Can anyone explain the logic behind the last three Super Bowl Halftime shows?
The Rolling Stones (2006) looked like the walking dead and their set had the energy of an elementary school orchestra performance.
Prince (2007) hasn't made a decent album since the 80's, not to mention it's freaking Prince...how on earth does he make the list of "popular acts that football fans enjoy?" Did you see all the confused looks on people's faces?
Tom Petty (2008), like the Rolling Stones, is actually not alive and is made entirely of wood. I don't care if he's classic, he's washed up and not captivating. At all.
Next year, please write your senator and ask them to find someone that's going to rock out (like U2 did in 2002), or go back to the whole shotgun approach for the halftime show where you pick a popular artist from every genre and give them each one song, throw in some fireworks and then get back to commercials.
3 comments:
More hillarious Venn diagrams please.
It's called "we can't handle another 'wardrobe malfunction,' so we're only going to get safe bets (aka oldies) to perform from now on." ^_^
Screw you, Todd. The Stones are the greatest ever. I don't care if they are almost dead. In fact, I'd still pay $175 for a ticket to see them dead on stage. Prince is classic, don't hate. And Tom Petty is a fabulous musician.
I don't watch the super bowl to rock out with my C out. In fact, I don't even watch the game. I watch it for the halftime show.
U2 played a few years ago. It's too early to have them back. I'll see if I can get Nickelback on the agenda for next year. Maybe those lame asses can rock hard enough for Todd Sierer.
Post a Comment