Discussion in 'MLS: News & Analysis' started by tobycharles, Nov 12, 2003.
I don't not care.
As a half-time act - this falls somewhere between U2 and Winger.
Can't they just show highlights from the season instead?! If you had a choice, which would you pick...like there's a choice.
MLS should try and get Metallica to play at halftime. It would be another page in the Sell-outarium book. plus Metallica likes soccer so they might be like the idea. It is better than Metallica endorsed birth control pills
Hey, she won't lipsync.
It's got to be better than Aguilera in 99 or Anastacia at the 2002 All-Star Game.
Why are musical acts required at halftime? Nobody seems to care.
Anastacia / Paulina Rubio...same difference
My thoughts exactly. The less of these lip-synchers, the better. An absolute blight on pop culture and the whole of society, as far as I'm concerned.
I was at Foxboro in '99, and I still cringe to think of Christina Aguilera's efforts (I won't use the word "performance"). I was embarrassed for her, but moreso for those who watched her and the league itself. And to think she's a major star now... remember, folks, a leopard never changes its spots.
Besides, Michelle Branch has more credibility as far as my musical tastes are concerned, since she's recorded and performed with Carlos Santana.
That was Paulina Rubio, and she forgot her pants.
all these halftime acts do is make MLS appear second-rate (which in many ways it is, come to think of it).
a shame really. mls marketing execs truly don't know what they're doing sometimes.
Well, I'll give you the flip side of the argument.
I was involved in a debate with Mrs. mbarloewen about whether we should go to the game or not. (Even though I've paid for the tickets as part of my galaxy season tickets.) Now that the G's are done she feels we should go to Vegas for a weekend.
The inclusion of Ms. Branch (Whom she doesn't even like that much) has made the difference in the debate and we will be attending.
She's probably the target audience for the inclusioon of M Branch, not us soccer fanatics.
well, i admit that's a good flip side. if it does draw extra fans and a few extra viewers pop in, then i guess it's all good. heck, i don't even know who ms. branch is, so maybe i'm speaking out of my piehole, which wouldn't be the first time.
i just always think it's silly that with a little 15 minute window frame (remember in the super bowl they extend it to a 30 minute window) they try to rush a stage onto the field with a performer who quickly cranks out a couple of minor obscurue hits that no one's heard of and then dashes away again in a cloud of smoke. but i'm probably just showing my age.
Quick! Call the NFL and tell them THEY have it all wrong, too!
Not any more second-rate than the NFL has been in its Super Bowl halftime in recent years. The one that springs to mind, and granted it was better than the game itself, was at Super Bowl XXXV in Tampa, when Aerosmith, Britney Spears, N'SYNC among others performed to cheering fans on the field. Think about this for a second: how many football fans watching the game are going to care about N'SYNC appearing during the Super Bowl? At least Aerosmith was good, and it was better than the game itself (Ravens beat the Giants 34-7).
My point in this: they're all the same. Basketball does it too, and baseball would too if they could figure out a way to get the performers on during the game.
You'd think there'd be some great European soccer loving band that's good and wouldn't mind giving a reduced rate to play MLS Cup halftime. Get them a little TV exposure, help MLS too.
Damn, that's right. Anastacia sung that crap WC2002 song.
Anywya, Branch is a legit musician (kinda - she won't make people forget about Page and Plant, but she's got some chops), and is a pretty big star. If I recall, she got some Grammy nods this year.
Anyway, she'll sure sound pretty while I'm in the beer line.
Give some love to U2, too. That show rocked.
well, two guys have ragged on me for my halftime comments and brought up the nfl as an example, but i've already noted the difference in my later post.
the super bowl is extended to 30 minutes as opposed to the normal 15 for a nfl game. (mls certainly won't do this, and thank god!!) this gives them a far greater window to actually put on a decent performance and make a good show of it.
granted, i still generally think it sux, but i tend to be contrarian about such things.
Jeezus there are some fickle people on these boards. What the hell does it matter that there is a halftime show? Does it somehow effect the players? Is the level of play reduced? Will the thousands in attendence or 100's of thousands watching the game on tv get up and leave/change the channel for the rest of the game? It is 15 minutes max that would otherwise be filled up with commercials and horrible analysis mixed in with maybe two at most player profiles. Come on folks it is just a girl with a piano, maybe even a few dancers. It doesn't downgrade the game/league. It makes it more of an event.
Geez bitch about something that matters. Like the salary cap or increasing the roster.
League minimum is $24,000. I guarantee MB is getting at least twice that.
Not too mention Third Eye Blind at this year's All-Star game. The camera shots of Chivas fans with confused, "What the hell is that ****?" looks on their faces was classic.
I hope she remembers her pants: