THE WHO to play Super Bowl XLIV halftime

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 26 Nov 2009 8:34 pm

The Kids are Alright! CLICK

Russ Wever · Post by **Russ Wever** » 26 Nov 2009 9:06 pm

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 26 Nov 2009 9:13 pm

Who's on first?

Yes, that's right.

Who?

That's right.

No, wait a minute. I'm askin' you, Who is on first at the Super Bowl halftime show?

And I'm tellin' you, Who is on first!

You're answering my question with another question!

No I'm not.

Ok, wait a minute. What is the name of the band playing for the halftime show of the Super Bowl this year?

Who.

THAT'S WHAT I WANNA KNOW! WHO??

That's right!

BWAAA-HAAA-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Russ Wever · Post by **Russ Wever** » 26 Nov 2009 9:34 pm

Rick Campbell · Post by **Rick Campbell** » 26 Nov 2009 10:51 pm

Bama, Are you getting this?

I just turned 50 an I've never watched a superbowl. This year I'm taping several hours of Joe's Polka show to watch while it's on.

I wish I did like sports because it's so plentful. There's always some ball games on TV, or some live events to go to.

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 27 Nov 2009 12:59 am

Rick,I already have enough Marty Sturet DVD'S to get me through the Superbowl, Sorry don't share your enthusiasm about BIG JOE,not knocking him now you know [He has a TV show,I don't]but his wagon is one mule short for me. Myron Floren was the only accordionist I could handle. YOU BETCHA,DYK?BC.

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 27 Nov 2009 2:01 am

Jim, I think you should make "Steeling Tommy" CD.

I bet it would be great.

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 27 Nov 2009 3:11 am

There's an artistic phase known as "classicism" which describes not the peak of a culture, but a period during the decline and fall when then the culture is grasping after lost greatness. It was seen in ancient Egypt when the later pharaohs were making crappy little imitation pyramids, it was seen in Rome when, try as they might, their best poets, writers and sculptors were sucking wind, trying to match the earlier Greeks.

Here in America, it takes the form of endless movies which either remake earlier triumphs of 50's & 60's Hollywood, or even look to 60's and 70's television sitcoms for their guidance and genius. It takes the form of music which is seemingly caught on an endless recycle loop, with nothing on radio or TV that isn't a pastiche of earlier efforts. And, it takes the form of dinosaurs trundling around at the Superbowl - 'tis a pity the establishment couldn't acknowledge back then what we now know to be true, that the Rolling Stones, the Who, Springsteen and Aerosmith were the peak of human culture and we've only decay ahead. 'N Sync? Blondie? Kid Rock....

Joe Casey · Post by **Joe Casey** » 27 Nov 2009 7:19 am

Hey Jim! What?

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 27 Nov 2009 7:26 am

THE WHO to play Super Bowl XLIV halftime

These days, isn't this somewhat akin to hearing your music in the elevator?

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 27 Nov 2009 7:30 am

Would it be any different if it were Ray Price?

Ya can't have it both ways, complaining that today's music is crap and then bemoaning the collapse of western civilization when the "older" acts get booked instead...

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 27 Nov 2009 7:48 am

Whatever the societal implications of having them play the Super Bowl are, they were one terrific band in their heyday. And I really do think that a steel guitar interpretation of some of their music would be worthwhile.

BTW, I saw hem in 1967. The were the opening act for Herman's Hermits! We left during the intermission before H H came on, as did most of the people in the audience. I wonder how Peter Noone and the guys in his band (as well as the promoters) felt about that.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 27 Nov 2009 8:25 am

They must be getting rich all over again from CSI:Miami.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 27 Nov 2009 8:50 am

BTW, I saw hem in 1967

I saw them in 1969 and '70... back then you could walk right up to the edge of the stage for an up-close look. We stood about 30 feet away from Pete Townshend and Keith Moon for the entire show. And the ticket price was $3. That's $18 in today's money, according to an on line inflation calculator. Today's corporate concerts, $150 tickets with service charges, concert Rules, no cameras, no drinks, no food... no thanks. I'm glad I got to see so many classic bands in their heyday. Great memories.

Joachim Kettner · Post by **Joachim Kettner** » 27 Nov 2009 9:35 am

I wonder if happy Jack can still see the pictures of Lily from miles away.

Rick Campbell · Post by **Rick Campbell** » 27 Nov 2009 1:23 pm

On thing you can say about football, etc.... the evolution theory that is applied to country music is not there. The objective to make a touchdown, hit a home run, put the round ball in the round hoop, etc.... have remained unchanged in all these years of playing. I think there might have been a few minor rule changes, but nothing major. They have used the "change with the times", progression, evolution, etc.... factors to allow the technology to have better TV broadcast, instant replay, better safety equipment, etc... but the basics of the games are unchanged. I wish country music could take some lessons from the sports industry.

Sometimes they develop a new sport, like kick boxing. So they give it a new name with it's on set of rules. They didn't simply allow regular boxers to kick one another and say "oh everything changes with the times, we must accept how boxing has evolved, and all the BS. Seems to me that they have more respect for their industry and keeping it within the proper boundries, than the music industry does.

