Eight days ago, during a brief respite in the middle of the Seattle Seahawks complete and utter domination of the Denver Broncos, Bruno Mars and the Red Hot Chili Peppers took the stage at Metlife Stadium to provide us with some cheerful halftime entertainment. For the most part, it went off without a hitch; Mars pulled some MJ-esque dance moves, while Anthony Keidis mugged for the camera while singing the Peppers 1991 hit "Give It Away." It all seemed like a great time for everyone involved.

Then, as the days wore on, there were some rumblings in the internet world about the authenticity of the performance. See, the Chili Peppers instruments weren't plugged in! It was all a lie! How could they do such a thing! The answer was simple: that's what every band does every year.

What the Chili Peppers did at the Halftime show last Sunday was hardly anything new. Every band plays to a pre-recorded track during the Super Bowl Halftime show, with only the vocals being truly "live." Springsteen did it. Tom Petty did it. Prince and the Stones and Paul McCartney did it. One would guess the outrage over the RHCP miming was mostly because people didn't now that was how this worked, with a little extra because the Chili Peppers weren't particularly good at pretending to play their instruments (maybe they should get some miming advice from the Heartbreakers).

But all of this controversy about nothing begs a more pertinent question: what the hell do we really need to the Super Bowl Halftime Show anyway? What good does it do to have some band from 20-years go take to the stage and mime some songs that were big 20years ago? At least when Beyonce performed last year, we knew most of it was fake, and we didn't care because it's Beyonce. But having bands go out and do this just feels like a rather pointless exercise.

Who exactly is the Super Bowl Halftime Show for? It certainly isn't football fans, who would likely prefer to see the third quarter just start already instead of sitting through an extra 10 minutes. Presumably, it's for people who don't care about football - it's the league's attempt to create viewing interest for those who don't already have a need or desire to watch the game. And I can understand that, especially since I spent weeks before the Super Bowl trying to talk my non-football loving friend into tuning because she loves the Chili Peppers. If you're wondering, it was the only part of the game she enjoyed.

But really, all the concern over the RHCP miming their instruments shouldn't cause a backlash against them, as they were just following orders; it should just make us question this entire decadent, pointless process. The Super Bowl is the biggest football game of the year. Instead of hopelessly decorating it in ungodly amounts of frosting and glitter year after year, which serves only to distract from the game it self, why don't we just enjoy the game for what it is and cut back on the trimmings a little bit? And if the non-football loving watchers don't like it, they'll still have the commercials.

The Super Bowl Halftime Show is one of those things I care way too much about. I could tell you who performed at each of the last ten without looking it up, and each year I wait with eager anticipation to see who gets the honor of performing. Last night that question was answered far earlier than usual when I learned on Twitter that the sacred duty would be given to Bruno Mars.

Now, I'm not sure what the pulse of the rest of the nation is on this choice, but I think it's a great pick. Admittedly, after the glorious spectacle that was last year's Beyonce performance, just about anything is going to seem underwhelming, but I feel like Mars is more than up to the challenge. He's one of the greatest showmen in music, and every time I watch him live, I get the sense that he's giving it everything he has.

What I wonder, though, is how this performance will affect Mars' career. See, I've had this theory for about a year now that pop music fans take him for granted. They've sent his singles to the top of the charts over and over again, but there doesn't seem to be that much appreciation for Mars himself. People don't connect him with the way they connect with Tayor Swift or Adele, and he has yet to become an icon on the level of Justin Timberlake, as evidenced by the video begging JT to return to music that included the line "I don't know how to jerk off to Bruno Mars!"

It seems like lately, Mars' songs are bigger than he is. This may be an unpopular opinion, but I feel that ,as far as sad songs of the past three years go, "It Will Rain" and "When I Was Your Man" can totally hold their own against the Adele instant classic 1-2 punch of "Rolling In The Deep" and "Someone Like You." But the connection with listeners isn't there. Listeners feel like they know Adele, and that her problems are their problems. Bruno almost comes off as too professional for his own good. Like somehow his sad songs come from a Sad Song Processing Plant, even though he wrote them about real concerns in his own life just like Adele did.

