nfl screwed up on halftime entertainment???

[broncos-rock]

I like the stones and everything but the freakin game is in Detriot the home of motown. Just seems like they missed the boat or is whole Janet Jackson still haunting them?

[ZachKC]

They kind of did the whole "motown" thing pregame.

[broncos-rock]

sorry missed the pregame!! As I bet most people did...btw did anybody catch the stadium announcer are own broncos announcer. Alan Roach

[Sodak]

The Rolling Stones are officially past their prime. They have moved into the realm of Suck! That was about the sloppiest live performance I have seen in a long time. Every time I see them play live it just gets more and more pathetic. Give it up guys, you were great for 30 years, now it's time to pass the torch...

Go ahead geezers, flame away...

[Rocket 7]

They kind of did the whole "motown" thing pregame.
Whoever did "Dancing in the streets" did a big disfavor to Martha Reeves and the Vandellas. That was terrible

[gadlaw]

And the National Anthem sung by Aretha Franklin and Aaron Neville. Bad soundcheck or something since it sounded like someone was playing the cat bagpipes there. And the Stones did a good job.

[ZachKC]

Whoever did "Dancing in the streets" did a big disfavor to Martha Reeves and the Vandellas. That was terrible
Ya, that wasnt good...I thought John Legand had some good stuff.

[Garcia Bronco]

The sound crew for this gig has been terrible all day...they should never get work again on anything remotely this big.

[broncoblue]

the stones were awsome...legends cant wait for summer to seeem again

[watermock]

The Rolling Stones are officially past their prime. They have moved into the realm of Suck! That was about the sloppiest live performance I have seen in a long time. Every time I see them play live it just gets more and more pathetic. Give it up guys, you were great for 30 years, now it's time to pass the torch...

Go ahead geezers, flame away...

Sloppy is an understatement...they sounded like a garage band on qualudes.

[watermock]

the stones were awsome...legends cant wait for summer to seeem again

They were terrible...I can't believe that band could be that loose and off key when they are doing a tour. Save your money.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

Of all the cool acts that could have lived beyond the 70's.... we are stuck with the goddam Rolling Stones.

They sucked then.. they really suck now.

If nothing else, they should have the best sound man. It was a horrible performance married to a horrible mix... fueled by an over-rated dinosaur band that should have died 30 years ago.

Why couldn't they have done some kind of MoTown thing? Stevie Wonder would have been kewl.... as long as he kept it pre-1979.

[Northman]

I like the stones and everything but the freakin game is in Detriot the home of motown. Just seems like they missed the boat or is whole Janet Jackson still haunting them?


Nah, the NFL just loves dragging out old has been carcasses and putting them up on stage. Ha! Hilarious!

[broncos-rock]

I would have rather seen a boob on a hot chick!!:thumbs:

[Rohirrim]

Man, the Stones were great. Better than that dud of a game and the suck-ass officiating.

[watermock]

The stones sucked completely. They were off key, loose and that idiotic giant lip? WTF was that?

You would think they would be just a little tighter being on tour.

[sirhcyennek81]

they attempted to make XL the best superbowl ever. It was'nt. It blew from minute one.

:Broncos:

[baja]

Man, the Stones were great. Better than that dud of a game and the suck-ass officiating.

I am a long time Stones fan but they were bad today

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The person responsible for mixing the house sound should start looking for a new career tomorrow.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone botch the job so terribly before - especially during a major nationally-televised event.

Re: The Stones:

They've always made great-sounding records and they've always sucked live. I guess some things never change.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

The stones have always sucked balls... now without teeth

[Rohirrim]

They were rough, but I still enjoyed it. What can I say?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Man, the Stones were great. Better than that dud of a game and the suck-ass officiating.

The Stones sounded like a box full of pans falling down a 5 mile long staircase and landing on a cat every other step.

[Nuggets4]

The sound crew for this gig has been terrible all day...they should never get work again on anything remotely this big.

That sound crew isn't qualified to do the Pueblo Fair.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They were rough, but I still enjoyed it. What can I say?

I love the Stones, but I've always been disappointed by their live shows. They make great records, but they sound like a garage band live.

[orinjkrush]

I like the stones and everything but the freakin game is in Detriot the home of motown. Just seems like they missed the boat or is whole Janet Jackson still haunting them?

i agree. coupla sixty year olds with droopy triceps bouncing around. pathetic.

:pimp:

[Dr. Broncenstein]

They were rough, but I still enjoyed it. What can I say?

You are easily entertained....

[Breck Bronc]

They were rough, but I still enjoyed it. What can I say?I thought they were fine, too. Who else can perform hit songs like Satisfaction from 1965 and Rough Justice from 2005?

The stones have always sucked balls... now without teethExile on Main St. is my favorite album of all-time. I couldn't disagree with you more.

[Rohirrim]

You are easily entertained....

I guess so. I keep reading your posts. ;D

[Sodak]

The Stones are worse than a live garage band of 13 year olds. I know they're good musicians, but when they play live, they just don't care about what they're doing at all. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

A cover band would have sounded better playing the Stones than the Stones did...

And yeah, the sound crew should have been much better prepared. There's no excuse for sound like that.

On a positive note, at least they were playing live music, and not the lip synch stuff like years past.

[sirhcyennek81]

Men at social security age should not wear low rise jeans. Stones or not.

:Broncos:

[Bronx33]

This game was screwed up from the pregame show on................really this the worst SB i have ever seen bar none.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

Paul McCartney brought down the house last year.... a single member of a band which was infinetely better than the Stones in their day... now a solo act which is infinetely better than the re-animated strolling bones.

[12th man]

national anthem suked, commercials sucked, halftime sucked, refs sucked, and game sucked. period.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

national anthem suked, commercials sucked, halftime sucked, refs sucked, and game sucked. period.

Word..

[Rohirrim]

Paul McCartney brought down the house last year.... a single member of a band which was infinetely better than the Stones in their day... now a solo act which is infinetely better than the re-animated strolling bones.

