Before this years Super Bowl I would have had to say that U2 was the last decent halftime show. I'm glad they got rid of the teenie bopper acts and the MTV style. GAG!

as i watched the show, I never got the feel they were "going thru the motions". ie lipsynching, and i look for the subtle hints. If they did, they fooled me...

If they weren't full live, they were most likely playing with pre-recorded music and live vocal (he was definitely singing live). Playing a stadium is HARD due to the intense slap-back echo. Listen to some of the very early live Beatles concerts. They sound pretty awful because they couldn't hear each other very well. It's actually pretty amazing how well they DID do considering the primitive sound reinforcement rigs at the time.

Amen to all that. I have played stadium shows and the slap can really confuse you. You start playing with your return. Really loud monitors or earbuds work to overcome it.

next year- Ringo Starr :)

"Will you still love me, will you still me, when I'm 64"!

I guess he is trying to find out.

The show was live, no question.

"Thank you, Super Bowl!" Sir Paul, I applaud you whilst cocking the old leg for a kick in the gibblies. I liked it, but hated myself for liking it.

God, I hate football.

JCM

agree, it was a great show - my 2yr old danced, my 5yr old heard his Mom sing all the songs (she has a great voice). Bit i'm a traditionalist, I would have liked to see a Drum & Bugle Corp (Cavs, Blue Devils, Madison Scouts) put on their DCI field show. Seems like football and marching bands go together. I'm in the minority for sure...

But riddle me this: The trailers for the show had sir Paul in the same red shirt, showed the same fireworks and had the same songs. If it was live did they tape the rehersal and use that as a pre-show trailer?

I'm old enough to have a vague recollection of the Beatles on network television when they first 'invaded' America in the mid-60's. Was it Shea Stadium in Chicago? Ironic that the band who were so incredibly controversial then (I remember all sorts of negative comments about them from my parents at the time) has become about as mainstream as a G-rated Disney cartoon. Even my now 72-year old mom liked it!

I have to make a comment here. With all due respect to Targa911s's apparent disdain, and to his experience playing large stadiums, there is a reason Mr. McCartney did not seem to have trouble. I played bass for years, and though I did not play stadiums, I played my share of ballrooms with tile walls, etc. With a folded 2x15" speaker. At times I could hear NOTHING. So, I know it's hard.

But you know, one of the things that has always struck me bigtime about the Beatles is how incredibly sharp they became BEFORE they got discovered. Prior to returning to England, they played their asses off in Hamburg. When they were not sleeping, they were playing. Not just playing, but performing. An eight hour day was very short for them. So, if you listen to those first couple of Beatle albums with any industry understanding, you'll see very quickly and obviously how accomplished they were. Every single detail was perfectly worked out. Their pitch, harmony, volume, meter, everything. And then there are their more celebrated characteristics, like being some of the greatest songwriters in history.

So, there is a reason Paul looked comfortable, sang on pitch, delighted the audience, etc. He's a "pro" in every single sense of the word. Like watching great tennis players. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, then just try copying them.

Much of it seemed "live" but I think there were some canned bits. The most obvious was when he would move a bit off axis on the mic but the volume/attack of his voice wouldn't change. I know they compress the snot out of it, but live you either get pumping or some dynamic drop. So my guess is that some of the vocal parts were canned, or they were all just doing a really good job of lip synching. BUT, they did at least sound like a 4/5 piece (depending on how they were configured), so there wasn't any of that nonsense. My guess is that they recorded the set "live" before hand.

Supe...I think you have misjudged me. I don't dislike Sir Paul. He is a great bass player, for a guy that uses a pick. I really never was a Beatles fan to begin with. When the Beatles invaded the U.S. I was listening to MuddyWaters, Howlin' Wolf, The Kings and the other blues greats along with the acoustic players like Tom Rush, Leadbelly, Dave Ray and the delta style of blues. I don't happen to like "pop" music. Most of the Beatles songs were just that. I was however at the time a Stones fan. Most likely because of their blues roots. I thought the half time show was good, even though I believe most of it was at the least a sound bed. Sure Paul looked relaxed. He is a pro and has played more shows than you, me and static combined. However it would be easy to look relaxed if at any of our live performances we could just "sing along" with ourselves.

ps...I know what you mean about the "Ballroom" syndrome. I'm a bass player myself. Ampeg SVT 8X10, or Hartke 4X10 depending on the room. Can't hear S**T, and it all turns to mush. Having a good sound crew helps a lot in those situations. The guys bought me a shirt for my birthday that says.."More of me in the monitor!" sad but true. After all these years I only have 50% of my hearing left. So I guess it's a"half empty half full" kinda thing.

Sounds good, Targa. Pun intended. Ampeg has always been, in my humble view, the hands down winner for bass. And plain 'ol Fender Jazz. Today's musicians use a lot of sound processing stuff I don't understand. In the olden days, we used an axe, head, speaker box and a cord. Sounded great. As I say, Ampeg for bass. Marshall for guitar. Not sure you need anything else.

Perhaps Paul had a vocal track pre-recorded, and sang on top of it. He's been double tracking for more than forty years. Hey how 'bout that drummer? I've seen him a couple of times, and he seems to be a good contributor. I liked his twists on the venerable, hallowed Hey Jude drum lines originally done by the guy with the big nose that some folks will never understand. Same with that Stones guy. Some folks cannot get it. Visualize what a drummer and drum set would look like for the World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band, and would you see Charlie? There's an easy one.

Supe I could not agree with you more. I have played Gibson Thunderbirds for years, but my guitar player finally conned me into buying a J bass. I gotta tell you it's the bass you and I heard on just about every song we grew up with. I knew it when I plugged it in. I'm playing a Gibson Explorer now. I just can't stop wanting to be John Entwhistle. Charlie is ..well Charlie. I won't start another thread by saying he's the best, Let's just say he would be my choice if I could play with anyone I choose. The guy with Sir Paul WAS great ! Loved his fills. regardless I still think it was a great halftime show. Sure beats " Up with America!"

I think McCartney is a great choice. Would you want a Jackson family member performing again? There would be a lot more censorship precautions I'm sure........

Good choice overall - for talent as well as a "low risk" act. I did find it amusing that he sort of paused before the line in "Get Back" dealing with nymphomaniac transvestites. Almost like he KNEW he was supposed to be as "un-controversial" as possible and sort of didn't realize what he'd have to be singing before he selected the songs. Or maybe it was deliberate. . . Guess we'll never know.

Fleetwood Mac next year please!

Yes the OLD Fleetwood Mac. Too bad Peter Green's a lost soul.

Yeah, Fleetwood Mac is great in concert.........but would Stevie Nicks outfits be too riskaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy??:D

I like McCartney's 1/2 time show, and I feel it made a great choice when you consider it was meant to entertain (and not offend) a very wide audience. There's no doubt people knew the tunes and enjoyed at least a couple.