According to the information this webpage gives us, this guy Hank Neuberger states that ALL superbowwl halftime shows of the last years were prerecorded.

Superbowl prerecorded

My translation of the crucial sentence:

"All superbowl performances are pre-recorded...there is no way you can set up a full band in five minutes with microphones, get all the settings right, and expect to get quality sound. We've been doing this with all the bands for years now."

This would include the Stones, too. However, I personally keep wondering about Max Weinberg drumming very (!) synchronously to the tape. Do I get it right, then, that this pre-recording is only some kind of safety net?

Karaoke

there was no way the stones were pre recorded, just watch it for cryin out loud, bruce got outed and thats it, live with it

I have to say I thought it was the best Super Bowl halftime show ever. A lot to be said for not taking drugs!!

Boss is PURE *&^%$#@ROCK N'ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He brings tears of joy in my eyes.
He is a gift to the world.

Quote
dimrstone
He brings tears of joy in my eyes.
He is a gift to the world.

Yep.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Posted by: sweetcharmedlife ()
Date: February 7, 2009 02:38

Quote
dimrstone
He brings tears of joy in my eyes.
He is a gift to the world.


Yep.
------

No comment.

"No comment... is a comment." George Carlin

I just want to apologize over my Springsteen Super Bowl review. Yeah he was better than the Stones – a better bloody actor. I am still amazed about the news of the E Street Bands Milli Vanili skit. Jesus!!!! And as I read I found out the Stones are probably the only act to have the COJONES to play live. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUCK YOU BRUCE!
Am really tired of the music scene, this is all way too pathetic.

After seeing and hearing the fiasco of Bruce at the SB, I couldn't enjoy his music in a concert setting or at home because I never enter Walmart. It is the silliness of his blue collar aura that have rendered his songs so empty. However, my car is due for a visit to Jiffy Lube.

fiasco ????? Xekola!!!!!

I'm sorry. But my native language came up! Anyway. Get over it!!!

hey maybe this means bruce uses playback on tour to, uh oh someone should investigate this for real no joke



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 03:27 by melillo.

But I saw little steven change like 4 guitars in three songs...

well he is an actor isnt he?

I'm almost over it.

If Melillo's suggestion that maybe Bruce uses playback on his tour is proven
to be true, then the rumor that Clarence Clemons on stage at the SB is in fact a
hologram needs to be further explored.
The sad part is I won't be so surprised.

they should have just played air instruments--

Now, what I posted above is not my personal opinion, it's just the opinion of some guy who (if you ask me) has not really insight into what's happening technically behind the whole scenery.

I personally think that neither our Stones nor Bruce were pre-recorded (who am I to immediately believe any dude who states something like this?). I don't intend to defend Bruce - yes, I am a fan - but if you care to pay enough attention to the video (there also is a high-quality version up on jungleland) there are too many details the band members are playing which are absolutely synchronous to what we see that it's actually impossible they are playing over a playback.

Take for instance Bruce's guitar playing in the middle of Born to run: you can exactly see AND hear what he's playing and it just matches the sound. Moreover he once hits the guitar very strongly which does not sound perfect and you can hear it. You can't pre-record something like this and then do exactly the same again while playing it live. How should he have done this!?

Or: take a look at Max Weinberg's drumming (for instance the beginning of Born to run): It's EXACTLY the same as we can hear.

If you have rehearsed this so you can even copy every single beat or every single "mistake" you played during the pre-recording.... well, then you might as well simply play live.

I'm afraid this sounds a bit pedantic, but I wanted to make my point of view as clear as possible. I'm not one of those fans who celebrate their band/artist for everything they do. I simply don't buy all this pre-recording bollocks.

Quote
melillo
hey maybe this means bruce uses playback on tour to, uh oh someone should investigate this for real no joke

yeah, sure - a TV producer insists on a backing tape being used for a TV show in case of sound problems with the live mix for the broadcast, and that therefore means that the concerts are mimed.

Wise up.

Seriously.

You're aware that this is the norm for many Tv shows, I take it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 13:01 by Gazza.

Quote
MacPhisto
Now, what I posted above is not my personal opinion, it's just the opinion of some guy who (if you ask me) has not really insight into what's happening technically behind the whole scenery.

I personally think that neither our Stones nor Bruce were pre-recorded (who am I to immediately believe any dude who states something like this?). I don't intend to defend Bruce - yes, I am a fan - but if you care to pay enough attention to the video (there also is a high-quality version up on jungleland) there are too many details the band members are playing which are absolutely synchronous to what we see that it's actually impossible they are playing over a playback.

Take for instance Bruce's guitar playing in the middle of Born to run: you can exactly see AND hear what he's playing and it just matches the sound. Moreover he once hits the guitar very strongly which does not sound perfect and you can hear it. You can't pre-record something like this and then do exactly the same again while playing it live. How should he have done this!?

Or: take a look at Max Weinberg's drumming (for instance the beginning of Born to run): It's EXACTLY the same as we can hear.

If you have rehearsed this so you can even copy every single beat or every single "mistake" you played during the pre-recording.... well, then you might as well simply play live.

I'm afraid this sounds a bit pedantic, but I wanted to make my point of view as clear as possible. I'm not one of those fans who celebrate their band/artist for everything they do. I simply don't buy all this pre-recording bollocks.