McCartney is a pussy. He should limit himself to writing songs for Kermit and Barney. That's about the limit of his skills. Too bad Lennon is no longer around to kick his ass.

[Bronx33]

McCartney is a p***Y. He should limit himself to writing songs for Kermit and Barney. That's about the limit of his skills. Too bad Lennon is no longer around to kick his ass.


This is so wrong in so many ways...

[Dr. Broncenstein]

McCartney is a p***Y. He should limit himself to writing songs for Kermit and Barney. That's about the limit of his skills. Too bad Lennon is no longer around to kick his ass.

I'll agree that he is a pussy, and probably the least talented compared to Lennon and Harrison. That said, he had to be laughing his ass off to this year's halftime entertainment.

[watermock]

This game was screwed up from the pregame show on................really this the worst SB i have ever seen bar none.

I liked the pregame music honestly, at least Wonder can still sing...

I never saw any flyovers, must of missed it...the national anthem was the worst I have ever heard...

Then the game started and both teams looked like they were battling for the first pick in the draft instead of the Lombardi...

Then they bring out a stage of a giant lip and Jesus, Jagger had his old butcrack showing if you didn't notice, sang like a tone deaf retard and pranced around like a ******...nice job NFL...

Then I got the privelege of watching the worst officiating I have ever seen in any game, ever.

For icing on the cake, we got John Madden's repeditive, shallow bantering. Grandpa Simpson makes him look like a moron. Hell, a cockroach would make him look like an imbicile.

I understand that not everyone is a NFL freak on this day, but Madden was starting to drive me insane.

The Refs couldn't run a JV game! WTF was that?

There were a dozen pathetic calls and no calls. This is a SuperBowl crew?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

McCartney is a p***Y. He should limit himself to writing songs for Kermit and Barney. That's about the limit of his skills.

Couldn't disagree more. Of all four Beatles, Paul was the most skilled as a musician, and he certainly had the most formal training.

Too bad Lennon is no longer around to kick his ass.

I miss John, but McCartney has proven many times over that he can do it on his own. Yes, McCartney has occasionally sold out and done some wimpy stuff, but there's more than enough great material to compensate, IMO.

[Sodak]

Mock, you said everything that could be said about the game. Ditto.

Aaron Neville? WTF? Who decided this guy should sing? EVER?

[epicSocialism4tw]

McCartney is a p***Y. He should limit himself to writing songs for Kermit and Barney. That's about the limit of his skills. Too bad Lennon is no longer around to kick his ass.

???

Paul McCartney invented metal with Helter Skelter.

Let it Be, Hey Jude, Get Back, Eleanor Rigby, Paperback Writer, Sgt Peppers'..., Day Tripper, etc. were McCartney tunes. McCartney's catalogue is amazing. You can throw Live and Let Die, Jet, Band on the Run, and a number of other great solo tunes in there.

You owe thanks for your rock music to Paul McCartney.

[broncofan]

I saw the Stones in October, and they were incredible.

It wasn't the most compelling performance...totally lacked energy and the sound left much to be desired. Overall it was OK though.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I saw the Stones in October, and they were incredible.

It wasn't the most compelling performance...totally lacked energy and the sound left much to be desired. Overall it was OK though.

Okay if you like to listen to technically horrific garage slop spewed forth by two unaware citizens of Senility and their cohorts and engineered by a couple of third rate sound techs.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If somebody likes Lennon better than McCartney, then that's a matter of personal taste, and there's no dispute.

However, to claim that McCartney was less skilled as a musician than John is simply false.

[ClevelandBronco]

Couldn't disagree more. Of all four Beatles, Paul was the most skilled as a musician, and he certainly had the most formal training.



I miss John, but McCartney has proven many times over that he can do it on his own. Yes, McCartney has occasionally sold out and done some wimpy stuff, but there's more than enough great material to compensate, IMO.

I may never say this again. You're right.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I may never say this again. You're right.

:giggle:

I know it must have hurt you to type those two words.

[epicSocialism4tw]

If somebody likes Lennon better than McCartney, then that's a matter of personal taste, and there's no dispute.

However, to claim that McCartney was less skilled as a musician than John is simply false.

Paul was obviously the most technically and professionally ambitious Beatle. He ended up with quite a catalogue to show for it.

[broncofan]

Okay if you like to listen to technically horrific garage slop spewed forth by two unaware citizens of Senility and their cohorts and engineered by a couple of third rate sound techs.

Nah, I don't listen to hardcore death metal.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Nah, I don't listen to hardcore death metal.

"Death Metal" would probably be a good description of the Stones' performance.

[gunns]

national anthem suked, commercials sucked, halftime sucked, refs sucked, and game sucked. period.

Amen.

They brought in Aretha and Stevie Wonder and the motown people at the last minute after complaints were made that it was in Detroit and no motown? Motown was the half time show at SB XXXII and I think that's the reason we lost the AFCC because they weren't having motown as the half time show at the SB which would have made it ours.....that and the fact the zipper on my Bronco jacket got stuck just before the game. ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Paul was obviously the most technically and professionally ambitious Beatle. He ended up with quite a catalogue to show for it.

Of the four Beatles, Paul received the most formal musical training as a youth.

He was more accomplished on his primary instrument (bass) than any of the others.

He was the most accomplished pianist of the four.

He was, arguably, a more accomplished guitarist than Lennon.

You can probably argue for days about who was the better singer or songwriter - Paul or John.

I would give Paul a slight edge in the vocal department because of his range, dynamics, sense of phrasing, and pitch.

I would call it a tie in the songwriting department but give Lennon the edge in the lyric department.

I would give Lennon the edge for raw imagination and creativity.

[Nuggets4]

Couldn't disagree more. Of all four Beatles, Paul was the most skilled as a musician, and he certainly had the most formal training.

I miss John, but McCartney has proven many times over that he can do it on his own. Yes, McCartney has occasionally sold out and done some wimpy stuff, but there's more than enough great material to compensate, IMO.

