. If I even had the game on. But the NFL isn't going to cater to anyone who doesn't want a halftime show, and either you accept that, or you don't. I do, and if I'm going to have to sit through anyone, I'd much rather hear an inept Rolling Stones set than a perfect set from some dancing pop tart.


>It is only a matter of time before it goes pay-per-view anyway.

No way. Are you kidding? They're going to charge for what is now the most-watched event of the year, year in & year out? I don't think so. That's how they've killed boxing. They estimated the audience at 90 million people on Sunday. Yeah, in a few years they'll start charging. Sure. So there'll be no advertisting money, or at best greatly reduced advertisting money, and maybe 10 million households will pay.

I don't think so.

>XFL, which IMO, died a quick and deserving death,

Did you watch it? I don't know, I liked the idea that every player made the exact same amount of money, except the quarterbakcs, who made just a bit more. I liked that the winning team split what amounted to a bounty for a win. I liked the idea of singular ownership of all clubs. It didn't fly. But you have such a serious issue with the NFL over the most important & significant thing that they do, and none of these ideas apparently made any sense to you--deserving? I disagree. They had real football people involved, I think that NBC cut bait as soon as they found that nobody wanted to watch the horrible first few games. It was having no preseason that doomed that league. Not the WWF connection. And I think it would've been a good alternative football league, regardless of anyone's interest to sneer at it.

jack70
02-09-2006, 10:52 AM
>>>I saw that camera floating above the field about 10 years ago during the ProBowl.

Interesting. I don't think I've ever watched the Pro Bowl much.
But I have watched the NFL my whole life & never did see that camera used prior to the first XFL game.
I've never watched the pro bowl either. My recollection is that ESPN developed this for it's broadcasts, partly as a new "gimmick" to aquire fans to it's broadcasts because of the stiff competition the major networks already had with NFL TV contracts. I think Fox (or CBS?) did the same with the "magic" (digital) first-down line about the same time. I'll agree with Troy... it was about 10 years ago the camera was used. I think they also tried helmet cams etc (as other gimmicks) but either because of technological reasons or union/NFL opposition, that's been less successful (for football anyway... it works great in sports car racing, the few times I watch it).


>>>It is only a matter of time before it goes pay-per-view anyway.

No way. Are you kidding? They're going to charge for what is now the most-watched event of the year, year in & year out? I don't think so. That's how they've killed boxing.
I don't think so.
Hell... Boxing... killed itself! LOL!!! (I used to box golden gloves etc as a kid... a grade school teacher/coach had boxes & boxes of Ring Magazine etc for us to read if we wanted... he'd probably be sued in today's PC world... LOL). But the sport has devolved... for many reasons... no over-riding "official" governing legal bodies for one... and a mediocrity in the competition for another.

But it's true, we're (slowly) heading to an "a la carte" TV world. Part of the reason is technological (digital) evolution, making it possible to do easily & even cheaper, unlike in the past. And it's (more naturally) in line with any other buyer/seller economic marketplaces we have -- you aren't required to buy a donut at dunkin donuts, if you just want a coffee, etc, etc. Now, there IS some opposition to this (futuristic TV) model. The reason is many small channels would never get seen if not bundled with others... so the bigger companies join together & contract out to cable companies deals that REQUIRE getting all their programs.... or none. This is a force AGAINST full pay-for-view... but I agree with Troy... it's only a matter of time.

Sports is the thing driving most of this right now. In my area, we're smack between 2 huge sports markets... maybe the 2 biggest in the country... NYC & Boston. The Yankees & Red Sox... the Patriots & Giants... the Celtics & Knicks... all have HUGE cable outlets & contracts. The YES network (George Steinbrenner) makes deals that require 90% of non-Yankee fans to pay for his channel... OR ELSE. (Jay would be more knowlegeable on Big George's buisiness acumen... I stopped being a MLB fan after their strike).

We get the same shennanigans with the Mets & Nets & Celtics. Different local cable companies have widely different channels available.. some you have to pay extra for, some you get for "free" (heh heh heh... higher overall rates for everyone), some you can't get at all. Move down the road 20 miles... you'll get a completely different menu. It's a fricking MESS! This is part of what's driving the evolution Troy mentioned... whether we like it or not. There's too much "junk" (er, stuff people otherwise wouldn't buy) that they are being "forced" to buy (more & more). And in the end... economic forces will trump any legal or moral "niceties" (liberal thinking)... they always do.

Now, the NFL is still so popular & powerful it hasn't yet gotten there... yet. One reason is there's only a single game per week compared to baseball or basketball... plus it's still more exciting & popular a sport nationwide. So you're going to see that "pay per view" a la carte thing be used with other sports first. But you've already seen how more & more games are being broadcast independently... on different nights... on different networks... all to get MAXIMUM price for the NFL. Monday Night Football has evolved to Saturday & thursday.

The thing that will drive it is how screwed up the prices (for cable) get... how pissed (the majority of) people get paying for junk they don't watch. It's one thing to get the food channel or discovery linked into a package of 8 "must take" channels, cause they only cost you pennies extra, and you might occasionally view them. But sports takes a (comparitively) BIG BITE... and is responsible for the inflation of the cable bill$. As it becomes (technologically) easier for cable companies to know exactly what every viewer is watching, there will be inertia for prices to follow suit, and the medium to "evolve" (for better or worse). It's basic economics.

BTW, I didn't watch either the Stones or the game itself... I'm a Pats fan from way back (and still in mourning:(). Guess I didn't miss much:p ... LOL.

3-LockBox
02-09-2006, 12:51 PM
Now, the NFL is still so popular & powerful it hasn't yet gotten there... yet. One reason is there's only a single game per week compared to baseball or basketball... plus it's still more exciting & popular a sport nationwide. So you're going to see that "pay per view" a la carte thing be used with other sports first. But you've already seen how more & more games are being broadcast independently... on different nights... on different networks... all to get MAXIMUM price for the NFL. Monday Night Football has evolved to Saturday & thursday.

The NFL model of presenting all of its games in one day is exactly why its the most popular sport. Sunday football is an event. (Its the foundation that sports talk radio is built upon) The other sports are over-saturated. Who cares if they miss a early regular season baseball or basketball game? Football also has way fewer games, thus making every game but the first few very important. But the NFL has evolved to an expnaded schedule and I've read where they're considering more. This is a huge mistake. I'm glad ABC dropped MNF, and I hope it does poorly enough at ESPN that they drop the Thursday and Sunday night games. College football can get away with this 'every other night' affair because its mostly regional games that wouldn't otherwise see the light of day on the networks' Saturday schedule. But if the NFL starts fooling with its tried and true model just to reap immediate benefits, they'll ruin the league in the long run.