Baby Bethany Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I hear the half time entertainment at this weekend's Superbowl is Bruce Springsteen. Now don't get me wrong, I like Bruce, Bruce is a legend. But come on Bruce fucking Springsteen? He was making hits when my diapers were still being changed by my mom. In fact he's been around so long, his original manager was Philius T Barnum! This is the thing, here is the biggest event in US sport, shown all over the world. But the half time entertainment is always some old fart. last year Tom Petty, this year Bruce. Come on guys, I love the old bands, but why can't they have some new talent? Or at least have the Foo Fighters or someone. No more veteran acts at the Superbowl please........unless it's Led Zeppelin of course! Beth Link to comment
MusicBABY180 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 New talent? What new talent? Good music stopped in the mid-ninties and was replace by boy bands, preppy little singers and shitty emo bands with no balls. Foo Fighter might work though, but still they are trying to appeal to the MAINSTREAM audiences, which, as I recall, are mostly attracted to big name acts like Bruce Springsteen or Tom Petty, or, god forbid, Prince. Modern rock bands would not do well because they are not as big as people might think. If your grandma knows who they are without you telling them, they huge. Believe me, I would love to see some of my favorite bands play the superbowl, but it would never happen because they are not as wildly popular with all age groups, like Bruce Springsteen is. AND FUCKING BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN AND TOM PETTY ROCK, MAN. I don't care how old they are, if they fucking rock, they fucking rock! Link to comment
Youngatheart252 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 are everyones memories so short that no-one remembers the justin timberlake/janet jackson incident? that's why we get stuck with old farts. Link to comment
MusicBABY180 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 are everyones memories so short that no-one remembers the justin timberlake/janet jackson incident? that's why we get stuck with old farts. That has nothing to do with it. All that did was from then on, all live broadcast will have a fifteen second delay (or something to that effect) from the recording to the television, so they would have a fifteen second window to remove whatever "indecencies" they find, such as foul language and nudity. The Janet Jackson incident has nothing to do with their choice with preformers. They don't have to choose a musician to perform at half time. They've done different thing in the past, like stage shows and comedians. Link to comment
redneck diaper boy Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I was so pissed off when the super bowl was in Jacksonville FL. They should have had Lynard Skynard, Molly Hatchet, 38 Special or Charlie Daniels. Instead they brought in Paul McCartney. Bob Ingram and the Vanzants live in my neighborhood. I broke all of my Springsteen records and CDs after finding out he is a pussy liberal maggot. I hear the half time entertainment at this weekend's Superbowl is Bruce Springsteen. Now don't get me wrong, I like Bruce, Bruce is a legend. But come on Bruce fucking Springsteen? He was making hits when my diapers were still being changed by my mom. In fact he's been around so long, his original manager was Philius T Barnum! This is the thing, here is the biggest event in US sport, shown all over the world. But the half time entertainment is always some old fart. last year Tom Petty, this year Bruce. Come on guys, I love the old bands, but why can't they have some new talent? Or at least have the Foo Fighters or someone. No more veteran acts at the Superbowl please........unless it's Led Zeppelin of course! Beth Link to comment
sarah_ab Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 bruce springstein is pretty hot right now after playing the inauguration and putting out a new album... and he is someone from all generations can recognize and know... but i do understand waht you mean.... although i have to think the timberlake/jackson incident did have some influence on the recent superbowl choices. I think they thought that halftime show was to risque.. and i'm guessing money plays a big part in it.. not paying the people to play, but the amount of money that goes into the stage, the special effects, the fireworks etc... people like tom petty and the boss dont have as much of those expensive special effects as the younger generation of musicians Link to comment
packrat Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 You're forgetting that this has nothing to do with talent, it has to do with $$$$$, viewers and selling ads. Link to comment