Quoted for truth.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Of the four Beatles, Paul received the most formal musical training as a youth.

He was more accomplished on his primary instrument (bass) than any of the others.

He was the most accomplished pianist of the four.

He was, arguably, a more accomplished guitarist than Lennon.

You can probably argue for days about who was the better singer or songwriter - Paul or John.

I would give Paul a slight edge in the vocal department because of his range, dynamics, sense of phrasing, and pitch.

I would call it a tie in the songwriting department but give Lennon the edge in the lyric department.

I would give Lennon the edge for raw imagination and creativity.

Lennon was the better lyricist, no doubt. McCartney had an amazing sense of melody and chord progression, which translated into his bass playing. You can see the eventual future of bass playing in his style. Chris Squire and John Paul Jones took that style and ran with it.

Chris Squire kept the stately classical melody runs and took them to another level technically where Jones added some Jaco Pastorius and a little funk.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Chris Squire kept the stately classical melody runs and took them to another level technically where Jones added some Jaco Pastorius and a little funk.

Where do you hear a Jaco influence in Jones' playing?

[SteveTensi13]

Paul McCartney and Wings ruled. The Beatles and the 'Stones easily the two most overrated bands in the history of R&R. There should be a law that once you reach the age of 50 you can no longer perform live R&R concerts. Even AC/DC, whom I love, are up there in age and probably shouldn't be doing any more live gigs.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Where do you hear a Jaco influence in Jones' playing?

In his bubbly fingerstyle scaling through pentatonics and major chording. He's got that Jaco "bounce".

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Beatles and the 'Stones easily the two most overrated bands in the history of R&R.

...and the stupidity continues...

:pity:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Paul McCartney and Wings ruled. The Beatles and the 'Stones easily the two most overrated bands in the history of R&R. There should be a law that once you reach the age of 50 you can no longer perform live R&R concerts. Even AC/DC, whom I love, are up there in age and probably shouldn't be doing any more live gigs.


The first problem with that post is that you say that the Beatles and Stones are overrated.

The second problem is that you love AC/DC.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In his bubbly fingerstyle scaling through pentatonics and major chording. He's got that Jaco "bounce".

"Bubbly?"

Is that a musical term? ;)

Where have you heard Jones playing chords on the bass?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The first problem with that post is that you say that the Beatles and Stones are overrated.

The second problem is that you love AC/DC.

One of those rare posts where I agree with all of the above. ;)

[epicSocialism4tw]

"Bubbly?"

Is that a musical term? ;)

Where have you heard Jones playing chords on the bass?


Bubbly would be referencing the stlye of attack and almost dotted but "fat" 8th and 16th notes.

I should have said scales on the reference to his work in major. He didnt do much with chords. Squire did though.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bubbly would be referencing the stlye of attack and almost dotted but "fat" 8th and 16th notes.

I believe the musical term for this is "swing." :)

[SteveTensi13]

The first problem with that post is that you say that the Beatles and Stones are overrated.

The second problem is that you love AC/DC.

OMG how can anyone not love AC/DC? Honestly, Mick Jagger should be taken out and shot. And the other lead guitarist, I think, the one that looks like warmed up death, can't remember his name, is clearly on his last breath. It is a mockery of what R&R means, youthful rebellion, not ancient codgers trying to reclaim their youth.:militia: :olddude:

[epicSocialism4tw]

I believe the musical term for this is "swing." :)
That sounds right.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

OMG how can anyone not love AC/DC?

I'll take a stab at it:

(a) A shrieking monkey whose voice sounds like he's gargling with broken glass.

(b) A guitarist who dresses up in a goofy schoolboy getup and can't play much more than a few power chords, recycled blues licks, and simple pentatonic scale runs.

...ancient codgers trying to reclaim their youth.

Umm, did it ever occur to you that those "ancient codgers" are still doing it because (a) it's still fun, and (b) the huge audiences at their shows feel the same way?

If music nazis like you had their way, Muddy Waters, Dizzy Gillespie, and Andres Segovia would probably have been forced into early retirement.

[Hogan11]

The Stones are worse than a live garage band of 13 year olds. I know they're good musicians, but when they play live, they just don't care about what they're doing at all. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Exactly why I thought they were great, of course, there is nothing more annoying than a sterile, rote, by the numbers rendition of a tune or some tech musician trudging thru another heaping pile of musical bullshat in order to prove how skilled he is.....that's totally souless...put on an Emerson, Lake & Palmer CD to see what I mean by that statement. The Stones avoided this tonight...I only hope I can still do stuff like that if I ever reach 70 years old.

..and Aaron Neville is a great vocalist, he didn't shine tonight, but it does absolutely nothing to tarnish his rep at all since probably 80% of the rubes there probably had no idea who the hell he was anyways....their loss.

[DB-Freak]

"Death Metal" would probably be a good description of the Stones' performance.
Death metal is beautiful in some ways.

That Stone's performance was just crap.

[Hogan11]

I'll take a stab at it:

(a) A shrieking monkey whose voice sounds like he's gargling with broken glass.

(b) A guitarist who dresses up in a goofy schoolboy getup and can't play much more than a few power chords, recycled blues licks, and simple pentatonic scale runs.



Umm, did it ever occur to you that those "ancient codgers" are still doing it because (a) it's still fun, and (b) the huge audiences at their shows feel the same way?

What's wrong with any of that? There was a lot more to AC/DC than what you outlined. They were great because they played simple, three chord music that was blues based. Not all that far from 1977 punk in style or attitude...a big reason why a lot of old school punks dug them.

Of course, if you're not into primal rock'n'roll, it's easy to see why one would dislike them as they were everything rock should be about....they offended everyone within eyesight or earshot.....lewd, loud and basic, it rarely gets better than that. (They lost a lot of that appeal when Scott died however....they seemed to mellow to me in overall scope of their attack....just MO mind you)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Exactly why I thought they were great, of course, there is nothing more annoying than a sterile, rote, by the numbers rendition of a tune or some tech musician trudging thru another heaping pile of musical bullshat in order to prove how skilled he is.....that's totally souless...

