TiVo, McCartney, Superbowl -- bigger than Janet

[Gregg Sartiano]

From Yahoo News:

*******************
McCartney's performance was heavily TiVo (news - web sites)'d, registering 5 percent more viewers than last year's Jackson fiasco, according to the replay-device company, and heavily watched.
*******************

How 'bout that? 5 percent MORE than "Boobgate!" 5 percent MORE than Justin "media darling of 2003/2004" Timberlake! Weren't some other new-millennium pop icons on that halftime show?

Does this mean that Americans have more of a craving for melodic pop/rock than the mass media suggests?

[neve1073]

That was the best halftime show in memory.

McCartney's drummer was killing me during that show.

[warhead]

It was good to see Paul up there, he just straight ****ing rocked and thanked the crowd. That's what the **** I wanna see, the guy still has it in him too man.

Yes, the drummer was solid.

War

[beggehorn]

That was Abraham Laboriel Jr. hitting the skins. I have to agree, great performance all around.

[88fingerz]

Many folks over at another popular audio forum insist Paul and the band were faking it.

I'm of the thinking that it was live, vocals as well as the playing of instruments (actually I'll go on record as saying I'm absolutely positive)!

Any thoughts here on this?

Thanks for any insights, especially you Tivo-ers!

Fingerz

[tunesmith]

Sounded live and on the money to me, which was thrilling. Paul's the man, no 2 ways about it. I think people were sure that it was prerecorded becasue it was actually in tune. I think it was one of the greatest of all time doing what he's been doing since 1964.

Nothing quite like experience, is there?

Tunes.

[Riad]

OK, I'll be minority here and say that although he did sing live, and the performance was good, it was boring as hell.

It did nothing for me, and the fact the band was hidden and it was just him standing there kind of made it easy to think it was a tape performace... I mean come on, show the band on stage.

[Waylon]

I have to disagree... I thought the staging was brilliant looking, and the show was a great move on the producers part.. the only other SB halftime I liked this much was U2 a few years back, both accomplished somethign I have seen no others do... for 15-20 minuites I FORGOT I was tunign in to watch football.. it was soley a concert, and they OWNED the stage

[henryrobinett]

I was looking pretty closely, but then again I was at a pizza parlor with a lot of friends. I was struck by the fact that it WAS live.. And I'm gladdened by the fact that the trend these days, post Ashlee Simpson, et al, is to DO IT LIVE. Grammy's was mainly live. I thought McCartney's perfprmance was great. No flashiness. No dancing girls and huge spangled freworks. Just music. How refreshing.

[RyanR]

Originally posted by henryrobinett
No huge spangled fireworks.

I guess you missed those . . . there were tons of fireworks towards the end.

I really liked the drummer too, I thought he was the best part of the show (and no, I'm not a drummer).

Another thing I think I heard is Pauls voice get a little out of tune here and there. I didn't care much because his voice has character, and well, he's getting old so I'll cut him some slack. But did anyone else notice this? It kinda made me think maybe we are all being hyper-critical when it comes to singers being in tune, and it's really all about the feel of the vocal performance. But then again, I haven't heard anyone else mention this so maybe I was just hearing things.

[Riad]

Originally posted by RyanR
I guess you missed those . . . there were tons of fireworks towards the end.

I really liked the drummer too, I thought he was the best part of the show (and no, I'm not a drummer).

Another thing I think I heard is Pauls voice get a little out of tune here and there. I didn't care much because his voice has character, and well, he's getting old so I'll cut him some slack. But did anyone else notice this? It kinda made me think maybe we are all being hyper-critical when it comes to singers being in tune, and it's really all about the feel of the vocal performance. But then again, I haven't heard anyone else mention this so maybe I was just hearing things.

That's exactly how I know he wasn't singing to a track.. some parts were just off.

That really doesn't bother me either.

[henryrobinett]

I actually love it. People don't naturally sing auto-tune in tune. It drives me crazy. Even classically trained singers have pitch issues from time to time. Listening to symphony orchestras and violinists with their pitch . . . Computers have ruined so much for me.

