pagemccartney95 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Alright, now I didn't see a thread for this, so I think I need to ask the question: Should Led Zeppelin play at one of the future Super Bowls? It still wouldn't be too late for them to be invited to play the next one, Super Bowl XLIV. Here's my reasoning: 1) Why not? 2) It's been nearly two years since the reunion. 3) They're not getting any younger. 4) We're not getting any more patient, waiting for another reunion. 5) The Super Bowl is watched by the majority of the U.S.(and with today's technology, much of the world)every year, so it's not like they'd be worried about a shortage of viewers. 6) This could be a huge opportunity for them to present themselves to new and potential fans. 7) It'd be something of a make-up for those fans that didn't go to the O2. 8) They seemed to have fun playing at the O2. 9) It'd be a sweet treat for the fans who've never actually been to a Zep concert and an awesome reminiscing for those who have. 10) They're Led Zeppelin! Besides, there really isn't anyone else as big as Zep that hasn't performed in a while: Aerosmith: performed in 2001(too recent). AC/DC: possible, but I think they're too loud for the Super Bowl. Metallica: way too loud. Jeff Beck: a little too obscure. Rolling Stones: performed in 2006(too recent), and they aren't doing anything at the moment that I've heard. Paul McCartney: performed in 2005(too recent). Jonas Brothers: too poppy, and too new. Pink Floyd: good idea, but with the passing of Rick Wright in '08( ), it wouldn't be the same. Yes: not quite popular enough. Rush: ditto. Bad Company: ditto. Doobie Brothers: ditto. Steely Dan: ditto, and not quite the right music for the Super Bowl. Any way, that's my opinion. What do you think? L8r, Jo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I didn't know that Wolverhampton was playing at the next Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 NO!!! That would be cheesy of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on for nowhere Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Alright, now I didn't see a thread for this, so I think I need to ask the question: Should Led Zeppelin play at one of the future Super Bowls? It still wouldn't be too late for them to be invited to play the next one, Super Bowl XLIV. Here's my reasoning: 1) Why not? 2) It's been nearly two years since the reunion. 3) They're not getting any younger. 4) We're not getting any more patient, waiting for another reunion. 5) The Super Bowl is watched by the majority of the U.S.(and with today's technology, much of the world)every year, so it's not like they'd be worried about a shortage of viewers. 6) This could be a huge opportunity for them to present themselves to new and potential fans. 7) It'd be something of a make-up for those fans that didn't go to the O2. 8) They seemed to have fun playing at the O2. 9) It'd be a sweet treat for the fans who've never actually been to a Zep concert and an awesome reminiscing for those who have. 10) They're Led Zeppelin! Besides, there really isn't anyone else as big as Zep that hasn't performed in a while: Aerosmith: performed in 2001(too recent). AC/DC: possible, but I think they're too loud for the Super Bowl. Metallica: way too loud. Jeff Beck: a little too obscure. Rolling Stones: performed in 2006(too recent), and they aren't doing anything at the moment that I've heard. Paul McCartney: performed in 2005(too recent). Jonas Brothers: too poppy, and too new. Pink Floyd: good idea, but with the passing of Rick Wright in '08( ), it wouldn't be the same. Yes: not quite popular enough. Rush: ditto. Bad Company: ditto. Doobie Brothers: ditto. Steely Dan: ditto, and not quite the right music for the Super Bowl. Any way, that's my opinion. What do you think? L8r, Jo if you say AC/DC is too loud zeppelin is famous for being loud so wouldnt it be the same for them to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on for nowhere Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 ^forgot to add...why not steve miller? unless he has already performed in that case where the f*** was i!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieshoes Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Since the band, even in it's new form, is essentially non-existent, obviously there's only one answer possible: No. Personally, unless it's the type of act that's long since sold-out and been everywhere (Springsteen, Stones, Elton John). When famous bands play the Superbowl Halftime, it's just sad. Could you see them up there? Playing second fiddle to a bunch of arrogant football players, the announcers, and the sponsors with the clever commercials? A bunch of hired crowd members looking "enthusiastic" in front of the stage while the band does a medley of "Rock and Roll", "Black Dog", and "Whole Lotta Love", along with a truncated version of "Stairway to Heaven"? All the fireworks? The afterwards commercials showing logos with voiceovers saying "Brought to you by...Pepsi, Doritos, and Kinkos!" Page doing the Olympics was one thing, because the Olympics are going to be in London, and the entire world was watching. So it worked on two very respectable levels. He was an ambassdor of his country and culture, and he was performing on a truly global platform. Whereas, the Superbowl is just for the US and is less about athletic excellence as it is about $$$$ and American beer-drinking couch-potato mindset. And lord knows we're already self-centered enough by calling our events "World Championships" and "World Series". So, not much integrity to it other than to show the world that you're willing to sell the hell out of your legacy for the right price. But really, imagine Zep doing the halftime show. They could call it "How to erase 40 years of respect in under 8 minutes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabe Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Fuckin' A! Play only one half of football. The band plays during halftime and what would have been quarters 3 and 4 of the Super Bowl. Screw the rest of the game! I believe New Orleans has secured an upcoming Super Bowl..