A musician has to exhibit both, i.e., soul and technical excellence, to impress me.

However, although sometimes a truckload of soul (or raw talent, imagination and/or creativity) can compensate for slight deficts in technique, (see Jimmy Page or Keith Richards) the reverse probably doesn't hold true as often.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's wrong with any of that? There was a lot more to AC/DC than what you outlined. They were great because they played simple, three chord music that was blues based. Not all that far from 1977 punk in style or attitude...a big reason why a lot of old school punks dug them.

Of course, if you're not into primal rock'n'roll, it's easy to see why one would dislike them as they were everything rock should be about....they offended everyone within eyesight or earshot.....lewd, loud and basic, it rarely gets better than that. (They lost a lot of that appeal when Scott died however....they seemed to mellow to me in overall scope of their attack....just MO mind you)

Nothing is wrong with that.

Everything I said about them was just a statement about my own musical tastes.

I probably wouldn't have been as outspoken about it if that dude hadn't attacked the Beatles and the Stones. ;)

[Blueflame]

Exactly why I thought they were great, of course, there is nothing more annoying than a sterile, rote, by the numbers rendition of a tune or some tech musician trudging thru another heaping pile of musical bullshat in order to prove how skilled he is.....that's totally souless...put on an Emerson, Lake & Palmer CD to see what I mean by that statement. The Stones avoided this tonight...I only hope I can still do stuff like that if I ever reach 70 years old.

..and Aaron Neville is a great vocalist, he didn't shine tonight, but it does absolutely nothing to tarnish his rep at all since probably 80% of the rubes there probably had no idea who the hell he was anyways....their loss.

I agree... there's nothing wrong with sounding like a garage band. I much prefer a possibly-flawed live performance over something so "over-produced" it sounds more like "memorex" than "live"...

Also agree on Aaron Neville... he is a very talented vocalist.

[Hogan11]

A musician has to exhibit both, i.e., soul and technical excellence, to impress me.

However, although sometimes a truckload of soul (or raw talent, imagination and/or creativity) can compensate for slight deficts in technique, (see Jimmy Page or Keith Richards) the reverse probably doesn't hold true as often.

"to impress me." are the key words in the above.

I've always considered feeling to be above technique...that's a personal preference mind you, although I like my share of fusion, jazz, art-rock, et.al. I've always perferred the basic style as it always seemed more primal, urgent and ultimately powerful.

[Orange_Beard]

I wanted to see Mick's nipple.

[Hogan11]

I agree... there's nothing wrong with sounding like a garage band. I much prefer a possibly-flawed live performance over something so "over-produced" it sounds more like "memorex" than "live"...

Also agree on Aaron Neville... he is a very talented vocalist.

The garage is where it's at IMHO...nothing is more fun to go see or to be playing if your in a band.....everything simplistic, loose and sloppy, high energy, feedback oozing, bad vocalist shouting...I love it all.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"to impress me." are the key words in the above.

I've always considered feeling to be above technique...that's a personal preference mind you, although I like my share of fusion, jazz, art-rock, et.al. I've always perferred the basic style as it always seemed more primal, urgent and ultimately powerful.

IMO, you can't have feeling without technique (and vice versa) and still expect to make a distinctive musical statement (particularly from a listener's POV.)

Technique is what gives musical feeling form and structure.

BTW, sometimes you can be just as awed by the form and structure (particularly if you're a trained musician) as the feeling.

That said, without the initial musical impulse or feeling, there's nothing to which to give structure, so I'd probably agree with you on that account.

[DB-Freak]

Not sure if the two are that exclusive.....

[Orange_Beard]

They were great.

[Blueflame]

The garage is where it's at IMHO...nothing is more fun to go see or to be playing if your in a band.....everything simplistic, loose and sloppy, high energy, feedback oozing, bad vocalist shouting...I love it all.

True... imperfection gives music character. A lot of fun times happen at informal "jam" sessions... :D

[Breck Bronc]

People will complain about everything. This was light years better than Britney Spears, Nelly and 'Nsync lip synching Walk this Way with Aerosmith or the Timberlake/Jackson debacle.

[DB-Freak]

True... imperfection gives music character. A lot of fun times happen at informal "jam" sessions... :D
Yea then death metal definitely isn't for you.

[Hogan11]

IMO, you can't have feeling without technique (and vice versa) and still expect to make a distinctive musical statement (particularly from a listener's POV.)

Technique is what gives musical feeling form and structure.

BTW, sometimes you can be just as awed by the form and structure (particularly if you're a trained musician) as the feeling.

That said, without the initial musical impulse or feeling, there's nothing to which to give structure, so I'd probably agree with you on that account.

Well I disagree, unless you define three chords as "technique"...feeling over technique gave us some of the greatest rock songs in history.....nothing advanced about them at all....just some teenage kids trying to get laid, how much more primal can you get?

Most trained musicians I've encountered are often snobs. They look down their noses at the simplistic and only seem to care about ultra-complex time sigs or whatever they feel "challenges their ability".....feeling almost always gets lost in that attitude, a big reason why so much art-rock comes across as totally cold and souless or why guys like say Rick Wakeman and Keith Emerson always managed to put me asleep more often than not.

[epicSocialism4tw]

True... imperfection gives music character. A lot of fun times happen at informal "jam" sessions... :D

Techincal musicians love to jam. Ask Phish, Dave Matthews Band, Yes, Doobie Bros, etc, etc.

You have to be educated to understand how to create dynamics and feel in your impromptu jam. Whether it's formal or self-taught, you have to be aware of many different aspects of expression including phrasing, timing, time signature, when to let silence speak, when to creshendo, etc, etc.

Jamming isnt just slapping at strings. Most rock musicians jam. Most are educated to some degree on what it takes to make it sound good.

[wabbit]

...The Beatles and the 'Stones easily the two most overrated bands in the history of R&R...


