The Who has never been one of my favorite bands, however I've always recognized their originality, influence, songwriting and performance skills, their energy and the excellence of their recordings. I've saw them live three times in the '60s, '70s and '80s, but always liked their best recorded work better. This was a good performance that was well staged and exactly how the band, given they've aged normally, has always looked and sounded live and I enjoyed watching it. Keith Moon and John Entwhistle are gone, of course, but Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend showed the essence of what made this band special as best they could, even at ages 66 and 64, in the short time they had on stage. They are of my generation and I believe they represented well. I have no complaints about them being there, what they did or how they looked and sounded. They met or exceeded my expectations, although, as I mentioned, I've never been a big fan. :
Not a big The Who fan but I haven't watched a superbowl halftime in years and consider them a waste of time. My halftime schedule is: 1. Trip to the bathroom to relieve myself. 2. Grab another beer. 3. Grab a bunch of food. 4. Repeat #2 5. Repeat #1 if necessary 6. Check TV to see if halftime is over yet.
I am 45 and listen to nothing but classic rock and love The Who. Due to the fact that the network cannot under any circumstances have an electrical problem, the SB halftime band always record "live" before the game. Yes Daltry was singing and yes Townsend was playing and yes the drummer was drumming, but what you heard was not what they were singing at that time. Like I said it was recorded "live" a day or 2 before and played back over what ever sounds they were making on the stage. That is why it sounded "live", but in fact they were lip synching.
I wondered whether whomever booked 'em for this gig had seen/heard them perform in, say, the past 20 years. I found it embarrassing. Not because of their age, but because they sounded awful.
If they sounded like **** for the past 20 years, why do people continue to pack concerts for these guys? Maybe you've just been listening to so much computerized pop/rap/emo that you haven't heard actual human made music and thus think that anything that isn't Auto-Tuned for pitch correction is sub-par. It's live music, it ain't supposed to be perfect unless your Ashlee Simpson, in which case, all you have to do is get an iPod and hit play.
The Who were great songwriters until about '70. It's been a while since they had any real pop (I admit 'Who's Next' always annoyed me). I prefer the proto-punk, moddish stuff through to 5:15, and then it is over. 43. Medley? Lame. Wardrobe Malfunction? I'd rather see Janet Jackson's plasticky tit than Pete Townsend's fish-belly white gut jail-breaking out of his cabana shirt. Not to mention that ridiculous hat. Townsend at 30 or so singing 'teenage wasteland' was pushing it after the boys pounded out 'hope I die before I get old' when they were tempting fate as newly minted 20 year olds. At 65 he looks like Ray Walston and the tune sounds like a lecture ... 'what is this fascination with truancy?' I don't really care how old they are, it is just that they lack any real edge at this point. There were three guitarists on stage where there used to be one. Young Starkey may have learned to slap the skins from Moony, but he doesn't play with Moon's craziness or even Jones' sesh-man rectitude. Bleh. Who the f**k was that on the bass? That was not the Who. How about we return to local HS bands marching about, give them 15 minutes, and get the game back on in a timely fashion.
Paul McCartney and Prince are two of the best performers, most talented and accomplished rock/pop artists and more well influenced and influential in their own right music icons ever. They might even BE the two greatest overall in modern times with Paul leading the way in my estimation. I thought they put on the two best sounding and most satisfying Super Bowl shows so far. That doesn't surprise me. It's hard for mere bands or what's left alive of a band, regardless of age, to compete with or measure up to those two. I did think the two surviving members of The Who represented what their band stood for, accomplished and have always sounded and looked like in live performance quite well, however.
I thought they were terrible. Ok, not terrible, but way over the hill. These guys are closer to 70 than 60 (within a few months, for one). And the reason they keep choosing the geriatric rockers is not because of the "timeless music" but because they most assuredly won't be displaying nipples in public.
