Tags

, , , , , , ,

The New York Times thought it was a risk for the NFL to select Bruno Mars to headline the halftime show. My buddy Jim from Iowa first told me about it. I thought, then, and still do that it was one of the best selections the NFL has made.


Picture: Giphy.com

The reviews for the show are trickling in and so far there are at least three times as many cheers for Bruno’s performance as there are jeers. The jeers, by the way, are ridiculous. Like this particularly scathing one from USA Today’s For The Win blog,”Bruno Mars gives a forgettable Super Bowl halftime show for the ages.”

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. – Fifty years ago this week, the Beatles made their first appearance in New York.
We listened to The Beatles. We grew up with The Beatles. You, Bruno Mars, are no Beatles.

Wait a minute, who’s trying to say Bruno Mars is the Beatles, or Michael Jackson, or even Beyoncé? That’s just the problem with these critiques. They always try to compare apples and oranges. Nobody in their right mind would even suggest that the standard-bearer for the Super Bowl halftime show is the Beatles, who never even performed at the event. Paul McCartney has, but not the Beatles. I find the argument bizarre.

Then there are individuals who tweeted these:

I had to search high and low for these comments. Their number is low, but they are out there. I’m assuming these are less-than-serious critiques. There are just too many shock jock wannabes out there that you can never be sure if responding to comments such as these is a good idea.

The New York Times and USA Today, however, are in all likelihood serious publications deserving of a response. And I have one.

Their criticism of the choice of Bruno Mars seems to harbor on the fact that a) he is not a music legend and b) he doesn’t play the kind of music the writers are used to listening to. The latter is an odd argument. If anything, compared to his peers, Bruno Mars’ music brings back memories of “old-school vocal powerhouse,” according to Rolling Stone, adding,”His music mixes vintage soul, Eighties rock and contemporary R&B.”

But I have more of a problem with the first argument, that Bruno was the wrong choice because he didn’t have the profile of a musical legend or icon. I have a question, why do we always have to go with the safe and the known? How are we to discover new flavors or new directions if we don’t give new ideas a chance? We can’t always rehash old concepts hoping for new results.

It’s the same argument I have with the movie industry. How many more remakes of Superman or Batman can you take? It’s as if nobody out there can think of new stories or new plots. Create new classics for the current generation, I’d say.

Besides, to say that Bruno Mars was an untested entertainer was far from reality. After all, he’s been performing since he was practically a toddler and last year alone, performed in 84 concerts.

As far as I’m concerned, I have only one thing to say about the NFL’s choice of Bruno Mars. It got me to tune in. And I never watch football, otherwise. And how did he do, this young “unknown” singer? I don’t have to tell you, since you may think I’m a biased fan. Just read these tweets, instead.

Is this a rant? Maybe. Just want to get something off my chest, that’s all.

Advertisements