JorisE73 said:

TrivialPursuit said:

What does Purple Rain have to do with it? Nothing.

Who says he wasn't invited before 2007?

Crazy stunt? He didn't perform at the MTV VMAs in 1995. Or did you hear he did?

MTV EMA's in '95 where he did Peach, but that wasn't a crazy stunt, just a performance so I have no idea what she is on about.

that was 1994

bozojones said:

In addition to what others have said: the NFL seemed to go exclusively for "safe" halftime performers in the years right after Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, calling on Paul McCartney and Rolling Stones to perform. They probably wanted to change things up after those two halftime shows and bring someone in who was a little more daring, but not enough to cause any issues. By that time, Prince had settled into a slightly classier and more toned down image and wasn't pushing the envelope like he did in the 80s and 90s, so he was probably a perfect fit for what they wanted at that time - familiar and exciting, but not scandalous.

paisleyparkgirl said:

I don't know, I was talking about that award show where he showed his ass cheeks.

I "heard" he was wearing a yellow outfit...something like that.

[Edited 2/15/23 7:30am]

paisleyparkgirl said:

TrivialPursuit said:

You literally contradict yourself for the sake of making a comment.

And you are litterally annoying for the sake of being annoying.

I wish this forum had an ignore feature where I could place lovegalore and trivialpursuit so I wouldn't have to read your idiotic posts. Oh well...I guess I will just have to skip them.

[Edited 2/15/23 7:35am]

Don't worry about them, they sometimes get stuck in Statler and Waldorf mode.

I don't think we will know the answer because ultimately it comes down to a variety of things:

The musical taste of the current selection committee members will initially determine the short list,

The committee's perception of what the true sports fans will put up with while they wait for game to resume (apparently there is some domestic team ball game at the same location). This must be balanced against what the committee thinks will attract more casual watchers, social commentators and marketeers than those who will be annoyed or use the show the Fox News did,

The artist has to be interested at that time in their career and they must be available. They have to be busy enough to be currently noticed, but not too busy that they cannot fit this into their schedule. The show must not be lost as just one short show of many that year. The artist must weight their own perceptions of how it will impact on their career or image at that point in time,

The commerical concerns - cost to engage, set up, pay the artists, "encouragement" by record companies and musical promoters,

Dealing with the performance and performer: You need an artist who has stadium or festival experience, will work to instructions doing the rehearals, promotions and during the short show. The show must look specular but take no time to set up and dismantle. It requires someone who will not just want to control the process themselves.

nayroo2002 said:

bozojones said:

In addition to what others have said: the NFL seemed to go exclusively for "safe" halftime performers in the years right after Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, calling on Paul McCartney and Rolling Stones to perform. They probably wanted to change things up after those two halftime shows and bring someone in who was a little more daring, but not enough to cause any issues. By that time, Prince had settled into a slightly classier and more toned down image and wasn't pushing the envelope like he did in the 80s and 90s, so he was probably a perfect fit for what they wanted at that time - familiar and exciting, but not scandalous.

C'mon, the only person who might find this scandalous is Tipper Gore or one of her PMRC friends

bozojones said:

nayroo2002 said:

C'mon, the only person who might find this scandalous is Tipper Gore or one of her PMRC friends

The twins brought nothing. I prefer Misty.

He didn't show a damn thing, actually. Another lie.

The designer who created that outfit has more than once stated it was padding in there. Prince wasn't exposed at all. It's an illusion. One that some clearly seem to take as truth.

TrivialPursuit said:

He didn't show a damn thing, actually. Another lie.

The designer who created that outfit has more than once stated it was padding in there. Prince wasn't exposed at all. It's an illusion. One that some clearly seem to take as truth.

We've all read the articles and watched interviews from those involved in the creation of this outfit, that came out AFTER PRINCE DIED, about how they were flesh colored bla bla bla and I know you were trying to sound soooo knowledgeable, however my point still stands : At the time and for a good decade after that, the general public had no idea and thought it was his ass being exposed.

paisleyparkgirl said:

LoveGalore said:

lurker316 said:

Are you sure you have that right? 1993: MJ 1994; Clint Black 1995; Patti LaBelle 1996; Diana Ross 1997: The Blues Brothers 1998; Boyz 2 Men, Smokey Robinson 1999: Gloria Estefan So, no, I'm afraid it has nothing to do with his chart performance.

Huh? I didn't say it was based on his chart performance. In fact, I was saying the exact opposite,

I said Prince's invitation to perform was based on his graduating to legend status at that point. By "legend" I mean artists who weren't necessarily selling a ton of records in that particular year, but who had a long, well-respected, historic career.... Artists who were so well-established they didn't need to have number one records to put asses in seats.

