Adele has the Super Bowl halftime show all wrong

Print

So Adele passed on the Super Bowl. Or she wasn't offered it. Whatever happened, the "Hello" singer won't be performing in Houston on Feb. 5.

That's too bad. Adele would have made an intriguing headliner. Fan or not, Adele has the star wattage to appeal to a global audience, the top qualification for the biggest gig on the planet. The British singer gave a characteristically blunt explanation why she wouldn't be a part of the Super Bowl during her concert at Staples Center in Los Angeles this weekend.

"First of all, I'm not doing the Super Bowl," she told a sold-out audience, according to Variety.com. "I mean, come on, that show is not about music. And I don't really -- I can't dance or anything like that. They were very kind, they did ask me, but I said no."

Before we go on, I'd like to point out that Adele seems like a cool person. She seems very down to earth, has a mouth like Bruce Arians and can probably drink you under the table. There's an alternate universe where Adele and I are strong platonic friends who win karaoke competitions together in dive bars across Los Angeles.

But I have to disagree with her opinion here. The Super Bowl halftime show can be about the music. The artist just has to have the chops and vision to pull it off.

Adele is a singer first and foremost. That is pretty much the totality of her massive appeal, and I can understand why she may feel this makes her an ill fit. It's hard to imagine Adele taking the field in a giant tiger.

But you don't have to take the field on a giant tiger. Katy Perry took the field on a giant tiger because that's what you have to do when you're Katy Perry. Katy Perry needs the spectacle. It also helps to explain why Left Shark is the only thing most people remember about her performance.

Adele doesn't need the tiger ... or the drunken fish. She has the voice, which is far more powerful than any visual aid. Put Adele in the middle of a stage and let that voice and her songs carry the day. Quite frankly, it would be refreshing. The Super Bowl could use a back-to-basic approach after several years of bigger-is-better appeal.

Beyonce (2013), Prince (2007), and U2 (2002) have delivered the three best performances in the post-2000 era of Super Bowl shows. There is a common thread with all three: They were superstar artists who embraced the spectacle, but let the songs and performance carry the day. There's no reason Adele couldn't do the same. Maybe she'll read this and come around. (No she won't.)

Tomorrow we'll share our list of potential Super Bowl LI headliners in a post-Adele world. This will not be an easy exercise.

Print

Fan Discussion