I'd like to see you
write in your
60s...if you can
still remember how
to spell. Go a
little easy on these
guys. They've been
rocking longer than
you've been alive.
Don't group Prince
in with the
geriatrics. His was
the best performance
ever. To do so shows
that you missed it
or at least that you
need to check for a
pulse.
As for this The
Who... The original
was the most
overrated band in
rock history. And
now they really are
a sad mockery of
even that.
Congrats to the
Saints.
Who are you for
saying they did a
bad job. The Who are
one of the best
bands ever and rock
stars do get older I
hope you realize
that. Give them a
break Daltrey did a
great job and is
still singing in the
right key, and
Townshend always
plays great guitar.
It's a little
difficult to play
only portions of
your songs when
you're use to
playing the full
length of it so I
wasn't surprised
when they messed up.
I bet you wouldn't
be able to any of
this shit when your
65.
This article is
trash. Just somebody
looking to cut
people down. The
halftime show was
great - The Who
rocked. And,
"proving once again
that the big game's
commercials are
often a lot more
entertaining than
what happens on the
field"? Are you
really a football
fan? Because from
the sound of it, you
really hate the
super bowl...
Face it . . . right
from the start we
heard Roger Daltrey
unable to hit the
opening notes of the
song -- which was
particularly evident
in Baba O'Reilly . .
. I think The Who
were awesome in
their day, and put
on terrific shows,
but this wasn't one
of them. To say the
least . . .
The Stones in '06
looked a bit old,
but they were
struttin' and
working hard; The
Who, alas, didn't --
and I was willing to
cut them a lot of
slack.
I predict that
this year's show
will be the end of
the bands from the
1960's (and/or, the
end of the bands
comprised of 60-year
olds). That doesn't
thrill me (I'm in my
50's myself, and
this is the music I
grew up to, and
still listen to),
but I understand the
need for a show with
real energy. The Who
just didn't have it
tonight.
I don't think
DeRogatis is being
overly harsh, just
overly honest.
The Who did not get
paid for this
performance. You
need to check your
facts before you
write a review of
the show. You called
it a "high-profile
pay day." Wrong.
Most of it was
Pete's poor playing
and they were out of
sync as said. Roger
didn't get his voice
til the 4th song.
All that said I'll
take The Who over
any of the current
generation of
"talent."
The Who are true
legends and it was
fantastic to see
them perform. What a
sad life you must
lead to be such a
sourpus about a
great band putting
on a great show.
Steve Dahl had you
peg years ago as a
hack! I saw The Who
a few years back at
the Sears Centre and
they sounded great
just like they did
when I saw them in
1980 at the
International
Amphitheater.
Obviously you have
never been a fan of
them and that's
fine, but for one
that has seen them a
dozen times over 30
years I can tell you
this, The Who still
rocks!
Jim is exactly
right. Townshend and
Daltrey were WAY out
of synch on the
vocal harmonies.
Daltrey has no vocal
range left, and I
read somewhere that
Townshend's guitars
were pre-recorded,
presumably to
facilitate his tired
windmill act. And
no, they don't
deserve a break for
being old. This is
not kindergarten.
There is no medal
for participation.
They are not even
the Who. They are
the Half-Who. They
should be called
Daltrey, Townshend &
the Fill-Ins.
The performance
was an
embarrassment, and
it was obvious to
everyone not wearing
rose-colored Who-fanboy
glasses.
You sir, are a
douche. Sorry. Can't
think of any other
more appropriate
word. You obviously
didn't see the same
halftime show the
rest of the world
saw. So, why don't
you go put on your
earpods, grieve
about your sorry
existence as a fat,
negative, middle
aged emo with a
laptop, that vents
because you can't
even figure out how
to tap a plastic
stick so you can
score points on
Guitar Hero. Let
alone have a clue
how to play a barred
E chord on a
stratocaster. I'm
sure nobody is going
to be reading your
drivel when you're
64.
Your article is
crap!!! The Who are
one of the world's
best rock bands, if
not the best. These
guys write their own
songs, play real
instruments and put
together music, they
are musicians!! and
still kicking ass at
65!!! They've blown
away Woodstock, The
Isle of Wight
Festival, Leeds, The
9-11 concert and
countless many more.
They are in my book,
one of the finest.
Congrats to Pete and
Roger for rocking
all these years,
keep it up.
Dude, you are a
total DICK. Get it
"DICK"! The WHO
sounded great and
more so for the fact
of their age. The
crowd was singing it
and they had good
energy. If I was
your boss I would
CAN your Whinning
ass fast. SISSY! Why
don'tr you go bitch
about something that
is worth bitching
about BITCH! Go take
your skirt off and
learn to be a man.
How you like them
apples. Your article
sucks!