Agreed. You can actually hear some imperfections. Some of the posts in this thread though are just proof that people should never post on an empty head.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 13:55 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
melillo
hey maybe this means bruce uses playback on tour to, uh oh someone should investigate this for real no joke

yeah, sure - a TV producer insists on a backing tape being used for a TV show in case of sound problems with the live mix for the broadcast, and that therefore means that the concerts are mimed.

Wise up.

Seriously.

You're aware that this is the norm for many Tv shows, I take it?

yeah but never the superbowl as far as i know, that is before bruce of course,btw Gazza you do realize i was busting chops again dont you? lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 15:39 by melillo.

Nope. It was definitely done for Prince. It appears to be the norm since the Stones did it. Presumably because - despite the Stones' honourable efforts at playing live despite the short time given to set the stage up - the sound was dreadful.

ps - just saw your edit. I probably should have realised that, yes. LOL. Maybe I'm cranky at working overtime on a Saturday.

another beer?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 15:42 by Gazza.

hey i wish i could get some OT as well, cheers

Quote
dimrstone
Boss is PURE *&^%$#@ROCK N'ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's where I disagree. He's a working-man's-hero-American-rocker-who's-sounds-a-tad-family-friendly. If you want the embodiment of true rock 'n roll, you go to the Stones. 'Nuff said.

JumpingKentFlash

The 'working man' cliche is very 80s and incredibly simplistic.

Its almost as much a cliche as describing the 21st century model of the Stones as 'rock n roll', unfortunately

Quote
Gazza
The 'working man' cliche is very 80s and incredibly simplistic.

Its almost as much a cliche as describing the 21st century model of the Stones as 'rock n roll', unfortunately

Who's more rock 'n roll in the 21st century? I'll give you a hint: It isn't Bruce Springsteen.

I don't mean "the working man" in a bad way at all. After all, I'm a working man myself. It may be cliché, but like it or not Bruce is that way. That's not bad, because it's sincere. It's actually quite a sympathetic persona to have. And way more interesting than the contrivedness of Boner (He's probably sincere with it too, but he's a walking cheesefest).
Bruce Springsteen seems like a way nice chap to hang around with. A big personlity, and a good human being (Probably more so than Mick & Co). But rock 'n roll? Nah, not so much. It's only partly rock 'n roll (Which is a lame term regardless of who it's used on BTW). The Stones do the "rock band" schtick better than anyone, they play rock 'n roll better than anyone and they are the best, no questions asked.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
JumpingKentFlash


Who's more rock 'n roll in the 21st century? I'll give you a hint: It isn't Bruce Springsteen.

it sure isnt the Stones, thats for sure. They might PLAY rock n roll and still usually do it very well, but ethically they're as far removed from it as any band can possibly be, and a million miles removed from what they were even 15 years ago, let alone 30 or 40.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

The Stones do the "rock band" schtick better than anyone, they play rock 'n roll better than anyone and they are the best, no questions asked.

If it's a "schtick", then by definition its not "real".

Your opinion is your own and from the perspective of personal taste and opinion its a perfectly reasonable one. It certainly isnt mine, though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 19:18 by Gazza.

>>>>Who's more rock 'n roll in the 21st century? I'll give you a hint: It isn't Bruce Springsteen. [/quote]

>>>>>>>>it sure isnt the Stones, thats for sure. They might PLAY rock n roll and still usually do it very well, but ethically they're as far removed from it as any band can possibly be, and a million miles removed from what they were even 15 years ago, let alone 30 or 40.

Rock music and the persons surrounding it is supposed to say "@#$%& you" to everything. At least that's how I see it. Who does that today? Nobody really. Excpet the Stones. You and I might not like it, but in that sense it's actually very rock 'n roll to say "@#$%& you. if you wanna see a show, give us your house and all your money". Rock music didn't stop in the 70s, although way too many people think that. It still goes on today, and The Stones are just about the only ones carrying the torch high, by playing out the role. It might be big business, you might not like that it's old men that refuse to grow old gracefully and it might cost a fortune to see a show. But today THAT is what is offending. Rock should be offending. Nobody does it better than The Stones. They're still the same a**holes as they alway were. And I'd gladly pay DOUBLE the amount of their recent ticket prices to see a band that's TRULY sincere.





>>>>The Stones do the "rock band" schtick better than anyone, they play rock 'n roll better than anyone and they are the best, no questions asked. [/quote]

>>>>>>>>If it's a "schtick", then by definition its not "real".

OK. Didn't know. What do you call a real schtick???






>>>>>>>>Your opinion is your own and from the perspective of personal taste and opinion its a perfectly reasonable one. It certainly isnt mine, though.

Of course we can agree to disagree. I certainly see where you're coming from, although I don't agree. I hope you see where I'm coming from too (I know you do )

JumpingKentFlash

"Pointless comparing both acts (or other acts for that matter) for those who are bigger fans of one than they are the other. Just enjoy them for what they are."

I agree. Don't understand why these things always turn into a who's better, who's best thing.

I actually enjoyed the Springsteen performance more than I thought I would. Good performance.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
JumpingKentFlash

Quote
dimrstone
Boss is PURE *&^%$#@ROCK N'ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's where I disagree. He's a working-man's-hero-American-rocker-who's-sounds-a-tad-family-friendly. If you want the embodiment of true rock 'n roll, you go to the Stones. 'Nuff said.

i have to disagree about springsteen being family friendly. he has a lot of controversial songs out there. too bad most of the general public has no idea what his lyrics mean