Oh my...well, I guess different strokes etc., etc...

just to show everyone how musically out of touch I am, I thought the half-time show was the best I've seen...ever, and yes, I've seen 'em all.

I, too, have seen the Stones in concert...four or five times dating back to the late 70's...didn't sound appreciably worse, or even that different tonight with the exception to the fact that I was watching on television rather than a grandstand.

I thought it was great.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Well I disagree, unless you define three chords as "technique"...feeling over technique gave us some of the greatest rock songs in history.....nothing advanced about them at all....just some teenage kids trying to get laid, how much more primal can you get?

Most trained musicians I've encountered are often snobs. They look down their noses at the simplistic and only seem to care about ultra-complex time sigs or whatever they feel "challenges their ability".....feeling almost always gets lost in that attitude, a big reason why so much art-rock comes across as totally cold and souless or why guys like say Rick Wakeman and Keith Emerson always managed to put me asleep more often than not.

To be frank, Rick Wakeman put you to sleep because you didnt understand what he was doing. That guy is a ferocious player and can also be extremely delicate. He's the total package (but a little to syth heavy for me).

[Blueflame]

Yea then death metal definitely isn't for you.

Perhaps... however, in my opinion, there's a lot of enjoyable music in almost every genre. If my life had a "soundtrack" it would run the gamut from Vivaldi to Eminem... ;D

[epicSocialism4tw]

Perhaps... however, in my opinion, there's a lot of enjoyable music in almost every genre. If my life had a "soundtrack" it would run the gamut from Vivaldi to Eminem... ;D

A real woman's soundtrack would have some Ghetto Boys in it.

[Hogan11]

To be frank, Rick Wakeman put you to sleep because you didnt understand what he was doing. That guy is a ferocious player and can also be extremely delicate. He's the total package (but a little to syth heavy for me).

Playing classical riffs at different octaves as fast as you possibly can on multiple synths doesn't impress me very much....it's self-indulgent and boring.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Playing classical riffs at different octaves as fast as you possibly can on multiple synths doesn't impress me very much....it's self-indulgent and boring.

That's where you are missing the point. It's about dynamics. It's about timbre. Wakeman also played some blues. I'm sure youre familiar with roundabout. He's not my favorite keyboardist, but he can play. By ferocious, I meant that he's very aggressive. Like Beethoven's Flight of the Bumblebee or even Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit. You just have to know what to listen for.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well I disagree, unless you define three chords as "technique"...

Yes - I do define three chords as "technique."

Some people are content with playing (or listening to) those same three chords their entire lives, and that's fine if that makes them happy.

On the other hand, it's like a painter who only paints with three colors - some musicians and listeners get tired of just three (or fewer) colors and crave more color, variety, complexity, sophistication, or whatever.


feeling over technique gave us some of the greatest rock songs in history.....nothing advanced about them at all....just some teenage kids trying to get laid, how much more primal can you get?

What songs qualify as "some of the greatest rock songs in history?"

Again, it's just a matter of personal taste.

Most trained musicians I've encountered are often snobs. They look down their noses at the simplistic and only seem to care about ultra-complex time sigs or whatever they feel "challenges their ability".....feeling almost always gets lost in that attitude, a big reason why so much art-rock comes across as totally cold and souless or why guys like say Rick Wakeman and Keith Emerson always managed to put me asleep more often than not.

Here's how I see it:

Music consists of three basic elements: Rhythm, harmony, and melody.

The best music (IMO) has something interesting to say on all three levels - as opposed to just one or two.

JMO.

[DB-Freak]

A real woman's soundtrack would have some Ghetto Boys in it.
LOL

To be honest, I did like one song by them...

[Hogan11]

That's where you are missing the point. It's about dynamics. It's about timbre. Wakeman also played some blues. I'm sure youre familiar with roundabout. He's not my favorite keyboardist, but he can play. By ferocious, I meant that he's very aggressive. Like Beethoven's Flight of the Bumblebee or even Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit. You just have to know what to listen for.

There's no feeling in that stuff as far as I can see. To be honest, I have problems with Yes anyways and when he joined, he compounded them. What one could see as dynamics and timbre can just as easily be interpreted as needless flash and wankorama. It's all in ones personal taste I suppose.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

True... imperfection gives music character.

I agree. Those little imperfections are what make music sound human.

Even those musicians who create sounds with MIDI use quantization to create subtle changes in velocity and timing so as to make various instrumental performances sound as human as possible.

However, imperfection is one thing, lack of sophistication is another.

[Blueflame]

A real woman's soundtrack would have some Ghetto Boys in it.

rofl If you say so.... Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's where you are missing the point. It's about dynamics. It's about timbre. Wakeman also played some blues. I'm sure youre familiar with roundabout. He's not my favorite keyboardist, but he can play. By ferocious, I meant that he's very aggressive. Like Beethoven's Flight of the Bumblebee or even Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit. You just have to know what to listen for.

Yeah, things like dynamics, timbre, phrasing, modulation, motivic development, etc., are what distinguish primitive music from art music, I suppose.

Some people like their music primitive, just want to dance, etc.

Some people like music that engages them on an intellectual as well as an emotional level.

Different strokes.

[Blueflame]

I agree. Those little imperfections are what make music sound human.

Even those musicians who create sounds with MIDI use quantization to create subtle changes in velocity and timing so as to make various instruments sound as human as possible.

However, imperfection is one thing, lack of sophistication is another.

Tonight's performance by the Stones wasn't unsophisticated... but there were enough imperfections that no listener could possibly doubt that it was, in fact, "live" and not "memorex"...

And I'd have to wholeheartedly agree with the previous poster (Breck Bronc) who said it was immeasurably preferable to the "kiddy pop" (Justin Timberlake) halftime show we were subjected to a couple of years ago.

[epicSocialism4tw]

There's no feeling in that stuff as far as I can see. To be honest, I have problems with Yes anyways and when he joined, he compounded them. What one could see as dynamics and timbre can just as easily be interpreted as needless flash and wankorama. It's all in ones personal taste I suppose.