So, how could the Halftime Show change that? Well, it'll be hard for Mars to share any deep, dark personal secrets in a 15-minute halftime show, so perhaps he can go the other route by giving us a grand spectacle that launches him from Pop-Star-Of-The-Moment to one of the best of all-time (OF ALL TIME!). Until recently, Beyonce had the same problem Mars has now, the disconnect between her and her songs. People could relate to the message of "Irreplaceable" or "Single Ladies," but Beyonce always seemed disconnected from them. The way she remedied that was by embracing the larger-than-life aspects of her personality, and becoming beloved because she was a more-famous-and-rich-God-Jesus-and-Wonder Woman-combined force of nature that none of us could touch.

So, how does this relate to Bruno Mars? Well, he too is the larger-than-life force of nature that Beyonce is, but he could still take a page out from her book. Mars will have everyone in America watching him on the Super Bowl, so this is his biggest chance to make a lasting impression. I would recommend going all out, going for the biggest spectacle he can possibly put together. Have seizure-inducing lights flash across the stage while an army of gorillas terrorize the audience! Bring Sting out to sing that fake Police song you wrote like you did at the Grammys! Do whatever you can to prove to the world that Bruno Mars is more than Justin Timberlake's non-Union Hawaiian equivalent! As someone who's been a fan since day one, I cannot wait to see what you come up with.

Lady Gaga's disembodied head sings a song, and it's time for the party to begin.

All award shows are basically about the spectacle more than the awards, but that's never more true than with the MTV Video Music Awards. No one remembers who won anything at the 2003 VMAs, but everyone remembers Madonna kissing Britney. This show is just about watching famous people do crazy shit. And the 2013 edition did not disappoint.

First off, let's talk about the absolute trainwreck that was Miley Cyrus. She awkwardly twerked, and super-awkwardly pretended to masturbate with a foam finger. It was at this point that Robin Thicke came out and sang a snippet of "Blurred Lines." Once this happened, 2 Chainz and Kendrick Lamar came out, but it was far too late to salvage the performance. Miley's failed attempt at both singing and dancing were so pathetic that she retroactively let Britney Spears circa 2007 off the hook.

I love that the NSYNC reunion lasted for about 30 seconds of what was primarily a tribute to Justin Timberlake's solo career. It's his world, and those other four gentleman are simply squirrels trying to get a nut. It was nice of JT to give them a shout out in his acceptance speech though.

I could have used a bit more crazy from Kanye. His performance of "Blood On The Leaves" was suitably intense, but I missed the special effects that marked his performance of "New Slaves" on SNL a few months back.

What made less sense, Shailene Woodley introducing Miley Cyrus, or Jared Leto introducing Kanye? I'll go with Leto, because I honestly can figure out what the hell he was even doing there.

Last night was a rather depressing reminder of how irrelevant rock is to mainstream music right now. I'm pretty sure the only guitars of the night were provided by Bruno Mars backup band. Apparently, when neither The Black Keys or the Foo Fighters make an album, that means rock is invisible.

How about that Bruno Mars light show, eh? Has he been hanging out with Wayne Coyne lately? I dug his new single, too.

Daft Punk were only on to present? Super lame. They should have picked Colbert instead.

Can we all agree that Kevin Hart talking about Lady Gaga's ass was just funny? Please?

One Direction did not have the best song of the summer by any stretch of the imagination. But they do have the most rabid fanbase, so this was to be expected.

What was with the one dude in One Direction wearing a Joy Division t-shirt? Like he has anything to be gloomy about it....

That Katy Perry finale was beyond cheesy. Not as bad as Miley, but still. Can the dudes in Survivor sue her? God I hope so.

Why did MTV insist calling "Roar" her "biggest hit ever?" It hasn't been out long enough to really be a hit yet. Plus, "I Kissed A Girl" and "California Gurls" were both way bigger. I guess they just figure that repeating something enough times will make it true.

