[Nightfall]

Sir Paul McCartney is a legend, no less. They should be honored he made himself available. What exactly would be more relevant? The garbage that passes for mainstream music these days?
You said it best yourself when you noted:

"It would be nice if there was some new music coming out with quality close to the hit songs of the 60s and 70s."[/QUOTE]

There isnt, nothing even in the same universe." Talent is irrelevant now, you simply have to look good and be marketable. Its more than pathetic.

JC


Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen In any event, I have mixed feelings about Paul McCartney as Super Bowl halftime entertainer. I have always liked the Beatles and McCartney. Certainly, some of my first albums were Beatles albums. The songs he played were songs I have enjoyed for many years. I certainly have no problem listening to them and enjoyed the performance. But I have to agree with some of the folks here that something a bit more relavent seems appropriate. However, it's a sad state of affairs in the music business that Paul McCartney was the best they could do. It would be nice if there was some new music coming out with quality close to the hit songs of the 60s and 70s.

 

[Nightfall]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo Bill Yup, as in the guy who is married to a chick with only one leg.

So now we make sport of people who have become handicapped because of an unfortunate accident? I'm appalled and disgusted. I will never read another word you have to utter. You are blocked forever. I'm ashamed to know you are part of this wonderful community. Find a rock to crawl under.


JC

 

[mjg]

I dig the beatles, but to me the half time show served exactly what it is, a reason to get up and go to the bathroom or use the phone or something.

I didn't see anything spectacular about this one, except that they had an innocuous and wardrobe friendly ex beatle play some old songs, which is cool i guess. Not for nothing, but i mean, it wasn't anything special sorry.

 

[aeriyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen It would be nice if there was some new music coming out with quality close to the hit songs of the 60s and 70s.

There is... it's just not in English, nor is it recorded in the USA...

 

[acs236]

I think this is the first time that I can remember where the halftime show was value-added part of the broadcast.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

I don't know how they used to "lip-synch", but these days, they don't use the actual recordings on commercially released cd's. The performers will record "live" versions of their songs they plan to play during their tours in the studio, fix the vocals, and enhance the songs using software to sound "live". That is the neat little trick Mr. (oops, sorry, I meant Sir ) McCartney used to fool people into thinking the performance was live. It was canned, and you can see it very easily at one point when he was playing the piano and moved his mouth wide from the mic, but the vocals played clear through anyhow. If it was live, the last part of the note would have been muffled at best. Awesome live halftime show!!!

nope,live and real if i am any judge,and i do more live events than most who would rather listen to "hi fi" and not LIVE AND IN YOUR FACE !

Warts and all !

Most people are cynical now days because they grew up in a time of no talent packaged performers who never COULD sing or play !
they are posers,models,not musicians

No longer do bands work their way through bars and backwater venues but an idea of what the suits want is determind in a meeting,they go out and find someone to fit the mold they came up with,someones writes the songs and music,the vocals from these no talents are electronically enhanced in the studio -recorded and then played at concerts as REAL.......

It is the choreography and the "look' that counts and has nothing to do with song.

I grew up with bands and singers folks,most legendary and in the Music Hall
of Fame now.Most i have seen live and let me tell you-all the "old timers" i have seen in recent years still have it.They have talent and they have passion that these "youngins' have no idea about because they do not and never did have either.

Greed and ego wrapped up in a corporate skin

Paul not only played live but well and not for a man in his sixties but for a man of any age.Who can still out play these no talent wanna bees.Bring them to their kness bowing to the master.

John fogerty early in the pre-game show ?

same thing -a legend in his sixties ,plays and sing music he himself wrote.

these guys were not packaged,they were working bands

 

[chadbang]

Live and real. Really? Hm. I guess the sound was pretty well done, then. Almost sounded too clean to me, but I guess with the right miking you can do that. Yes, an excellent half time. I actually didn't feel like I was having my teeth pulled for a change as Beyonce or Christina Aquilera or Boyzone tortured me with their drivel. The only thing i hated was the phony lighting of "lighters' during Hey Jude. Still, it's the superbowl and they have to go for the cheap spectacle (especially given the fact that half those kids they crowded on the field had probably never heard The Beatles

). That's one thing I liked about Paul McCartney's halftime. Pretty straightforward rock n roll show. Of course, when he started into "Live and Let Die" my brother and I started yelling, "Axle! Where's Axle!"

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Of course, when he started into "Live and Let Die" my brother and I started yelling, "Axle! Where's Axle!"

yeah,now there is something !

pretenders doing a "cover" are worshipped while the one who wrote and performed the music gets called a phony

 

[greenhorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buffalo Bill Yup, as in the guy who is married to a chick with only one leg.

YOU IDIOT.

 

[erikzen]

I have no doubt that the Paul McCartney segment was live. I think he really sang and his instruments were live. However, I think that he had a lot of help from his band on both the vocals and the instrumentation. On Get Back, I'm fairly sure the bass line was being covered mostly by the keyboard player and I wouldn't be surprised if he helped out on all the songs. On Live and Let Die, most of the keyboard part was also covered by the synthesizer. Actual paino was really low in the mix exept at key points, where he did a little key slide and in the intro.

Of course, the sound was good. This is Paul McCartney, one of the richest and most experienced musicians in the history of rock and roll. He is going to have the best equipment, the best sidemen and the best soundmen running his show.

 

[chadbang]

I don't think Paul needs any backup on the bass. Go listening to the Beatles. That guy laid down some amazing bass tracks. But he did have some help from the harmonys. What was the guitar that the lead guitarist was playing? A Gretsch?

 

[EyeAmEye]

As the old saying goes, "If you think he was singing live, I've got a bridge to sell you..."

He wasn't, and the fact that so many of you think he was is testament to how many probably do and nobody ever notices.

 

[chadbang]

edited

 

[erikzen]

I am not disparraging Paul's bass playing in any way. However, there is a difference between being a front man at a rock show and laying down bass tracks in the studio. You can't do it all, not even Paul McCartney.

 

[chadbang]

Over the years, I always idolized John Lennon. But recently I've really begun to suspect that although John was the "soul" of the band, Paul was probably the driving musical force. Of course, it's in the end the yin/yang thing. But musically, Paul was probably even more talented than John, IMO.