Sweet Jane 61 Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Tom Petty will play the next Super Bowl Halftime show on February 3 in Phoenix, but fans should not expect to see a campy medley of hits nor scantily clad dancers. Petty says that he and his band will most likely keep things as close to their traditional live show as possible. Of course, whenever an artist accepts such a high profile, corporate gig, some fans will begin to throw around the term "sell out." But Petty notes that just because the Super Bowl Halftime show is sponsored by Bridgestone Tires doesn't mean that he is. "I’m not sponsored by Bridgestone. My deal is with the NFL," he recently told Rolling Stone. "The halftime show is always presented by a sponsor. If I play on The Tonight Show, it’s presented by sponsors. Truthfully, every venue in America has some sort of corporate sponsor above the door or on the wall. It’s not a deal that I made, you know? Don’t worry, I haven’t gone corporate." As for what songs he might choose to play in the brief set, Petty said, "We are thinking about that. We’ve got a few in mind. I think in a show that big in a place that big you need to play songs they know... You don’t have a great deal of time. I’m trying to figure out how much material I can squeeze into that short space of time. I doubt we’d do a medley. We’ve never done a medley and I can’t picture us doing one. It’s not the kind of band that can remember a medley... I’m just approaching it as a high-energy Rock & Roll show — maybe like it used to be in the 1960s were you come on, do four or five of your best numbers and get off." Meanwhile, Petty said he is not looking towards another solo album, but rather "the long-overdue Heartbreakers record." The group might play some shows next year, but nothing is set in stone. One thing Petty does know is that he doesn't want to commit to any more long trips on the road. "I just don’t want to commit that much time to it. I love doing it and I’m sure I’ll do more tours, but I’m not going to do big long ones," he told Rolling Stone. "I have so much I want to do right now. If I’m going to do another Heartbreakers album I need some time to write that and record that and do it the way I want to. It’s just a lot of things I want to do that keep getting put down the line because of these lengthy tours. If you take five months out of the year it really takes a hit, because then it takes you a month to recuperate from it and then there’s just a few months left to work." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_n_white Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 I don't really understand this whole "gone corperate" and "selling out" thing. Just because somebody plays at the Super Bowl they are a sell out? Yeah,if I were an artist,I would turn down the opportunity to perform live in front of 75,000 people and millions worldwide on TV. I don't have a problem with somebody making millions off their music. It's their god given gift to do whatever they want to with it. If they get rich off it,which many do,big deal. It's worse to have that kind of talent and not do anything at all with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Jane 61 Posted December 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 That's what Petty said, he isn't a sell out, he is not in a deal with the sponsor. Only the NFL. I applaud him for sticking to his belief on not going corporate and having his songs in commercials and other things that many artists have done, he wants to keep control of his music, and he can do that and still make money. So rock the Super Bowl Tom, I'll be tuned in for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue_n_white Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 I have never bought the idea either that because a song is used in a commercial that it means the artist "sold out". I know many will disagree with me on that but music can be used for many things. It only makes sense to use good music to advertise products. I'm not saying every artist should just go out and sell their music to the highest advertiser bidder but I don't see it as a sell out to have music used in advertising that happenes to be from a popular artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted December 29, 2007 Report Share Posted December 29, 2007 I don't think tom has anything to worry about in terms of "selling out." After all, he already sold his soul when he played the million dollar barmitzvah for the war merchant that sold defective bulletproof vests to the US Army tom petty can derelicte mah **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted December 31, 2007 Report Share Posted December 31, 2007 Here's a rant about selling out that isn't really related to Tom Petty because I don't know much about him: A musician sells out when they are making music for money rather than for art. One example would be a musician selling a song to a commercial, thus taking away some of the meaning of the song. I don't really make a big deal about musicians selling their songs to commercials because the musicians who do that tend to be bloated hacks who don't mean anything to me and never created any art to destroy anyways. But I do get excited when good bands turn down offers to do commercials, such as The Thermals who turned down $50,000 for the use of one of their songs in a Hummer commercial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted December 31, 2007 Report Share Posted December 31, 2007 That is peanuts compared to getting blood money. If tom petty woulda sold his