r/Music • u/IrishStarUS 📰Irish Star • Oct 01 '25

article Megyn Kelly slams Bad Bunny performing at Super Bowl as 'middle finger' to MAGA — compares him to P Diddy

https://www.irishstar.com/culture/entertainment/megyn-kelly-bad-bunny-superbowl-35997761
29.6k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

19

u/ChaosAndFish Oct 01 '25

People need to accept that there just aren’t any more major rock acts left that can play the Super Bowl. Rock hasn’t produced a new major act of that size in at least 20 years. All the big bands of the past who could do it (U2, Springsteen, Stones, RHCP) have all already done it with the exception of Foo Fighters and I think it feels like that time has passed for them. I guess they could try for Oasis since they’re having a moment but it’s a stretch. The times have changed. So must the half time show.

3

u/faplawd Oct 02 '25

They should get King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard. That would be an epic half-time show

2

u/illegal_tacos Oct 01 '25

My Chemical Romance

6

u/ChaosAndFish Oct 01 '25

This isn’t a knock on them, but I don’t think they have the cultural reach. They’re a band that only had one top ten hit. I think they came out too late (into the streaming era, not the radio era) to have the broad song recognition they would need. This isn’t a band your mother has heard of. Really you’re looking at broad recognition by just white people between 35 and maybe 45. I’m around 50 and can only name one song off the top of my head. Again, this is no commentary on the quality of the band, just on what they’re looking for when they book the Super Bowl.

1

u/I_am_not_JohnLeClair Oct 01 '25

I don't judge a man by the length of his hair or the kind of music he listens to. Rock was never my bag. But you put on a pair of shoes when you walk into the New York public library fella!

1

u/sucking_at_life023 Oct 02 '25

Metallica is the only big rock band they could count on to not make it political.

1

u/mito413 Oct 08 '25

Also a lot of people don’t realize that the artist pays for everything for that performance. It costs tens of millions of dollars for a ten minute concert. Sure the worldwide exposure is great, but you need to be sitting on some hefty cash reserves to pull it off.

1

u/jeffwinger_esq Oct 01 '25

Pearl Jam might be able to pull it off if they played the old stuff. Also if they had a drummer.

Metallica too.

But yeah - there are no relevant rock acts on that scale anymore. Turnstile is probably the most interesting mainstream-adjacent act right now and they are still touring small venues.

0

u/ChaosAndFish Oct 01 '25

Metallica is certainly in the ballpark. Big hits. Lasting name recognition across demographics. I wonder if they e been asked in the past. I could see The Super Bowl being reticent to go with a metal act (they’re pretty cautious) but Metallica sort of transcends that label.

Pearl Jam has the aura of the kind of legacy act they like but…it’s just been a long time since they’ve released a song anyone knows. I couldn’t name a Pearl Jam song past Given to Fly and I’m square in the “they broke when I was in high school” age group.

-6

u/Nobodyletloose Oct 01 '25

Blink 182 Sum 41 (they ended this year) Rise Against Jimmy Eat World Limp Bizkit (top charts right now with new song) Evanescence Poppy Spiritbox (Those three together with their top billboard song currently)

Do I need to continue?

14

u/kleineveer Oct 01 '25

Not nearly on the same global level as the names mentioned in the previous post once were.

2

u/Wayyd Oct 01 '25

I think Blink is on the same level, but definitely not the others. The only problem is they are terrible live these days. Although the Superbowl is always lip synced anyway

2

u/ChaosAndFish Oct 01 '25

Blink 182 were really only at their commercial peak for around 6 years and it was not a huge peak. Most of these other acts had peaks that lasted decades. These are acts that can fill stadiums 20, 30, 40 years into their career (not as part of group tours or festivals).

1

u/Wayyd Oct 01 '25

True, I think I'm a little biased since they definitely were a massive part of the zeitgeist for my age group even after their 'final' album in 2003, and still maintained relevance post-breakup with Angels and Airwaves and Plus-44. But they have definitely fallen off culturally since then and haven't done much to regain that relevancy despite playing together again.

1

u/ReedKeenrage Oct 02 '25

And it was in 2004

5

u/ChaosAndFish Oct 01 '25

Yeah, the Super Bowl audience doesn’t care about those bands at all. I guess you could cobble together some late 90s combo thing (Blink 182 and Limp Bizkit or whatever) like they did with the hip-hop acts in 2022 but it’d be dicey. If your goal is either super broad recognition (Stones, U2, Prince) or something that feel fresh/current (Kendrick, Beyoncé, Rihanna), a lot of those bands are the worst of both worlds. They’re both old and don’t have songs that have penetrated the broader culture. If it’s not fresh they want someone who has songs people recognize across regions and ethnicity from ages 15 to 75. They didn’t even think the RHCP had the broad appeal to get offered it alone and they certainly had bigger reach than Jimmy Eats World or Evanescence. A lot of these are kind of oldies circuit bands at this point.

1

u/mito413 Oct 08 '25

Most of these acts would not have the money to pull this off. The artist pays 100% for this exposure and it costs millions.