McCartney's slight out of tuness was fine AFAIK.

[midiman123]

I have the answer to your question:
It was 100% live!
With this band, you don´t do playback!!

I saw Paul McCartney live last summer, and this was the exact band & "sound" as back then...
You guys should buy his dvd " back in the us" where he performs with the same band!
It is fantastic, and the drummer & the rest of the band is rock solid!!

He´s live versions of To live & let die, Helter Skelter, & Maybe I´m amazed was better then any performance I have seen from any band/artist in the last 10 years!

He also played som rare tracks from "Beatles for sale", "Revolver", and "Rubber Soul", and I was just amazed over the songs this guy wrote!

I admit Lennon was always my no 1 in the beatles, but after hearing this man perform everything from Yesterday, Sgt pepper, to Helter Skelter, I realised that he has written a more wide variation of songs than Lennon did, and they are all fantastic!

The man is 62 years old, and he can still deliver the goods!!

Amazing...
KK

[henryrobinett]

Lennon was such an idiosyncratic, iconoclastic, rebel. I loved his PERSONALITY the most. But as a tunesmith and great songwriting craftsman, McCartney all the way. His body of work stands and will continue to stand the test of time far longer than Lennon's "canon" I predict. Sure he's much popier and a lot of his music can be throw away fodder (Just Another Silly Love Song) , but his success has also depended upon it. He writes the songs that the whole world sings.

[chrisso]

Originally posted by midiman123
I have the answer to your question:
It was 100% live!
With this band, you don´t do playback!!

But it's usually not the decision of the band!
I've seen this issue being talked about feverishly (mostly by Americans) across a lot of different forums since the Superbowl.
You know, if Paul & Co were miming (and I've heard suggestions they were apart from the vocals), it wouldn't make them cheats....or bad musicians.
It just means the TV company weren't confident they could wheel a live rock band into the middle of a football game and 100% guarantee nothing would go wrong. Plenty of technical things go wrong on a normal gig. Only this is the tv event of the year, with the biggest audience worldwide.
I'm not saying they definitely weren't playing live, I'm just saying it wouldn't be up to the band, the decision would probably be made by a few conservative minded execs at a tv company.
You guys should just get over the Milli Vanilli thing.
All pro-musicians are required to mime on occasion. 99% of the time it's forced upon them and they would rather be actually playing.

[midiman123]

Originally posted by chrisso
You guys should just get over the Milli Vanilli thing.
All pro-musicians are required to mime on occasion. 99% of the time it's forced upon them and they would rather be actually playing.

Well, Milli Vanilli was not only miming, they didnt even sing on the tracks, so that has nothing to do with anything of this....
(That, I CAN´T "get over"...)

It´s ok to do playback, when you have to.
The Beatles did it, Stones , bla bla...
It´s ok, it´s part of the show bizz!!
When you do TV, sometimes you have to fake, cos of what you mentioned in the above post..
But, I don´t belive that Paul McCartney did it on the super bowl...

[chrisso]

Originally posted by midiman123
Well, Milli Vanilli was not only miming, they didnt even sing on the tracks,

Oh yeah, that's true.
Mind you, Ringo never played on the records either.

Oh, oh, just kidding.

[midiman123]

Originally posted by chrisso
99% of the time it's forced upon them and they would rather be actually playing.

-Actually,
My experience is that when I worked as a booking agent for TV, most of the bands( BIG British & American acts) wanted to do playback & NOT play live!
It was to much of a hazzle for them, and they just wanted to get it done fast, & "present the good production" of their latest hit, and get out of there...

KK

[neve1073]

Originally posted by henryrobinett
Lennon was such an idiosyncratic, iconoclastic, rebel. I loved his PERSONALITY the most. But as a tunesmith and great songwriting craftsman, McCartney all the way. His body of work stands and will continue to stand the test of time far longer than Lennon's "canon" I predict. Sure he's much popier and a lot of his music can be throw away fodder (Just Another Silly Love Song) , but his success has also depended upon it. He writes the songs that the whole world sings.