DiaperBoyKR Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I have to agree with you Sarah. Yeah the Justin and Janet incident triggered the 15-second window, but seriously have any of you worked a tech booth in your life? 15 second is like a blink of an eye. Theres no way that they'd be able to edit the feed in 15 seconds. By the time that you identified the problem, attempted to correct it, got the new feed out, you would be well over the 15 seconds. The best that they would probably be able to do is cut the feed, claim technical difficulties and restart the feed about 2 or 3 minutes later at a short point just after the offending incident. I seriously think that to avoid that possiblity they are going to steer away from "possibly problematic" entertainment to ones that they know are generally reliably family friendly. And to be honest, that pretty much excludes most of the modern music scene. Just my 2 cents on the issue. Link to comment
Baby Bethany Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 I was so pissed off when the super bowl was in Jacksonville FL. They should have had Lynard Skynard, Molly Hatchet, 38 Special or Charlie Daniels. Instead they brought in Paul McCartney. Bob Ingram and the Vanzants live in my neighborhood. I broke all of my Springsteen records and CDs after finding out he is a pussy liberal maggot. All power to Paul McCartney, Sir Paul's wrote some of the greatest songs ever........but not since about 1973. This alone means he shouldn't be considered for the SB. Who's going to perform next year, Little Richard? Beth Link to comment
baby-dandan Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Well I know I will enjoy it. The parties, the food, my friends, and the commercials. I never really got into Bruce Springsteen's music but I don't doubt that it will be a good show. Go Cardinals! Link to comment
Marcus23 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 we have been talking about it on a differnt board im on. anyway the real problem is in todays age there is so much more music and sub gernes bands dont get nearly as big as the use to. Back when Radio Stations had to stay more main stream to stay afloat. ow we have Internet and much more in ways of specializd sation for personal tastes. What It means is its harder to get nexer acts that lots of people know. And since the half time show is all about keeping peoples TV on during it to sell more ads the name has to be big. Also JT and JJ dont help the cause for bringing in younger talent. Link to comment
Mr. Big Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 All that did was from then on, all live broadcast will have a fifteen second delay (or something to that effect) from the recording to the television, so they would have a fifteen second window to remove whatever "indecencies" they find, such as foul language and nudity. ...and yet we still got Bruce's 60 year-old crotch slamming into our television screens. Link to comment
Baby Bethany Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 So, with the big event over did any of you enjoy Bruce's set? I thought it was pretty boring, okay I know he can only do so much in 12 minutes. But I don't know, still think they should have had Bjork. Besides, I've watched The Ramones fit an entire set into less than 12 minutes. Beth Link to comment
MusicBABY180 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I enjoyed it. He was all over the place, having fun. I thought it was awesome. Bjork?... at the superbowl?... You have mighty ambitions, don't you? Link to comment
twister_girl Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 All power to Paul McCartney, Sir Paul's wrote some of the greatest songs ever........but not since about 1973. This alone means he shouldn't be considered for the SB. Beth I remember when they chose him and everyone was saying it was because he was "safe". I was thinking "Boy, wouldn't it be great if he read that, got ticked off, and at show time switched his set to things like 'Happiness is a warm gun', 'Helter Skelter' and 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'?" Not that there was any chance of that happening. Link to comment
Baby Bethany Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 I remember when they chose him and everyone was saying it was because he was "safe". I was thinking "Boy, wouldn't it be great if he read that, got ticked off, and at show time switched his set to things like 'Happiness is a warm gun', 'Helter Skelter' and 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'?" Not that there was any chance of that happening. Hehe, that would be great wouldn't it. I think Paul McCartney is safe, unless he spots a younger woman and then he's a danger.......especially to himself. Still at least he didn't do a Ringo and post a video on You Tube patronising his fans. See below: And here is the uncut version. Even Osama Bin Laden got in on the act. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLukt37SBl4...feature=related Link to comment
![[DD] Boards & Chat](https://www.dailydiapers.com/board/uploads/monthly_2021_11/DDweb-02.png.0c06f38ea7c6e581d61ce22dffdea106.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now