The half time show was embarrassing ..yes. The new single is a rip off of themselves...yes. Still, Mick is just a business man these days...and that gig was big business for them.
My (hopeless) hope is that someday the boys will return to their blues roots and put aside the rock posturing which is just silly for a sixty-year old. I could see them putting on a hell of a blues set or two, if they really got into it. And THAT is a Stones show i would pay money to see.
On a postive note, hopefully Bono was watching and learned a lesson from all this...and we won't see U2 playing Superbowl LX.
D
David Archambault Exeter Vinyl Nirvana website
Posts: 27 | Location: NH | Registered: 28 January 2006
It's none of my business if they should go away. I found the Super Bowl performance to be bloody awful, but I can't begrudge them their opportunity to make money. If people are willing to pay $360 for a ticket, who am I to complain? But, honestly, the Stones haven't really been relevant for over 30 years and you would have to pay ME to sit through their shows.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
Their last album was garbage, and last night it sounded like Mick couldn't catch his breath. It was awful, although I thought the guitars were pretty solid. Today some of the sports bobbleheads were talking about it like it was the best experience of their lives, but I think that if you rub your eyes and stop being blinded by the name, you realize that they were not good. I would have rather seen a Motown mashup with Smokey and Stevie Wonder (though the anthem by Aretha and Aaron Neville was plain bad).
I guess there's worse bands that people spend hundreds of dollars to see (the Eagles). They've had their differences in the past, and it's commendable that they can stick together long enough to make tens of millions of dollars a year well into their 60s. Time to hang it up.
Well, considering the numerous atrocities committed in the name of Super Bowl halftime shows, I don't think the Stones were that bad. Yeah, Mick doesn't sound like he did 35 years ago, but you really can't expect that.
----- Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.
Posts: 5295 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by ericg75: Well, considering the numerous atrocities committed in the name of Super Bowl halftime shows, I don't think the Stones were that bad. Yeah, Mick doesn't sound like he did 35 years ago, but you really can't expect that.
Good point...though I don't recall the Britney/Aerosmith collaboration being quite so anticipated. You're right though, they usually suck (exception, U2 in 2002).
I have been waiting for Roger Waters to rejoin the 'Floyd for years. At the same time, Detroit Lions fans have been waiting for Barry Sanders to return to football. Some things are better left in the past. Floyd is past the point where they could contribute anything to their legacy and therefore, better off left alone, and Barry is past the point where he could be a factor. I honestly believe that the more time that goes by, the more ridiculous both reunions would be. Now, let's suppose both Barry and Roger select the year 2025 to return from their respective hiatuses. They would probably perform slightly better than Mick and Co. did on Sunday night.
Posts: 1206 | Location: Hunting in the Korengal | Registered: 04 January 2006
They stunk up the Super Bowl almost as bad as the refs! Time to retire or at least try to fade away tastefully.
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
Originally posted by Bobthespirit: The Superbowl performance sucked, but when I saw them a couple weeks ago they were great.
My thoughts exactly. I saw them a couple years ago and it was a great show. I think at this point in their career, you have to catch them on a "good night" to make it worth the money. Luckily, the couple times I have seen them have been good nights.
Posts: 3130 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
Anyone else think the White Stripes should have been at halftime instead of the Stones? Jack and Meg are from Detriot after all, and it would have been funny to see all those 50-something sportswriters scratching their heads wondering, who the hell are these weirdos?
Originally posted by paxsoprano: Anyone else think the White Stripes should have been at halftime instead of the Stones? Jack and Meg are from Detriot after all, and it would have been funny to see all those 50-something sportswriters scratching their heads wondering, who the hell are these weirdos?
That would've been the best Super Bowl half time show ever.
----- Stay gold, Ponyboy. Stay gold.
Posts: 5295 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by paxsoprano: Anyone else think the White Stripes should have been at halftime instead of the Stones? Jack and Meg are from Detriot after all, and it would have been funny to see all those 50-something sportswriters scratching their heads wondering, who the hell are these weirdos?
That would've been the best Super Bowl half time show ever.
If snobs ruled the world....
That'd be sick. I don't know if anyone else read Klosterman's week-long blog on espn.com, but his head would have exploded if this happened.
The thing is, I'm betting the network execs told them "Don't do anything that could be construed by anything as sexually suggestive". So maybe Mick was so paranoid about gyrating the wrong way he couldn't figure out what to do on stage.
At least the Stones played some good songs, badly, though. This one time when Aerosmith was switching out with a boy band, and they kept going back and forth, and then *Nelly* hobbled out...bleck. The Stones halftime performance was a fender bender to the usual train wreck.
(One small comment...acknowledging that the art you like isn't marketable to mainstream audiences is *not* the same as snobbery.)
Posts: 1783 | Location: Around Boston. | Registered: 24 February 2005