songs for beer commercials, it would look in a totally different light. Makes that money-grubbing yoko look almost human... almost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted December 31, 2007 Report Share Posted December 31, 2007 $50,000 isn't much when you compare it to what Tom Petty could make, but considering The Thermals are a not-particularly-wealthy indie band it's pretty respectable in my book. I'd like to add that if Tom Petty actually wrote a song about how much he loves Coors Light and it was an honest song, I would have no problem with him selling it to Coors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted December 31, 2007 Report Share Posted December 31, 2007 $50,000 isn't much when you compare it to what Tom Petty could make, but considering The Thermals are a not-particularly-wealthy indie band it's pretty respectable in my book. I'd like to add that if Tom Petty actually wrote a song about how much he loves Coors Light and it was an honest song, I would have no problem with him selling it to Coors. It's not the amount of money a band or artist makes, but who that money comes from. Had tom petty done this for 100 bucks, I'd still consider him a maggot who accepts money from a renown blood merchant. I used to like a lot of his songs, but the enjoyment of listening to those songs is overshadow by this. On the other hand, I can still listen to "London Calling" even though it was used to hock those lemon jaguar automobiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Musicians need money simple as that, I don't care who they take money from or who they sell their songs to- as long as they can still play their music and write great songs... they can do whatever they want. A musician's life, with the instruments, the traveling, the studio time, the recording equipment- it's very expensive and this doesn't just apply to rockstars and world famous musicians- anyone who uses music and an instrument to make a living needs money to sustain themselves.... it's a sad fact sometimes... but a fact nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 lol @ tom petty needing money. I don't need tom petty's songs, thankfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 Anyway, he's a corporate whore, so he doesn't need to reassert his "not selling out" lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) edit: never mind Edited January 5, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 Sorry that you don't like rock'n'roll, it's a shame really. Petty remains as one of the last living people that can still put out consistent rock, and give a good show. I'm hardly a classic rock nazi either, but I'm also not a pretentious indie fan boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 Sorry that you don't like rock'n'roll, it's a shame really. Petty remains as one of the last living people that can still put out consistent rock, and give a good show. I'm hardly a classic rock nazi either, but I'm also not a pretentious indie fan boy What an utterly preposterous and malinformed comment you've made. Have you been paying attention to what I've stated in this topic all along? Let me r-e-i-t-e-r-a-t-e what I've said all along: tom petty is a corporate whore no matter how good his songs are. It doesn't matter whether you or any of his fans don't buy into the whole "selling out" mentality because tom petty is the one who brought it up in the first place (for your own reference, read the headline of this topic). I call bollocks to that. He has, in fact, "gone corporate." If I had a million, I could buy him. Not that I'd want to. I'd rather pay to have The Thermals play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 dude hell yeah! the thermals rock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Ry 71 Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 ... I REALLY wish Jane would come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 On a slightly different tack here, the SB folks have gone waaayyyyyy out of their way to ensure that the acts they book for halftime will not pull anything like the "wardrobe malfunction" of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake a few years ago (Prince doesn't count as he has toned down his sexual innuendoes in the past several years). I mean, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Prince and now Tom Petty...I'm not sure those folks are up for a wardrobe malfunction (even Prince). Petty is a safe choice and the NFL will continue this trend into the foreseeable future, IMO. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 It's an odd world we live in where The Stones and Prince are now considered "safe". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 It's an odd world we live in where The Stones and Prince are now considered "safe". Indeed! Although, I think when the Stones were on, the league and/or the network wanted them to change some words (I can't remember which words to which songs) and I think they sang them anyway but the network silenced it using a delay. Don't quote me on that but I think that is what happened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) It's true, they sang "c*m" during Start Me Up and "c*ck" during Rough Justice, both were silenced. Forty years after Ed Sullivan and they're still getting censored! B-) Edited January 7, 2008 by Guest You know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 The Rolling Stones are one of those bands who will never sell out because they were a marketing shtick since the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now