Over the course of various eras, the Super Bowl half time took different approaches. So what they did in the '90s isn't completely relevant to my point. You need to look at the era when Prince performed, the mid-to-late 2000s, to see the pattern I'm discribing. During that period, the Super Bowl went for these legends:

2005 - Paul McCartney
2006 - Rolling Stones
2007 - Prince
2008 - Tom Petty
2009 - Bruce Springstein
2010 - The Who

Do you see what I mean? None of these artists had hit records on the charts when they performed. None of them were particular popular with the kids. They were the big names from the past. The Mount Rushmore of Rock/Pop.

EDIT: It just occurred to me that perhaps you're not commenting on why he was invited in the 2000s, but why he wasn't invited the '90s??? Maybe it's because he was viewed as a weirdo for changing his name to a symbol. Right now, in the 2020s, people look back and respect him for taking on the music industry. But that's hindsight. At the time of the name change, people ridiculed the it. Even those who understood and supported his underlying motivation (artists' rights), still thought he was a freak for choosing an unpernouncable symbol for a name.

[Edited 2/15/23 17:16pm]

lurker316 said:

He didn't show up to We Are the World so there was zero chance of an 80's Superbowl. Also, I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned the name change/industry war thing. He was calling himself the love symbol and running around with the word slave written on his face for half the 90's while bad mouthing the industry any chance he got. He also crossed some big time people like Clive Davis, WB, .... I'm not saying he was wrong to do these things but Prince was always viewed as a difficult artist and he crossed a lot of folks during his career. That had to have had something to do with why he wasn't on in those days.

[Edited 2/15/23 19:33pm]

paisleyparkgirl said:

ShellyMcG said:

LoveGalore said: Ah, I see. I was under the impression that he wasn't considered a big draw during that decade. Outside of Most Beautiful Girl In The World, of course. I personally like a lot of his 90s music but I'm not old enough to remember it as it was released. But I only ever read about his 80s hits. I never really hear much about the 90s.

Cream, Diamonds and Pearl, The Most Beautiful Girl, Get off were all hits at least in the early 90's. He lost his commercial appeal by the mid-90's with the WB situation.

He tried to make a come back with the Rave album but it didn't work out.

[Edited 2/14/23 16:00pm]

The first real big name headline performance was MJ in 1993, and Prince was definitely falling away from the mainstream in the following years.

leecaldon said:

ShellyMcG said:

LoveGalore said:

He wasn't out of favor in the 90s. He scored multiple hit singles.

Ah, I see. I was under the impression that he wasn't considered a big draw during that decade. Outside of Most Beautiful Girl In The World, of course. I personally like a lot of his 90s music but I'm not old enough to remember it as it was released. But I only ever read about his 80s hits. I never really hear much about the 90s.

You have the right idea. After considerable success in the early 90s, the dispute with his record label, the name change etc meant that he started fall away somewhat from the mainstream, although he was still news, his releases received publicity and he did have the occasional big hit.

.

After Emancipation failed to set the world on fire, in no small part due to the EMI's US division folding in 1997, he went properly indie, for several years (with the the brief interlude of Rave in 99, which also suffered a lack of promotion due to record label issues that were nothing to do with him) - at which point most of the public didn't even know he was releasing music.

.

Certainly, between around 93-05, he would have been an unexpeted choice for the Superbowl half-time.

leecaldon said:

LoveGalore said:

leecaldon said:

You have the right idea. After considerable success in the early 90s, the dispute with his record label, the name change etc meant that he started fall away somewhat from the mainstream, although he was still news, his releases received publicity and he did have the occasional big hit.

.

After Emancipation failed to set the world on fire, in no small part due to the EMI's US division folding in 1997, he went properly indie, for several years (with the the brief interlude of Rave in 99, which also suffered a lack of promotion due to record label issues that were nothing to do with him) - at which point most of the public didn't even know he was releasing music.

.

Certainly, between around 93-05, he would have been an unexpeted choice for the Superbowl half-time.

Yes and of course it was expected to have the Blues Brothers headline.

I thought they only got people that were selling something at that moment in time (a movie, a tour, a new album etc.) so just standard promotion for whatever.

JorisE73 said:

LoveGalore said:

JorisE73 said:

I thought they only got people that were selling something at that moment in time (a movie, a tour, a new album etc.) so just standard promotion for whatever.