Yes' "Awaken" is one of the most "feeling" containing songs that I have ever heard. The creshendo at the end is gorgeous. It's almost angelic.

Yes' "Ive Seen All Good People" has a great blues jam in it.

I dont think that Yes' intention was to wank. Their intention was to make great music. Just like Stevie Ray Vaughan, Victor Wooten, Terry Bozio, or any of the other 'wankers' out there. They are just a little better at it than the people who major in pop culture understand. The problem is not theirs.

[sirhcyennek81]

NFL screwed up the halftime show by hiring the rolling stones to do it. Made it safe rather then entertaining. Making the whole game play on a 5 second delay was a mistake, too.

:Broncos:

[Hogan11]

What songs qualify as "some of the greatest rock songs in history?"

Again, it's just a matter of personal taste..

Some of the most basic are some of rock's most notable songs...take tunes like "Louie, Louie", "Sweet Jane", "Wild Thing", "Blitzkrieg Bop" all born from the chord sequence G-C-D for example.....out of that one sequence alone, you've got countless variations that have created standards widley recognized as such


Here's how I see it:

Music consists of three basic elements: Rhythm, harmony, and melody.

The best music (IMO) has something interesting to say on all three levels - as opposed to just one or two.

JMO.

Well I wouldn't limit it to just that, I've gotten a lot out of some pretty atonal stuff that said and conveyed more feeling in a minute and a half than it took some bands hours or even albums to convey.....but that's just MO I guess.

[Blueflame]

Yes' "Awaken" is one of the most "feeling" containing songs that I have ever heard. The creshendo at the end is gorgeous. It's almost angelic.

Yes' "Ive Seen All Good People" has a great blues jam in it.

I dont think that Yes' intention was to wank. Their intention was to make great music. Just like Stevie Ray Vaughan, Victor Wooten, Terry Bozio, or any of the other 'wankers' out there. They are just a little better at it than the people who major in pop culture understand. The problem is not theirs.

You'd classify Stevie Ray Vaughn as a "wanker"? ??? :kiddingme:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yeah, things like dynamics, timbre, phrasing, modulation, motivic development, etc., are what distinguish primitive music from art music, I suppose.

Some people like their music primitive, just want to dance, etc.

Some people like music that engages them on an intellectual as well as an emotional level.

Different strokes.


I'm a purist, so I like it all.

My favorite musicians are the Pixies. Gutteral, melodic, great lyrics, avant garde.

I also love Doyle Dykes, Joe Pass, Clint Strong, etc.

I like Yes, Stuart Copeland, Neal Peart, etc.

I love Rich Mullins, Caedmons Call.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Tonight's performance by the Stones wasn't unsophisticated...

I guess that's a matter of perception. To me, the Stones live performances have always been VERY unsophisticated - sometimes frustratingly so - and I'm a Stones fan.

I'm a fan because, IMO, the Stones are one of those rare groups whose soulfullness, originality, imagination, raw creativity, and overall "vibe" more than compensate for their lack of technical excellence.

but there were enough imperfections that no listener could possibly doubt that it was, in fact, "live" and not "memorex"...

To me, the most thrilling thing in the world is when it sounds like it could be "Memorex" but you know it's real musicians playing real instruments.

[sirhcyennek81]

how bout britney spears, huh guys? what a singer, huh?

j/k...

:Broncos:

[epicSocialism4tw]

You'd classify Stevie Ray Vaughn as a "wanker"? ??? :kiddingme:

The guy was a soloist. His albums were about his guitar playing. He literally swung a guitar around his neck on solos. On top of that, he was technically brilliant and blatantly over-the-top fast. If you think that Wakeman is a wanker, you think Vaughan is a wanker.

[Hogan11]

The guy was a soloist. His albums were about his guitar playing. He literally swung a guitar around his neck on solos. On top of that, he was technically brilliant and blatantly over-the-top fast. If you think that Wakeman is a wanker, you think Vaughan is a wanker.

SRV had and conveyed warmth, something Wakemen never did.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Some of the most basic are some of rock's most notable songs...take tunes like "Louie, Louie", "Sweet Jane", "Wild Thing", "Blitzkrieg Bop" all born from the chord sequence G-C-D for example.....out of that one sequence alone, you've got countless variations that have created standards widley recognized as such

"Most notable" = units sold, chart position, or....?

How about Sgt. Pepper? Not many three chord power pop songs there.

Another example would be one of the most requested songs of all time, viz., "Stairway to Heaven."

I could go on, but you get the point.

Well I wouldn't limit it to just that, I've gotten a lot out of some pretty atonal stuff that said and conveyed more feeling in a minute and a half than it took some bands hours or even albums to convey.....but that's just MO I guess.

What you are describing still falls under the heading of rhythm, harmony, and melody. Even an atonal or dissonant (which, BTW, is all in the ear of the beholder) melody is still a melody. The rest is all about rhythm, volume, and dynamics.

[epicSocialism4tw]

SRV had and conveyed warmth, something Wakemen never did.


He conveyed warmth that you can understand. You cant tell me that the pipe organ part on the final part of 'Awaken' is cold. It's extraordinarily powerful. It conveys a complicated set of emotions very well. I'm sorry if you are not fond of Wakeman, but to illegitemize his obviously well received work is pretty closed minded. You have to be an active listener.

[sirhcyennek81]

this argument, is like, so intense...

:Broncos:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

this argument, is like, so intense...

:Broncos:

Which in and of itself might suggest that the halftime show was more worthy of discussion than the game itself. ;)

[sirhcyennek81]

there was a game?

:Broncos:

[Hogan11]

"Most notable" = units sold, chart position, or....?

How about Sgt. Pepper? Not many three chord power pop songs there.

Another example would be one of the most requested songs of all time, viz., "Stairway to Heaven."

I could go on, but you get the point.



What you are describing still falls under the heading of rhythm, harmony, and melody. Even an atonal or dissonant (which, BTW, is all in the ear of the beholder) melody is still a melody. The rest is all about rhythm, volume, and dynamics.