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Bill Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Whereas, the Superbowl is just for the US I guess they are wasting their time showing it in 230+ country's in over 30 languages eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieshoes Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I guess they are wasting their time showing it in 230+ country's in over 30 languages eh? No, not wasting their time. But plenty of crap gets aired all over the world, and in multiple languages. The size of the audience that actually CARES about what is being shown is what matters. To which, the only truly global sport is soccer. The number of fans of American football pales in insignificance. No matter how hard NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox try to sell it to the rest of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longdistancewinner Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 You want a band that no longer exists to be asked to perform at the Super Bowl? Hell-to-the-fuck, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longdistancewinner Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I guess they are wasting their time showing it in 230+ country's in over 30 languages eh? If you can figure out how the fucker's played, the last Super Bowl was aired in Britain on a Sunday night. I think it started around 11pm and finished at around 4am. It's not wasting time, but the Beeb weren't hoping for a ratings winner with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zosodude13 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Let's play hangman!!! A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z N _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 This comes under the heading "are you fucking kidding me??" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Let's play hangman!!! A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z N _ I'll buy a vowel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Great chance for Justin and Britney to reunite. Oh wait, Aerosmith already jumped that shark. I mean no. Now if the Wanderers are up for the cup and Robert wants to support... Wish we could get that on ESPN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zepaholic Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Absolutely not...even if some members of this forum would covet a "wardrobe malfunction"/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I've pondered - and my answer's NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pevsfreedom Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Alright, now I didn't see a thread for this, so I think I need to ask the question: Should Led Zeppelin play at one of the future Super Bowls? It still wouldn't be too late for them to be invited to play the next one, Super Bowl XLIV. Here's my reasoning: 1) Why not? 2) It's been nearly two years since the reunion. 3) They're not getting any younger. 4) We're not getting any more patient, waiting for another reunion. 5) The Super Bowl is watched by the majority of the U.S.(and with today's technology, much of the world)every year, so it's not like they'd be worried about a shortage of viewers. 6) This could be a huge opportunity for them to present themselves to new and potential fans. 7) It'd be something of a make-up for those fans that didn't go to the O2. 8) They seemed to have fun playing at the O2. 9) It'd be a sweet treat for the fans who've never actually been to a Zep concert and an awesome reminiscing for those who have. 10) They're Led Zeppelin! Besides, there really isn't anyone else as big as Zep that hasn't performed in a while: Aerosmith: performed in 2001(too recent). AC/DC: possible, but I think they're too loud for the Super Bowl. Metallica: way too loud. Jeff Beck: a little too obscure. Rolling Stones: performed in 2006(too recent), and they aren't doing anything at the moment that I've heard. Paul McCartney: performed in 2005(too recent). Jonas Brothers: too poppy, and too new. Pink Floyd: good idea, but with the passing of Rick Wright in '08( ), it wouldn't be the same. Yes: not quite popular enough. Rush: ditto. Bad Company: ditto. Doobie Brothers: ditto. Steely Dan: ditto, and not quite the right music for the Super Bowl. Any way, that's my opinion. What do you think? L8r, Jo Why you gotta remind me that Wright is dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3hrsoflunacy Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 4) We're not getting any more patient, waiting for another reunion. OMG, I think you found just the reason they will someday do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longdistancewinner Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Pink Floyd: good idea, but with the passing of Rick Wright in '08( ), it wouldn't be the same. Just saw the irony in this sentence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy5151 Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Zep at the superbowl, HOLY SWEET F**K NO!!!. That would be wrong...... just wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzzoso Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 As much as I Love to see Led Zeppelin in any kind of positive national or international media exposure, this is one of these unlikely instances where it would not do the band any good (in my honest opinion). My reason: the groups or musicians that have played the past halftime shows at the Super Bowl only get around 10-15 minutes of actual playing time. In Zeppelin's days of old, that would only be about one song. If that ever did happen then Page/Plant/Jones/Jason Bonham would have to truncate about 3-5 songs into that 10-15 time slot. Plus, from some of the past halftimes shows that I have seen, the sound is not that great. Again, as much as I Love Led Zeppelin, I do not think they should play the halftime show at the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I don't think any of the Zeppelin memembers would get any 'personal' satisfaction at playing specifically the Super Bowl. Robert Plant is the only sports fan and he's into REAL football, not the gridiron kind. Maybe the European Champions League Final or the English F.A Cup Final would be more appealing to Robert, as far as 'prestige' goes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.