• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Bruno Mars/RHCP *POLL*- Play Syncing! Where Do You Stand

Would You Have Played The Super Bowl Halftime Show Considering The Parameters?

  • Yes; if it were up to me, I would have done the halftime show with my band!

    Votes: 235 89.0%
  • No; I would have never 'play synced' regardless of the exposure etc...

    Votes: 29 11.0%

  • Total voters
    264
I think it's lame to lip sync and mime, but I would do it for that kind of exposure.

Besides, RHCP have a good enough track record as a live act to get a pass on this one.

I don't know anything about Bruno Mars, so I can't comment on him.
 
The Red Hot Chili Peppers decided long ago they were never going to mime a live performance. The band made an exception for the NFL, it turns out.

The group’s bassist, Flea, said in a letter to fans posted on the group’s website Tuesday that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame members pretended to play along to a pre-taped track of “Give It Away” during the Super Bowl halftime show as Anthony Kiedis sang live. The request came from NFL officials who felt it was too difficult to pull off a completely live performance because of potential sound issues.

The admission came after observers noted Flea and his bandmates weren’t plugged in while performing Sunday at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J.

Flea wrote on the band’s website that the opportunity was too big for the lifelong football fans to turn down.
You would think they would have atleast make it look legit by plugging in or atleast use wireless systems.
 
FWIW even Yo-Yo Ma play synced for some White House event, as his cello wouldn't perform adequately in the freezing temperatures the outdoor performance would have subjected it to.

I agree with El Spearo in that they treated it like a show by not plugging in, instead of trying to fake it by even pretending that it's real.
 
I would never do it and have no respect for musicians who do. If you can't play it live, don't do it at all. Otherwise, you are cheating the audience and opening yourself up to scrutiny every time you take the stage.
 
Considering most of the flack is coming from musicians, who are but a tiny fraction of the overall audience, and the past 30 years as an entertainer has taught me better than to give two craps about what most musicians have to say, I would have done it for the exposure, absolutely.

The average mainstream audience member really doesn't have a clue, folks.

A lot of events, most events, nearly all events, no. But the Superbowl? Come on. If anyone at all says no, I call bullsh**. It's the effing Superbowl.

+1
 
I wonder how many acts legitimately have refused to do the half-time show because of the sync'ing?

Per the original question, I'm probably in the gray zone on this. Entertainment in general is a whole package thing for me. I'm usually time-limited, so I'd gauge this by what I'd spend time watching. I.e. Was I entertained during that time?

I listen to music over and over. Actually being somewhere and seeing something played live is always great. Not a firm rule or anything, but live stuff is where I'd tend to spend time seeing something more than once.

Seems like a lot of things have some portions of prepared or pre-recorded parts to it. Where do you draw the line on how live something was? Perhaps RHCP was 25% live? Pre-recorded backing tracks make sense to me, particularly if the artist is doing something significant as part of the live performance, or if it's simply not possible to assemble a full complement of whatever you need. Synth samples? I do enjoy using MIDI to help do stuff... I chalk it up to"art" in whatever form it comes. Some further out examples: Neil Peart's recent drum solos with the triggered parts, or something like Cirque du Soleil where the central "live" thing is not the music obviously.

Eh?
 
Wow...I did not vote.
I just watched a new BD of The Doors...rare footage of them playing, as Krieger/Densmore say: ...very "corny" TV programmes.
On these shows, they are obviously playing to their pre-recorded track.
Shebang? American Bandstand? Malibu U? Faking it...
In fact, for Malibu U, Morrison did not show up & Krieger's brother was used with his back turned to the camera. WOW!

Another show, Murray The K in New York, Morrison is "singing" while the other 3, sans instruments, are just standing there.

I was aghast! This is The Doors?!?!

Then I watched the Bonus material with Krieger/Densmore sayin' there were two ways to get your music out (back then): Radio &/or TV.
So they were young & wanted their music out there...so they did what they were told & agreed to do these ultra-"corny" shows.
(They did like Dick Clarke...a hip guy that knew music).

Granted, RHCP are not in the same boat as those young Doors guys...

I woulda voted "carrots" if that was an option.
 
I wonder how many acts legitimately have refused to do the half-time show because of the sync'ing?

Per the original question, I'm probably in the gray zone on this. Entertainment in general is a whole package thing for me. I'm usually time-limited, so I'd gauge this by what I'd spend time watching. I.e. Was I entertained during that time?

I listen to music over and over. Actually being somewhere and seeing something played live is always great. Not a firm rule or anything, but live stuff is where I'd tend to spend time seeing something more than once.

Seems like a lot of things have some portions of prepared or pre-recorded parts to it. Where do you draw the line on how live something was? Perhaps RHCP was 25% live? Pre-recorded backing tracks make sense to me, particularly if the artist is doing something significant as part of the live performance, or if it's simply not possible to assemble a full complement of whatever you need. Synth samples? I do enjoy using MIDI to help do stuff... I chalk it up to"art" in whatever form it comes. Some further out examples: Neil Peart's recent drum solos with the triggered parts, or something like Cirque du Soleil where the central "live" thing is not the music obviously.

Eh?

But the live music is what makes it amazing the performance is due to both if the md is feeling up tempo then so will the show be not the same every night
 
A lot of people seem to have their panties in a wad about this. It's not like Flea & co. are lip-syncing night after night to suckers (see 'Britney in Vegas'). It's fifteen minutes of silliness in front of millions of people around the world. I'm not a big fan of RHCP, but I respect Flea for being honest (by both his comments and by not plugging in). Who among us has his head so far up his own backside that he wouldn't do it, if given the chance? I'm all for 'live music', but c'mon - would it really be 'better' to go out in a mad rush, with terrible sound and/or the potential for an amp to go out, or a string to break?

Halftime acts are required to 'entertain' the masses, not appease purists or snobs. It's not a big deal. Get over it.
 
...but c'mon - would it really be 'better' to go out in a mad rush, with terrible sound and/or the potential for an amp to go out, or a string to break?

First-
A string can break by playing along.

Second-
Potential for the amp to go out? How about the potential for the backing track to fail?