The Blues Brothers did not have some major release in 1997. Ditto to Patti LaBelle and Diana Ross the years prior or Smokey Robinson the year after. Just like The Who weren't setting the world on fire in 2010. The selection process begins with a panel which includes officials such as the NFL’s director of entertainment, folks from the NFL’s production company, and the halftime show’s director and producer. After a long and detailed process, the shortlist is handed over to the Super Bowl’s hosting city for a final decision. Halftime show performers are selected on account of several elements. Genre relevance and popularity are the two most important factors to consider when a shortlist for performers is being made, but choosing headliners is about more than just numbers — it’s about making a statement. “Artists like Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg were at the forefront of the West Coast hip-hop revolution, ‘so to be able to bring them back to L.A., where it all began alongside Eminem, Mary J. Blige and Kendrick Lamar will prove to be an epic, unforgettable celebration of the impact hip hop has today…” Todd Kaplan, VP of Marketing for Pepsi, said in a statement. https://www.charlotteobse...83208.html Miami chose Prince from a shortlist developed by a bunch of NFL heads. Not the most cutting edge folks I reckon. They now have hired, since 2019, RocNation to develop their halftimes.

Ah ok, I've only seen MJ's and Prince's, Superbowl isn't a thing here in Europe i think and those Halftime shows just blew up here because Prince made headlines over here when he performed.
I thought record labels or managers would negociate with the NFL to push there acts to promote something when you see what kind of horrible acts are on display at those halftime shows over the years because Superbowl is seen by more than a quarter of the USA and the amount of money taht is thrown at the promotion of movies and whatever.

nayroo2002 said:

paisleyparkgirl said:

I don't know, I was talking about that award show where he showed his ass cheeks.

I "heard" he was wearing a yellow outfit...something like that.

[Edited 2/15/23 7:30am]

Do you guys really believe I didn't know or hadn't watched this performance ?

paisleyparkgirl said:

bozojones said:

In addition to what others have said: the NFL seemed to go exclusively for "safe" halftime performers in the years right after Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, calling on Paul McCartney and Rolling Stones to perform. They probably wanted to change things up after those two halftime shows and bring someone in who was a little more daring, but not enough to cause any issues. By that time, Prince had settled into a slightly classier and more toned down image and wasn't pushing the envelope like he did in the 80s and 90s, so he was probably a perfect fit for what they wanted at that time - familiar and exciting, but not scandalous.

At last, an intelligent comment.

Yep this pretty much hits it.

Poplife88 said:

paisleyparkgirl said:

At last, an intelligent comment.

Yep this pretty much hits it.

I watched Prince's performance yesterday. I'd really not looked at it in a minute.

It really was amazing. "Let's Go Crazy" felt a little stunted for some reason. The humidity, the smoke not clearing quickly. It felt muddy, but then it goes onto other stuff which is great. He really packed a lot of songs in there.

As far as why he didn't perform there sooner, the thing about the Janet-affect is true. But also, he was likely asked before and turned it down. He even mentioned how he had been asked a few times to come to the Grammys and perform, but didn't have a real reason to. But when he did it with Beyonce, there was some cross/self-promotion on the table that would be good kinetic energy.

Also, I think he felt it had more street cred by that point. And big names like Beyonce, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars had done it, so it had a higher appeal by that point. When they went super safe with Springsteen, Tom Petty, the Stones, etc., Prince was too hip for that shit. He wasn't some old ass Ozzy-esque performer trying to help the man white wash a show.

Prince showed up at the right time.

TrivialPursuit said:

LoveGalore said:

Those unhip folks came after Prince. He set the unhip standard, one might say, given the list of acts that came directly after him for a decade.

Yeah, I guess "hip" is relative, really. It's fair to say he changed the game with that, though.

TrivialPursuit said:

LoveGalore said:

Those unhip folks came after Prince. He set the unhip standard, one might say, given the list of acts that came directly after him for a decade.

Yeah, I guess "hip" is relative, really. It's fair to say he changed the game with that, though.

Perhaps they were trying to fashion the SB stage as one for legends only (which can obviously include newer acts of note). And when it comes to legendary stage shows, I do think Prince is up there in the upper eschelon. I don't think he's first to mind necessarily (there's a lot of musicians out there that have seen more success than Prince and had less controversy attached to their image), but they would have made their way to Prince eventually. They got him at the right time.

DarkKnight1 said:

OP trolls a lot, but at least still keeps this board active.

That's a concession?

DarkKnight1 said:

OP trolls a lot, but at least still keeps this board active.

Someone's gotta do it.

I don't mean to troll though but if you see it that way it is what it is.

LoveGalore said:

leecaldon said:

You have the right idea. After considerable success in the early 90s, the dispute with his record label, the name change etc meant that he started fall away somewhat from the mainstream, although he was still news, his releases received publicity and he did have the occasional big hit.

.

After Emancipation failed to set the world on fire, in no small part due to the EMI's US division folding in 1997, he went properly indie, for several years (with the the brief interlude of Rave in 99, which also suffered a lack of promotion due to record label issues that were nothing to do with him) - at which point most of the public didn't even know he was releasing music.

.

Certainly, between around 93-05, he would have been an unexpeted choice for the Superbowl half-time.

Yes and of course it was expected to have the Blues Brothers headline.

The Blues Brothers with ZZ Top and James Brown. That's two legends/heritage acts.