Aardvark747
Blue Crack Addict
Bruce rocked. But u2 rocked better.
Super Bowl Halftime Performance: U2 vs. Bruce?
- Thread starter paultjr
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
kingofsorrow
Refugee
it's clearly obvious bruce was paying tribute to the fly by pumping/shoving his crotch into the camera.
rihannsu
Refugee
Sorry to disappoint you but I'm pretty sure that Bruce has been doing the slide (usually into a sea of fans) since way before the Fly was concieved.
Dana
kingofsorrow
Refugee
u2trinity
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
When I saw what Bruce was doing with the mic stand, my first thought was, "WFT? Is he going to do a pole dance?"
My daughter said "He can't get up".
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
It was a great performance, although I wouldn't say it was the best or really any better than U2's...
But for all you U2 fans that complain about how cheesy they can be, if you're a Bruce fan you no longer have an argument, that was by far the cheesiest halftime performance in a long time...
From the starting pose to throwing the guitar(that almost got dropped), to the mic stand pose, crotch in the camera, and then the fucking referee...
But for all you U2 fans that complain about how cheesy they can be, if you're a Bruce fan you no longer have an argument, that was by far the cheesiest halftime performance in a long time...
From the starting pose to throwing the guitar(that almost got dropped), to the mic stand pose, crotch in the camera, and then the fucking referee...
I thought he was being sarcastic.
A stor
Refugee
I agree, the E Street band performed with high energy and lots of fun. Where as when U2 performed, it was a more somber time for America. I can't say one was better than the other. I loved both U2 and the boss!
vaz02
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
u2, Bruce was weak.
rihannsu
Refugee
Hello, 21st century, wireless pickups???? Not saying one way or the other but not being plugged in no longer means shit. Unless of course you can tell he didn't have wireless pickups (which I wouldn't know as I know fuck all about guitars).
Dana
BoMac
Self-righteous bullshitter
I thought Bruce was great. And U2 was great, too.
BoMac
BoMac
His guitar was on.
gvox
Ghost of Love
I think Bruce just pushed the Stones to the bottom of the list, I still rank U2 as number 1, followed by Prince then Michael then Boys II Men then Bruce. He was rockin out and it was alot of fun, even though he can't really sing the songs properly anymore. Good times 
OrARoundabout
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,333
They both were really good...can't decide
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I think the Super Bowl halftime is, by it's very nature, a cheesefest. Built in cheese. The referree was cringe inducing (and too many fireworks)- but he always had that "Boss time" thing, it wasn't just for the SB. He can get cheesy in concert but that's all part of the show (Bono certainly can too, in spades). Rent or buy Live In NYC or Live In Barcelona, I watched both on Palladia over the weekend. Better yet see Storytellers to see a different side of him, like you could see on his solo tours. He doesn't need a choir or a big horn section or any of that over the top SP cheesiness.
His voice didn't sound the best it can, definitely not. But his live shows are amazing, to judge him on 12 minutes isn't fair. I think he did try to cram too much Bruce into 12 minutes. It got overwhelming for him perhaps and got away from him a bit. His live shows are more spontaneous and energetic than U2's, he is willing to take more risks musically on stage and to mix it up, be less careful. Doesn't make it "better" but that's just my opinion, for me personally it makes it better. See no need really to compare and to rate them in that way. It is what it is...
He does sort of do pole dances upside down on the mic stand, well he used to. I always found that to be highly enjoyable.
I can't wait to see him live again, you always get your money's worth and then some.
His voice didn't sound the best it can, definitely not. But his live shows are amazing, to judge him on 12 minutes isn't fair. I think he did try to cram too much Bruce into 12 minutes. It got overwhelming for him perhaps and got away from him a bit. His live shows are more spontaneous and energetic than U2's, he is willing to take more risks musically on stage and to mix it up, be less careful. Doesn't make it "better" but that's just my opinion, for me personally it makes it better. See no need really to compare and to rate them in that way. It is what it is...
He does sort of do pole dances upside down on the mic stand, well he used to. I always found that to be highly enjoyable.