Another fine mess, MTV! Can't wait for next year.

In the fall of 2010, I was lucky enough to see Bruno Mars right before he got really, really, huge. Granted, "Billionaire" had already blown up, and he was starting to gain momentum, but he hadn't had any solo hits yet, and he was basically on the periphery of pop culture. Anyway, I saw him at UB's Fallfest, where he played with B.O.B. and Jason Mraz, and he was easily the best act of the night. He sang with more passion and energy that anyone else on stage, as well as anyone else on the radio. It was quite a sight to see. Shortly after that, he became immeasurably huge. "Just The Way You Are" hit #1, and a few months later, "Grenade" would do the same. He became one of the biggest pop stars in the country, and he has been ever since.

In that time, the American public has responded to him with a somewhat mixed reaction. Half of the public seems to love him for the same reason I do; his passion, and his commitment. He wants to make the kind of pop music that Michael Jackson did; the kind that goes beyond radio fluff, and hold up 40 years later. Even if you don't think he's accomplished that yet, he probably deserves some admiration just for trying.

And yet, other people hate him for that very reason. They see him as being a little too sincere. They see him dancing and singing his ass off, letting us know that just cares so much and it turns them off. For them, all the effort just doesn't seem to connect. If you like his music, you think the effort is what makes him special. If you don't like him, you just think he's trying too hard. What's surprising about Mars' success, though, is that he's basically the only person in mainstream music who takes this approach. You could make a case for lady Gaga, but while her "Little Monsters" might not want to admit, a lot of what she does involves gimmicks and sloganeering, and while she certainly cares a great deal about the music she puts out, it tends to take a backseat to all the glitz and glamour surrounding her.

Still, she's deeper than most of the pop populace. A huge chunk of the pop set these days is going for what a style that I might call "Aggressive Shallow;" which is to say it revels in how cheap, and meaningless it is, because that's the point. Katy Perry and Ke$ha rule this stuff, and 3oh!3 tried their best to latch onto the bandwagon, only to lose their spot to LMFAO, who broke up, meaning that part of the bandwagon is up for grabs at the moment. What I find myself often wondering is whether or not there's anything noble about what these artists are doing. In particular, I've wondered this about Ke$ha. When she came out in 2009 with "Tik Tok," I thought it was the worst crap I had ever heard, and I felt similarly about subsequent singles. Now I've begun to reconsider my position, if ever so slightly.


I wonder, do the people who hate Bruno Mars for being so damn earnest like Ke$ha because she's the exact opposite? I mean, as much I dig Bruno, I have noticed that he cares a LOT about whether or not people like him, seeming very eager to impress in just about all of his TV appearances. Ke$ha isn't like that at all. She just does her shit, if you like it, great, if not, that's fine, she doesn't need you. I still don't particularly like her music, but I get why a lot smart people - like Wayne Coyne - think she's so cool. Maybe there's more depth than I thought, if only because she's telling us exactly who she is, and refusing to be anyone else. To put it this way, the music of Ke$ha feels ultimately meaningless, but I see how people could enjoy, and even admire the concept of her. With Bruno Mars, I feel like most of his songs will hold up 20 years from now (especially "It Will Rain," which totally makes me cry every time), but we might forget a lot about him. We'll remember him as a likeable guy with tons of energy, who tried with all his might to make everyone in the world a Bruno Mars fan, but perhaps not much else.


With Ke$ha, her songs might not carry the same resonance in the future as they do now, but we won't be forgetting her any time soon. She's a completely outrageous figure who talked about sex more openly in her music than any mainstream pop star before her, and she clearly doesn't care how many people hate her. I still think Bruno Mars is a far more talented artist, but I could see how someone would prefer someone like Ke$ha, if only for the wild individualism she brings to the table. She knows people like me aren't going to enjoy what she does, and she doesn't give two shits. There's something truly admirable about that.