Monday, February 08, 2010
From postings and comments I've heard during and after every Super Bowl, whoever chooses to do the Halftime Show is putting themselves in the same category as the Christians being fed to the lions in Rome. Everyone has a definite opinion on the quality of the performance. This year, I'd say the negatives win. 70% hated The Who. Thought they didn't die before they got old, Pete's voice was bad, fake windmills, Roger looked like a used car salesman, etc. About 30% said everyone watching was singing along, loved the show and The Who still have it into their sixties.
I didn't listen close enough to offer a well-informed opinion. I though the staging was perfect for TV. It worked well. There was an abundance of shots of Zak Starkey on drums. The cymbals were very cool. Directors usually ignore drummers. I guess it helps that your lineage is Beatles. I did comment that I bet this performance was amazing if you were at the stadium. It's tough to capture the excitement of a live performance on TV. Many people complained that the mix was bad. I hate medleys. I would have loved to see them do 2 full songs. Someone mentioned that Pete Townsend said in a pregame interview that he wanted to do just that and Roger wanted the medley and won.
With all the attention paid to The Who, scant comments were made on Carrie Underwood's Nation Anthem. I was listening from a distance and not in front of the TV, but it sounded like she was shouting, not singing.
My favorite halftime show was Prince. He played in the rain. He played like nothing mattered. Someone suggested having John Mayer and Keith Urban play next year. I think Urban is one of the most exciting, gifted performers today and he could rival Prince.