Don't go THERE, please!

Lennon's songwriting opus is the word of god.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by neve1073
Don't go THERE, please!

Lennon's songwriting opus is the word of god.

LOL. Well I wouldn't go THAT far. But he did write some pretty good songs.

[chrisso]

They were as good as each other IMO.
Trying to say one was better than the other is a waste of breath.

[midiman123]

Originally posted by chrisso
They were as good as each other IMO.
Trying to say one was better than the other is a waste of breath.

-Very true!
Lennon was one of the 2 greatest songwriters of popular music!!
(-the other one being...paul!)

The Beatles...what a band..... eh?

KK

[henryrobinett]

Sorry if I disagree. This kind of thing is always totally subjective. I don't even think they were the greatest songwriters. I think baby boomers and those that came afterwards tend to think their generation and things contained within it are the greatest. I think John and Paul were very good and sometimmes great songwriters. But nobody is ever as great as somebody else. There are no equals ever. Only individuals.

[mixer]

mc cartney rocks.. lennon is probably turning around in his grave after the cover of his song(across the universe) at the grammys..yeiks.

[Lawrence]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but...

The halftime music was a track, not a live performance. This comes from someone who personally knows and has worked with the crew who put the entire thing together.

Takes nothing away from the band or McCartney, just a necessary evil for this Super Bowl. It's a tribute to their skills (the musicians and the producers) that nobody could really tell. Fantastic.

I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Lawrence

[88fingerz]

I still maintain and insist it was ALL LIVE.

I'm starting to come to the conclusion you have to have a special set of eyes and ears to effectively pinout someone lipsynching or playing to track.

I thought it was more obvious, but not to all I suppose.

I understand today's audience isn't used to someone (and band) who could actually pull off live singing on pitch whilst bassing away in the pocket, effortlessly!

He jumps to the piano without missing a beat (OK, maybe a 1/2....) and pumps out songs he sounded the same on almost 30 years ago. Outstanding.

Oh yeah...he wrote them too!

I'm positive McCartney would want no part of that (singing to track or whatever deceptive practice we're talking about) whatsoever. He was actually on pitch 90% of the time.

I'm thinking he's gone back for some vocal training at some point...he's sounded better on the past tour and this Superbowl performance than 13 years ago!

It's like he's been vocaly reborn.

Enjoy the day Goddammit!

F

[catfish11]

the guy was play'n his bass
stellar musician
stellar performance

made the play in the clutch
just like the patrioits
job well done

he was on the pre game show, cool as a cucumber
professional all the way
i've never seen him live, but he has a great reputation
for being at the top of the performance game

the naysayers don't know what the **** they're talking about
very few in the world as good as he
but he gets to work with pretty good material,
i guess

[Gregg Sartiano]

I'll repost it 'cause I wanna hear opinions on what the TiVo stat may/may not signify as far as audience trends concerning the music industry.

Originally posted by Gregg Sartiano
From Yahoo News:

*******************
McCartney's performance was heavily TiVo (news - web sites)'d, registering 5 percent more viewers than last year's Jackson fiasco, according to the replay-device company, and heavily watched.
*******************

How 'bout that? 5 percent MORE than "Boobgate!" 5 percent MORE than Justin "media darling of 2003/2004" Timberlake! Weren't some other new-millennium pop icons on that halftime show?

Does this mean that Americans have more of a craving for melodic pop/rock than the mass media suggests?

[chrisso]

Originally posted by catfish11

the naysayers don't know what the **** they're talking about

Who do you mean by 'naysayers'?
Again, it doesn't matter one jot whether McCartney was 'lipsynching' or not. It would not be his decision either.
FWIW, McCartney lipsynchs in the live film 'Get Back' (1990 world tour).
He's a pro who will do whatever he's asked to do to get the job done.
He's also a fantastic musician. Miming on the odd TV show does not make you a charlatan.

[ProFool]

Did nobody read this
or is it a fake story? no superball here !!!
grtz