Should the Reunited Guns N Roses get to play The Super Bowl ?

[C0ma]

So Cold Play payed to play last years bowl....

Katy Perry gave up a percentage of her future year touring revenue, to perform...

Again why would Guns even want to do this???   

So the shows could be even more sold out?  So they could increase ticket prices??

Again

If they have nothing "odd ball" to promote why do this?  And new music this day and age would be "odd ball"

This year makes no sense for a number of reasons. They have nothing to promote, unless they postpone a few dates for travel etc... they will be on the other side of the world, BUT the following year they will have a catalog of shows that they can release a live album and or concert video from... They could be putting together a 30th anniversary AFD package that they could be promoting, also 2018 could be the end of the Pepsi contract (2017 will be the 5th in a row, following a stretch of exactly 5 SB's sponsored by Bridgestone). Bridgestone had a more Rock Centric vibe to their shows, and by all account wasn't pay to play (yet Pepsi may have opened the flood gates there).

[WAR41]

I have said this before and I'll say it again.  I don't understand why people think the NFL and Pepsi (who sponsors the halftime show) would want a bunch of 50+ year old rockers to play the show.  They are looking to attract younger viewers and consumers.  GNR do not draw younger viewers.  They just plain don't.  I don't care if your sister's brother in law's 16-year old stepdaughter played November Rain at her Bat Mitzvah.  They do not attract the masses of younger viewers like other artists do.  I refuse to believe they will ever be asked to play the Super Bowl or the VMAs ever again. 

In very recent years the Super Bowl invited the following artists: The Who, The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, U2, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, and Prince. So keep saying it... you are wrong... but keep saying it.

Lol The Rolling Stones are "very recent"?  Since when is a decade ago "very recent".  Here are the "very recent" artists you referenced with the halftime sponsor:

Rolling Stones - 2006 (Sprint Nextel)
Prince - 2007 (Pepsi)
The Who - 2010 (Bridgestone)
Tom Petty - 2008 (Bridgestone)
Paul McCartney - 2005 (Ameriquest)
U2 - 2002 (E-Trade)


Why don't you tell me who the majority of artists are who've played from 2011 onward and who the sponsor has been.  The only outlier for Pepsi is Prince in 2007, but even that is a stretch considering he is arguably one of the most influential African American artists EVER. 

2012 - Madonna (Bridgestone) - She was 54 years old at the time.

in 2013 Pepsi took over for a multi year engagement... Since that point they have had a few repeats (Beyonce and Bruno Mars) they did feature appearances by older 'rockers' Lenny Kravitz (with Katy Perry) and The Red Hot Chilli Peppers (with Bruno Mars). Not only is this years sponsor Pepsi but the director of the halftime show is the same since Pepsi signed on for 2013... so that part could be telling. However he has a history of directing concert videos for rock acts like The Rolling Stones, U2, and The Who (including the 2010 Super Bowl Performance.)

Last Year it was reported that ColdPlay 'Payed to Play' to promote their album. So outside of the Guns conversation, you could be looking at Metallica looking to promote a new album.

WAR41, you just got owned.  I love how you try to deflect by saying those shows he mentioned weren't "very recent". A couple of those shows were within the last 8 years.  That's not that long ago at all.  Those artists were "older" at that time just as much as GNR are older now

I guess your definition of "very recent" is also much different than mine 

[TheBaconman]

So Cold Play payed to play last years bowl....

Katy Perry gave up a percentage of her future year touring revenue, to perform...

Again why would Guns even want to do this???   

So the shows could be even more sold out?  So they could increase ticket prices??

Again

If they have nothing "odd ball" to promote why do this?  And new music this day and age would be "odd ball"

This year makes no sense for a number of reasons. They have nothing to promote, unless they postpone a few dates for travel etc... they will be on the other side of the world, BUT the following year they will have a catalog of shows that they can release a live album and or concert video from... They could be putting together a 30th anniversary AFD package that they could be promoting, also 2018 could be the end of the Pepsi contract (2017 will be the 5th in a row, following a stretch of exactly 5 SB's sponsored by Bridgestone). Bridgestone had a more Rock Centric vibe to their shows, and by all account wasn't pay to play (yet Pepsi may have opened the flood gates there).

lol ao we are talking about superbowl in 2018 then? haha   Ok.....

[raindog]

That well known rocker, Madonna.

Speaking more to the age... how is old rocker and haggard pop star different?

Because Axl isn't walking around with his minge and tits hanging out.