AJ Azure · Post by **AJ Azure** » 27 Nov 2009 1:45 pm

Rick Campbell wrote:
Sometimes they develop a new sport, like kick boxing. So they give it a new name with it's on set of rules. They didn't simply allow regular boxers to kick one another and say "oh everything changes with the times, we must accept how boxing has evolved, and all the BS.

because, kickboxing had / has nothing to do with boxing and is far from a new sport. it came from muy thai in Thailand and other eastern martial arts. Totally invalid comparison to music. Music evolves because it is a creative, imagination based pursuit / field. Boxing is not.

Paul King · Post by **Paul King** » 27 Nov 2009 2:38 pm

Will they sing or lip synch? I will not watch them either way.

Rick Campbell · Post by **Rick Campbell** » 27 Nov 2009 2:54 pm

AJ Azure wrote:
Rick Campbell wrote:
Sometimes they develop a new sport, like kick boxing. So they give it a new name with it's on set of rules. They didn't simply allow regular boxers to kick one another and say "oh everything changes with the times, we must accept how boxing has evolved, and all the BS.

because, kickboxing had / has nothing to do with boxing and is far from a new sport. it came from muy thai in Thailand and other eastern martial arts. Totally invalid comparison to music. Music evolves because it is a creative, imagination based pursuit / field. Boxing is not.

My point exactly.They are two different things and they have enough respect for each to keep them within their own boundries. I see a lot of similarities because the new country seems to me to not be new, but a carry over from the rock/pop music of a few decades ago. Being creative is one thing, but when you change the music outside of it's genre, I think the name should change too. Just my observation on this.

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 27 Nov 2009 3:00 pm

Doug mentioned ticket prices.The good old days are gone. Today you have to get a loan to see ONE artist[use that term with tongue in cheek] When I was a teen they would have package shows. In rock and country. Remember seeing Chuck Berry,The Drifters,Fats,Platters,Big Booper,and several more on one show,seems the tickets were about two bucks.Around 57 had a little band that would open country shows in Atlanta [by the way Jerry Reed was an opening act on the shows] I remember one that had Skeeter Davis,Johnny Horton,Little Jimmy,Earnest,on one show, think the tickets were around five bucks. And the tours with Chet,Floyd, and Boots. Those days are gone. YOU BETCHA,DYK?BC.

AJ Azure · Post by **AJ Azure** » 27 Nov 2009 6:12 pm

Rick Campbell wrote:
AJ Azure wrote:
Rick Campbell wrote:
Sometimes they develop a new sport, like kick boxing. So they give it a new name with it's on set of rules. They didn't simply allow regular boxers to kick one another and say "oh everything changes with the times, we must accept how boxing has evolved, and all the BS.

because, kickboxing had / has nothing to do with boxing and is far from a new sport. it came from muy thai in Thailand and other eastern martial arts. Totally invalid comparison to music. Music evolves because it is a creative, imagination based pursuit / field. Boxing is not.
My point exactly.They are two different things and they have enough respect for each to keep them within their own boundries. I see a lot of similarities because the new country seems to me to not be new, but a carry over from the rock/pop music of a few decades ago. Being creative is one thing, but when you change the music outside of it's genre, I think the name should change too. Just my observation on this.

I get your point. it just makes no sense. Music isn't genre based. Rather than obsess on a label created to categorize records listen to music that catches your ear and spend less time trying to define it. Also don't be so offended by someone calling it country.
This musical genre rigidness / mental constipation ultimately is a disservice to yourself rather than an enjoyment. This also has 0 to do with respect for something. That's so much about pesonalizing something completely non-offense intended.

Music evolves (sports are not a valid comparison at all, they're not a creative entity who;s very core is about growth and evolution) that is and it has always been its' nature. Music in its' very basic form, i.e. a song has some sort of evolutioon or its' quite boring.

To be an active listener and certainly any pro musician you must be willing to stretch. otherwise you stagnate in to a rut-like, sloth state where your ears and mental musicality become quite lazy. What's the fun in that?

Rick Campbell · Post by **Rick Campbell** » 27 Nov 2009 7:05 pm

I don't want to hijack the thread to turn it into a real country vs. new country debate. Your points are noted, and everyone knows how I feel. Let's don't waste any time on it. Back to the original topic about the superbowl.

Joachim Kettner · Post by **Joachim Kettner** » 27 Nov 2009 8:41 pm

The Who was always a very interesting band, not only the first power trio (three instruments, plus singer), but also developing musicaly in many diverse directions. Even in the later records Face Dances and It's Hard you could hear their inventivness!

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 28 Nov 2009 12:31 am

"The Who" playing a gig in 2010?

Keith Moon and John Entwistle are dead!

What's the point of a "band" having a "band name"?

Hey, maybe they should have booked "The Beatles", with Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Insertname and Insertname.

Gimme a break!

Olli Haavisto · Post by **Olli Haavisto** » 28 Nov 2009 3:54 am

I saw them two years ago with Zak Starkey and Pino Palladino and they still are The Who, very much so...