I can't wait to see him live again, you always get your money's worth and then some.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Yep. Now people are going to say that he's imitating Bono?
He was Bono before there was a Bono-well technically no, he's not THAT old. But metaphorically speaking...
And if people are going to write him off because of his age, well Bono/U2 is getting up there too. When is he going to be written off? What's the cutoff?
Liesje
Blue Crack Addict
I liked them about the same. I know Bruce doesn't have the best voice anyway but at some parts it was totally shot and somewhat distracting. I loved the band and the energy and the setlist.
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
I think Bruce just pushed the Stones to the bottom of the list, I still rank U2 as number 1, followed by Prince then Michael then Boys II Men then Bruce. He was rockin out and it was alot of fun, even though he can't really sing the songs properly anymore. Good times
I can't even recall the Stones' performance, to be truthful.
For me it's U2, Prince, then Bruce - at least right now.
vaz02
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
The sound is always TOTAL SHIT at these halftime shows, it never does the performers justice. You could hardly hear the stones performance at times.
AnnRKeyintheUSA
War Child
That's what I thought too. He sounded like he was really struggling to carry the tune, and he was out of breath already in the first song. Yes I'm a U2 fan and I think Bruce is way overrated but his voice still sounded bad.
It was the worst SB performance I've seen. Paul McCartney is older but he never lost his tune, his voice or his energy like Bruce. U2's was good, not fantastic, but just fine, no complaints.
You nailed it. It's like he choreographed all these signature moves and routines into this tiny slot. When it's spread out over three hours, it works in context, especially with the arc of a Boss show. This thing was plotted down to the millisecond.
Also, I hate the idea of dropping verses, especially in iconic songs like "10th Ave. Freeze Out" and "Born to Run."
But I love Bruce, so I enjoyed it. It's a halftime show. Stupid and glammy.
And I'm probably alone here - but I was a little uncomfortable with U2's performance. They were fantastic and did what they do, but I was not down with the idea of healing our 9/11 wounds through a football halftime spectacle. Especially cringe-worthy were the two towers of names that collapsed so U2 could rock out. Not meaning to start arguments - I know a lot of people found the performance very emotionally cathartic or just cool, but I found it a little ham-fisted and inappropriate.
Also - regarding the sound thing. What they do for these big shows with time constraints is record every rehearsal and mix them down to protools tracks. In the case of a rock band like Petty or Bruce, the band will play live, but the engineers have backup tapes that they can mix in for each individual instrument if they feel the need, especially if things go wrong - and so much can.
And if I recall, only Bono and Edge were "live" for the U2 halftime show? Anyone recall?
phanan
Blue Crack Addict
I guarantee you that if this had been either during the middle or at the end of a tour, Bruce's vocals would have been much stronger. He's always a bit rough at the start of a new tour.
Believe me, the man can still sing. Catch him during the tour and you'll agree.
Believe me, the man can still sing. Catch him during the tour and you'll agree.
rihannsu
Refugee
The broadcasters will often insist on backing tracks for broadcast especially in case of technical difficulties. Doesn't mean the music isn't live for those at the event but it may not all be live on the broadcast. Bono always insists on live vocals because he can't be arsed to lip sync properly. After all, there's no guarantee he'll remember the words right. LOL
Dana
After all, there's no guarantee he'll remember the words right. LOLDana
The broadcasters will often insist on backing tracks for broadcast especially in case of technical difficulties. Doesn't mean the music isn't live for those at the event but it may not all be live on the broadcast. Bono always insists on live vocals because he can't be arsed to lip sync properly.
Dana
Which must be really odd for bands like Springsteen or Petty. I mean, there's really no way to do this without the drummer playing with a click track. Must be really awkward for full-on organic rock bands to play this thing.
gvox
Ghost of Love
I disagree with most of your evaluation of U2's performance but anyhow, no, at minimum Larry would HAVE to be live, because drums make noise when you hit them
Really if I had to imagine any part of U2's act being not 'live', I would say Edge and Adam, because they could simply not bother turning their guitars up and still appear to be playing. Bono? No way. He'd never remember the lyrics, as pointed out
JCOSTER
ONE love, blood, life
Similar threads
