The Who to perform at Super Bowl XLIV

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
1233645744_bruce%20springsteens%20crotch.gif
 
Springsteen's show was so canned and cheesy, it was embarrassing to watch with non-fans.

I don't really care about The Who (they probably played every song I actually like / know), but it was far more entertaining to watch on a television in that setting than anything since U2 for me. Maybe it was because there was no big expectation for me personally, and I didn't really care if it didn't sound great because I never think The Who sounds all that great, but I enjoyed it.
 
Personally, I enjoyed it. I went back and watched it on Youtube and I think they actually sound really good for a couple of 65 year olds. I am a casual fan of The Who, and my girlfriend who is skeptical of all these old acts at the halftime show was singing along in a few spots :)
 
i have been hoping for the last few years the foo fighters would get to do halftime.

i'm sure there are a ton of possibilties for next year, but right now the only other classic artists i can think of right now who haven't performed are the eagles and fleetwood mac. the only reason i have them in mind is because i read a story a couple of weeks ago they might do a stadium tour next year. really don't want mac to do it, but the eagles could be a possibility.

if they want to go current, kenny chesney could be a possibility. not a big fan, but i don't think i'd have a big problem with it.

the year after that, since it's in indianapolis, i would not be surprised if they wheeled out john mellencamp.
 
i have been hoping for the last few years the foo fighters would get to do halftime.

i'm sure there are a ton of possibilties for next year, but right now the only other classic artists i can think of right now who haven't performed are the eagles and fleetwood mac. the only reason i have them in mind is because i read a story a couple of weeks ago they might do a stadium tour next year. really don't want mac to do it, but the eagles could be a possibility.

if they want to go current, kenny chesney could be a possibility. not a big fan, but i don't think i'd have a big problem with it.

the year after that, since it's in indianapolis, i would not be surprised if they wheeled out john mellencamp.

I have heard The Eagles mentioned a lot. I personally think Bon Jovi would be a good fit for the superbowl. They are a bit younger than all of these bands of late, have a lot of big hit songs, and still sound excellent live. They would put on a great show.
 
totally forgot about bon jovi, good call

since it's going to be at the jerry dome next year, they will probably want to go BIG. but pyrotechnics might be kept at a minimum because of the scoreboard
 
They've been doing fans on the field for years... This is the first time I can think of when they haven't...

The first half time show I really remember is Michael Jackson back in 93 and they had fans on the field.
 
What about Pete's wardrobe malfunction, w/ his belly showing?

He should have tucked his shirt into his underwear

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=4896568

"Daltrey initially didn't want to talk about the band's performance -- "I just want to get to my booth to watch the game" -- as he was walking with his entourage. But he returned to face the music in an exclusive interview.

"I thought it went OK. I understand. It's a TV show. Cameras were everywhere," he said. "I was so blinded that I couldn't see.

"And I really wished the crowd would have gotten into singing the songs with us more. That's how it is in Europe for our soccer matches. I wanted more banter."

Townshend disagreed with Daltrey's assessment of the performance.

"We were trying to put on a great show," he said. "We had as much fun as we could have."

Maybe it has something to do with Miami?

Maybe it has something to do with Daltrey hitting 65?

Or maybe it's just that their voices aren't as strong as they once were.

"Miami is so different these days. It's not just a retirement community," Daltrey said nostalgically. "Now Miami is fun and hip, and I'm too old to enjoy it."

Maybe the opposite can be said of a crowd at the Super Bowl: Maybe fans are too young to enjoy classic rock."
 
Daltrey was done years ago. This was awful. When the halftime band is probably sorer than football players it's time to hanbg them up for good.

And that muppet-like drummer....

:down:
 
I thought The Who were just fine. The object of the Super Bowl Halftime Show is to entertain and they did that quite well. Maybe people should cut them a little slack.
 
I was really bored by the performance, too bad since I like The Who, oh well.


Best part of the Half Time show; the stage.
 
I have no idea what any of you were expecting from a lot of your comments, did you expect The Who from 35 years ago to suddenly show up and they'd be teleported to a concert setting and not a football game? How U2 fans could think their favorite band are any less old looking, out of touch, lame, or boring than the half time show last night, I don't know.
 
Springsteen's show was so canned and cheesy, it was embarrassing to watch with non-fans.

I don't really care about The Who (they probably played every song I actually like / know), but it was far more entertaining to watch on a television in that setting than anything since U2 for me. Maybe it was because there was no big expectation for me personally, and I didn't really care if it didn't sound great because I never think The Who sounds all that great, but I enjoyed it.

Yes, last year was a bit cheesy, but Springsteen's voice is in much better shape than Daltrey's. Big difference for me.
 
That's way harsh, Tai mofo.

Can anyone dig up footage of Boner kicking a basketball into the audience again?

My point is that regardless of both Shuttlecock and The Who being old fuddy duddies who are pretty clueless as to what is or isn't hip any more, they are still entertaining and enjoyable live. I'm just not sure why SC shouldn't have to live up to the same standards as any other old fogie group.
 
you know, even though U2 are approaching their 50's, i don't hear the "They're too old" comment as much as i thought i would at this point.
 
My point is that regardless of both Shuttlecock and The Who being old fuddy duddies who are pretty clueless as to what is or isn't hip any more, they are still entertaining and enjoyable live.

Oh, okay. I thought you were saying you now hated U2 because they were so old and lame. That makes more sense.
 
Oh, okay. I thought you were saying you now hated U2 because they were so old and lame. That makes more sense.

Nah, more that I just figured most U2 fans can put up with a huge amount cheese when it comes to musical performances, so I'm a little surprised by all the negativity. Similarly, as Imperor already commented on, the "only the stage was cool" comments are incredibly ironic.
 
Springsteen's show was so canned and cheesy, it was embarrassing to watch with non-fans.

I don't really care about The Who (they probably played every song I actually like / know), but it was far more entertaining to watch on a television in that setting than anything since U2 for me. Maybe it was because there was no big expectation for me personally, and I didn't really care if it didn't sound great because I never think The Who sounds all that great, but I enjoyed it.

I agree. Their voices are shot but the music still sounds great. Daltrey is like 66 and isn't Townsend almost deaf? I mean, come on. They were still really good. I'm glad I got to see them back in their prime.
 
Nah, more that I just figured most U2 fans can put up with a huge amount cheese when it comes to musical performances, so I'm a little surprised by all the negativity. Similarly, as Imperor already commented on, the "only the stage was cool" comments are incredibly ironic.

The Who's performance last night wasn't cheesy, it was substandard. And not just because of Roger's voice. I thought the set was absolute crap, with three abridged versions of well known tracks, and two very abridged Tommy tracks that completely sucked all the momentum out of the show. Baba O Riley was dead on arrival.

Really, they should have just played Baba O Riley and Won't Get Fooled Again in full and left. U2 only performed two full tracks, and nobody cared.
 
But Shuttlecock only needed those two full tracks to defeat 9/11 forever.
 
Nah, more that I just figured most U2 fans can put up with a huge amount cheese when it comes to musical performances, so I'm a little surprised by all the negativity. Similarly, as Imperor already commented on, the "only the stage was cool" comments are incredibly ironic.

I didn't hate the show THAT much, it was great to "see" them in any capacity, for me personally. My problem was with the way the show was presented, not with The Who.
 
Back
Top Bottom