No, they are recognized rock classics....it has nothing to do with untis moved, c'mon.

Sgt. Pepper is pretty much a patchwork, I love The Beatles as much as anyone but I do not hold that album in as high a regard as most people do...but that's a whole another story.

I was illustrating primal three chord classics to you after you requested me to do so, "Stairway" with it's mythological lyrics doesn't fit that bill.

Even a lack of melody is still a melody?

[Hogan11]

He conveyed warmth that you can understand. You cant tell me that the pipe organ part on the final part of 'Awaken' is cold. It's extraordinarily powerful. It conveys a complicated set of emotions very well. I'm sorry if you are not fond of Wakeman, but to illegitemize his obviously well received work is pretty closed minded. You have to be an active listener.

This is only your opinion, to which I differ. Not agreeing with you is not being closed minded, it's disagreeing with you over a style. I don't care for, nor find much feeling in, Rick Wakeman's dazzling displays of technical prowess and you do........and that's pretty much that.

[ClevelandBronco]

Oh my...well, I guess different strokes etc., etc...

just to show everyone how musically out of touch I am, I thought the half-time show was the best I've seen...ever, and yes, I've seen 'em all.

I, too, have seen the Stones in concert...four or five times dating back to the late 70's...didn't sound appreciably worse, or even that different tonight with the exception to the fact that I was watching on television rather than a grandstand.

I thought it was great.

Give me the U2 show as the best ever, but I'll admit that emotions took over because of the staging.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No, they are recognized rock classics....it has nothing to do with untis moved, c'mon.

Yes, they are classics. I'm just saying that not all rock classics or hugely popular songs have been simple three-chord songs.

Even a lack of melody is still a melody?

When you said "atonal" I assumed you were talking about a melody since a melody is a series of tones played one at a time.

[Hogan11]

there was a game?

:Broncos:

Sort of.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This is only your opinion, to which I differ. Not agreeing with you is not being closed minded, it's disagreeing with you over a style. I don't care for, nor find much feeling in, Rick Wakeman's dazzling displays of technical prowess and you do........and that's pretty much that.

Nah, you just dismiss it as 'wanking' to which I say is a copout.

[Hogan11]

Yes, they are classics. I'm just saying that not all rock classics or hugely popular songs have been simple three-chord songs..

While true, I'd bet the majority of them have been.....I can't prove that or anything, but still stuff like Chuck Berry wasn't brain surgury.



When you said "atonal" I assumed you were talking about a melody since a melody is a series of tones played one at a time.

I wasn't talking about atonal sound stuff with that statement, it's an entirely different one.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nah, you just dismiss it as 'wanking' to which I say is a copout.

Funny how people use that word.

To some people, anything that's technically challenging is "wanking."

To me, "wanking" is personified by somebody like Yngwie Malmsteen, whose whole body of work can be summed up with "let's see how fast I can play this harmonic minor or phrygian scale sequence." :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

While true, I'd bet the majority of them have been.....I can't prove that or anything, but still stuff like Chuck Berry wasn't brain surgury.


A lot of it depends on what era you grew up in, I guess.

In the late 60s and 70s pop music got more sophisticated.

[Hogan11]

Nah, you just dismiss it as 'wanking' to which I say is a copout.

I didn't dismiss it as "wanking", I dismissed it as cold, wankarama flash.

Sorry if he's one of your faves or something, but Wakeman and his style doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

[Hogan11]

Funny how people use that word.

To some people, anything that's technically challenging is "wanking."

To me, "wanking" is personified by somebody like Yngwie Malmsteen, whose whole body of work can be summed up with "let's see how fast I can play this harmonic minor or phrygian scale sequence." :D

Emerson, Lake and Palmer in a nutshell. They prove hands down that virtuosity is meaningless by itself.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I didn't dismiss it as "wanking", I dismissed it as cold, wankarama flash.

Sorry if he's one of your faves or something, but Wakeman and his style doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

Not my fave...I would much rather hear jazz piano, folk piano, or atmospheric flavoring from the keys. But, I can see what he does and appreciate the work the guy puts in. You seem to pride yourself in the knowledge and appreciation of rock music, no? Guys like Wakeman pride themselves on becoming more fluent in their instrument. It's like the difference between Watson and Crick and your local Biology teacher. Watson and Crick devoted their lives to their craft. Honing and shaping it. Wakeman is like this.

[Hogan11]

Not my fave...I would much rather hear jazz piano, folk piano, or atmospheric flavoring from the keys. But, I can see what he does and appreciate the work the guy puts in. You seem to pride yourself in the knowledge and appreciation of rock music, no? Guys like Wakeman pride themselves on becoming more fluent in their instrument. It's like the difference between Watson and Crick and your local Biology teacher. Watson and Crick devoted their lives to their craft. Honing and shaping it. Wakeman is like this.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Emerson, Lake and Palmer in a nutshell.

ELP have always bored the snot out of me.

They prove hands down that virtuosity is meaningless by itself.

Quite right.

It's like a writer who can recite every word in the dictionary really fast but who doesn't have a good story to tell.

You have to have something to say first.

Once you have something to say, developing a bigger vocabulary can (but won't necessarily) broaden your range of expression.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

No, but it doesnt mean that it's cold either. It means that he's different than what you like or are familiar with.

The part that I have been using as an example in 'Awaken' is emotionally complex. It speaks of man's search for spirituality and tries to communicate some of the steps along the way. Wakeman's keys are strong and majestic there and it adds to the feeling of certainty of eventually finding God. Like a strong voice in the undercurrent of the music that powers you forward. It's brilliant.

[The Snake]

The Rolling Stones are officially past their prime. They have moved into the realm of Suck! That was about the sloppiest live performance I have seen in a long time. Every time I see them play live it just gets more and more pathetic. Give it up guys, you were great for 30 years, now it's time to pass the torch...

Go ahead geezers, flame away...
It's better than any of today's music...

[Blueflame]

It's better than any of today's music...

