More Half-Time Fiasco

What about old Aretha Franklin and her side kick doing the National Anthem?

Simon would have kicked them out of American Idol.

The only thing that would have made it worse would have been a wardrobe malfuntion! GROSS

Rob

 

Aaron Neville was the guy who sang the first half of the National Anthem. I think it took 2 minutes for them to get through it, and it should normally take about a minute and a half or less to get through. P. King of cnnsi called it the 2nd best National Anthem at the Super Bowl, but as far as I'm concerned, all National Anthems fall into 2 categories. At the top is Whitney Houston before Super Bowl XXV at the top, and after that is everybody else.

 

Is that the same 63 year old SIr Paul who sings 30 year old songs that I'm thinking of?

Why do they need boisterous rock performances at half time? To wake up the audience of course!!

 

I watched the half-time performance and the only thing I did notice was the Rolling Stones sounded horrible. Last years was pretty good. My all time fav would have to be U2.

 

That "sidekick" was Aaron Neville, who, btw, is a devout born again believer. I didn't much care for the way the Anthem was sung, but that's no reason to belittle the performers of it. I stink at singing, and hope to the Amighty that no one ever judge me based on my inability to sing the Anthem.

 

The Drifters were never with Motown. They, like Aretha Franklin, were on Atlantic.

 

It just proves, we should have chosen "America the Beautiful" as our national anthem.

Our national anthem has an incredibly demanding vocal range, and is butchered far too much. The words are great, but I like ATB just as much, and vocally ATB is so much easier to sing, the flow is better...just a better song, in my book.

Ya'll don't shoot me as a traitor...just vocalizng my opinion, as a recovering anthem singer...I'll support it, till we change it....

 

You're by no means alone on that belief. ATB is MUCH easier to sing for the novice than TSSB. TSSB's octave-and-a-half vocal range makes it incredibly demanding, even for trained vocalists. Plus, it's in 3/4 time, and a novice is naturally inclined to a 4/4 time (ATB is in 4/4 time).

That being said, I absolutely love TSSB for the reasons many dislike it: It's in 3/4 time, and it has a wide vocal range. But I also like the additional verses more than the first verse, especially the line "Then conquer we must, when our cause is just; and this be our motto - In God Is Our Trust!"

 

Congrats, johnv, you're one of the seventeen Americans that knows there's more than one verse to our national anthem!

(and yes, I like that verse as well)

 

(Johnv blushes)

 

Is that the same 63 year old SIr Paul who sings 30 year old songs that I'm thinking of?

Why do they need boisterous rock performances at half time? To wake up the audience of course!! </font>[/QUOTE]Paul McCartney has more talent in his pinkie than the Rolling Stones have combined. And at least Paul has had a hit since the Stones have. Doing a 30 year old song is one thing. Doing it well (as Paul does) and doing it like you're on the verge of a nursing home (as the Stones do) are two different animals.
We have a halftime show because we know that soccer fans are watching real football for once, and they need time to go get their calculators to figure up the scoring they aren't used to seeing and time to figure out the intricacies of plays they aren't used to seeing.

 

Doesn't matter, Tom.

Some people will complain about the halftime show if PDQ Bach were conducting the whole note symphony.

 

But John, we have a right to. You don't have to question our motives. I don't want a half-time show, that has to be edited for content. I wish you wouldn't poke fun of people for feeling like this.

 

In all seriousness, Bro Curtis, I don't question said motives. Yes, I'd have been happier if the two edits were not necessary (though, admittedly, I didn't notice them when they happenned). But it seems that once that fact is recognized, some just start tossing fodder on top of that point to make the issue bigger.

The issue of how good or bad the performance was is not an issue of righteousness. The issue of how old the Stones are is not an issue of righteousness. The issue of how long it's been since their last hit record is not an issue of righteousness. The issue of how talented they are compared to Sir Paul is not an issue of righteousness.

Yet, people are piling all those things on top of the edit issue to judge the whole as a matter of righteousness.

The edit issue is a matter of objective righteousness. All the other issues above are matters of nonscriptural subjectivity, and it is wrong to judge their righteousness based on those things.

 

We would have every right to protest PDQ Bach conducting anything as he doesn't really exist.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Doh!!! You got the joke! Very astute.

 

We would have every right to protest PDQ Bach conducting anything as he doesn't really exist.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]

 

We would have every right to protest PDQ Bach conducting anything as he doesn't really exist.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]Peter Schickele might take exception to that remark!