Dunno if I'd say it's better than any of today's music... there are a lot of good bands with a lot of really great material out there ... but I would say it's exponentially better than some of today's music...

[jonny1]

ELP have always bored the snot out of me.



Quite right.

It's like a writer who can recite every word in the dictionary really fast but who doesn't have a good story to tell.

You have to have something to say first.

Once you have something to say, developing a bigger vocabulary can (but won't necessarily) broaden your range of expression.

I'm with you on that.

A keyboard player I worked with once told me a story about when he got a chance to play with Gatemouth Brown, and when he got a chance to do a solo, he thought, "Now I'll show him what I can do," and played as fast and as much as he could (and he was a piano major graduate of American University).

Afterward, Gatemouth came up to him and said, "If you make love the way you play your instrument, I feel sorry for your woman."

Music is conversation, it needs time to breath, and for the listener to have a chance to take in what they are hearing.

The spaces between the notes are just as important.

[broncoblue]

wow jonny thats heavy stuff for a monday..my taste is the more metal the better ,just watched the stones again ..sober this time...still think they rocked...not as much as kid rock rock did but they were good

[Master___Pain]

The Irony of this Stones debate is interesting....

Rewind to two years ago: At halftime of what was a very boring game at the time two average pop stars come out to perform, what was at the time a chart topper, that is over produced. The song is kind of blah, whatever, and then for a split second we get Miss Jackson if you're nasty's nipple flopping out. This maybe one second momment lead to the more than docile Super Bowl Shows that we've seen the last two years. Hell, the only reason 90% of America knew the nipple popped out was because of TIvo and the media telling us over and over that we had nipple.

McCartney was pretty good last year, but very tame like the NFL wanted.

The Stones this year were average, maybe. I closed my eyes after awhile so I could listen to the music rather than being distracted by Mick's flailing, and flapping of 60 year old triceps:sickortir . The sound was average and did nothing to get me excited. I was very dissappointed that the NFL went with washed up British rockers that don't, in my mind, represent anything that the Superbowl is about. The league dropped the ball by not having the halftime show be a Detroit/Motown music showcase. The pregame stuff was, to me, disrespectful to all the area artists that Detroit has laid claim to. No way should Motown have been the under card. In my opinion, a halftime show with the likes of Kid Rock (I know some old fuddy duddy is going to slam this suggestion), Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson and many others. If we are going to go with old musicians, they should have ones from Detriot or at least American.

I can see it now, because of JJ and Timberlake, some poor dad is having to explain to his kid the dangers of over the top drug use because his kid ran screaming form the room when the walking zombies took the stage for "Start Me up".....many kids were traumatized yesterday, and many parents had to have the "dangers of doing drugs" talk well before they were ready to with their kids.

[jonny1]

wow jonny thats heavy stuff for a monday..my taste is the more metal the better ,just watched the stones again ..sober this time...still think they rocked...not as much as kid rock rock did but they were good

Sorry . . . 8-)

I'm one of the old farts, so metal never appealed to me, but I love a good 3 chord rock-n-roll song. I guess it just depends on your own personal opinion of what a good song (and performance of said song) is.

Haven't seen the halftime show yet, I taped the whole game and all, so I could go back and watch the commercials.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The Irony of this Stones debate is interesting....

Rewind to two years ago: At halftime of what was a very boring game at the time tow average pop stars come out to perform, what was at the time a chart topper, that is over produced. The song is kind of blah, whatever, and then for a split second we get Miss Jackson if you're nasty's nipple flopping out. This maybe one second momment lead to the more than docile Super Bowl Shows that we've seen the last two years.

McCartney was pretty good last year, but very tame like the NFL wanted.

The Stones this year were average maybe. I closed my eyes after awhile so I could listen to the music rather than being distracted by Mick's flailing, and flapping of 60 year old triceps:sickortir . The sound was average and did nothing to get me excited. I was very dissappointed that the NFL went with washed up British rockers that don't, in my mind, represent anything that the Superbowl is about. The league dropped the ball by not having the halftime show be a Detroit/Motown music showcase. The pregame stuff was, to me, disrespectful to all the grea artists that Detroit has laid claim to. No way should Motown have been the under card. In my opinion, a halftime show with the likes of Kid Rock (I know some old fuddy duddy is going to slam this suggestion), Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson and many others. If we are going to go with old musicians, they should have ones from Detriot or at least American.

I can see it now, because of JJ and Timberlake, some poor dad is having to explain to his kid the dangers of over the top drug use because his kid ran screaming form the room when the walking zombies took the stage for "Start Me up".....many kids were traumatized yesterday, and many parents had to have the "dangers of doing drugs" talk well before they were ready to with their kids.

Funny stuff, Pain...

I agree with the motown theme. Why cant you bring in some soul? Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, and an all-star band with guys like Carter Beauford, Vic Wooten, and maybe someone interesting like John Frusciante would have been outstanding.

[Arkansas Bronco]

Dont know about half time i changed the channel, but the national anthem was very poor (not the song but the performers).

[Nuggets4]

Everyone keeps saying Motown would have been a great halftime and I 100% agree (it's my favorite genre by far) IF they wouldn't have done a Motown tribute at halftime of the greatest Super Bowl ever. It was probably "too soon" to do it again.

[broncofan]

"Death Metal" would probably be a good description of the Stones' performance.

When have you see the Stones live? Not trying to take shots at you...just out of curiosity. I know some of their tours have been better than others.

The second problem is that you love AC/DC.

Wow...you must take your music really seriously. AC/DC never claimed to be the greatest musicians in the world, but they play strait ahead rock very well.

[DBroncos4life]

I thought the California Raisins where great at half time.

[broncocalijohn]

The sound crew for this gig has been terrible all day...they should never get work again on anything remotely this big.

I bet it isnt the same crew that did the Faiders vs Bucs game in San Diego. You might not have heard it on TV, but the sound totally went muffled like the speakers went out. No Doubt and Sting good. Sound company bad. Oh yeah, another Super Bowl yours trully snuck in. Biggest Bucs fan that day!