I nominate the
Young@Heart chorus
for next year's
Superbowl. Too old
for the wardrobe
malfunctions that
caused this geezer
parade in the first
place, and truer to
their art than the
Who Inc.
I think some of you
are overlooking the
fact that the
network that aired
the Super Bowl also
uses many of The
Who's songs for
their television
shows. While the
band played on, the
cast of all the
CSI's should have
been on stage doing
a choreographed
dance of some kind,
that would have made
the show more
entertaining. Yeah,
The Who did rock the
9-11 concert, but
that was also 9
years and 3 original
members ago. I think
the medley idea was
good, but overall I
was disappointed and
I do understand the
age factor.
When
will they start
bringing in younger
talent? Doesn't have
to be obscene, it
just has to be
entertaining. I'd
take a marching band
performance any day,
at least no one
would be offended.
I grew up a huge Who
fan. That Super Bowl
performance was one
of the worst
performances I have
ever seen on TV. I
don't even know why
they were selected,
they have not done
anything for a
decade.
That show WAS
pathetic. I love the
Who and they are one
of the greatest rock
bands off all time
but let's face it,
their time was over
years ago. Just
because you are
great in the past
doesn't mean you are
great in your 60's.
I bet you CBS "Won't
get fooled again"!
I give them a B-;
the band was a bit
stiff at first and
understandably so;
12 minutes isn't
enough to get
loose...
Speaking from my
experience, most
bands loosen up, get
more fluid and
cohesive as night
goes along;
My Wife and I were
smiling at each
other w/
satisfaction
watching my son
dancing around w/
his GH guitar
strapped on and
mimicking Pete's
windmill power
chords!!
For "2 grizzled
old pros" to be on
their "A" game right
out of the gate is
askin' a lot. So
please find a clue
and show some
respect.
THE WHO HALF TIME
SHOW WAS
GREAT...SURE THEIR
OLDER & NOT ALL THE
ORIGINAL BAND
MEMBERS BUT HEY
THEIR ENGERY & MUSIC
IS STILL ONE OF THE
BEST SHOWS OUT.. SO
LIGHTEN UP... DON'T
BE A HATTER..SMOKEM
IF YOU GOT'M AND
ENJOY THE SHOW
So I re-watched this
today on YouTube.
All the instruments
seem to match up
with the music, as
do the vocals
themselves, but his
mouthing is way off
at some points. I
think Roger
pre-recorded his
vocals. Watch "Won't
Get Fooled Again,"
his mouth is not
saying what the
words are. He is
behind.
And this
is coming from a fan
of The Who, past or
present. I've seen
and heard recent
live stuff, it can
still sound great.
But it breaks my
heart to think they
lip-synched.
I think there were
several ways to look
at the performance.
Yes, compared to
what they were 30-40
years ago, it was
sad. Roger's voice
range isn't what it
once was and it's
hard to jump around
when your knees
ache. So measured by
that standard, maybe
it was a
disappointment.
But to their fans,
the performance by
The Who's Left was a
great reminder of
what once was. It
brought them (the
fans) back to their
youth and it was
music that still
reaches through the
generations. They
have done a great
job of keeping their
catalogue in front
of people in TV ads
and shows. Remember
the Hummer ad (I
think) with "Happy
Jack"? The problem
with having a very
young band is that
no one over 35 will
be entertained -
they don't know the
music and don't
identify with it,
especially since
"Rock" long ago
splintered into
Heavy Metal, Punk,
Ska, Hip-hop, etc.
At least the younger
viewers know the
anthems of people
like The Who, the
Stones, Tom Petty,
etc.
Was it sad? Yeah,
in a certain way.
Because it reminded
us of what we have
become or will
become - old, with
all its infirmities
and failings. To The
Who's original fans,
it was like looking
in a mirror. To the
young and still
immortal, it was a
glimpse of what is
to come. The Who
once played at my
high school (yes,
$3.50/ticket -
Shawnee Mission
South, Nov. 1967),
"Hope I die before I
get old,...talkin'
'bout my
ge-ge-generation..."
Well, they have
gotten old. We
should all be so
lucky. Strong and
powerful in their
20's, they are still
giving "Maximum R&B"
in their '60s. They
gave it what they
had and that's all
you can ask. I
enjoyed it just the
same. Rock will
never end....
I thought the half
time show of the
super bowl was not
that bad. The Who
did a good job. I
would rather see the
Who perform than
Justin Timberlake
and some teen
bopper. Hopefully
they can get Phish
to perform next that
would be pretty cool
or Stevie Wonder.
But I bet you they
will stick to people
such as Billy Joel
or Elton John which
are not bad but they
should also get some
bands who are main
stream and Phish is
one of them. They
are one of the top
grossing acts for a
concert and their
music is respectable
and can sing and
sound great. You
should hear Phish
sing the National
Anthem. They sound
awesome. How many
people have you
heard sing the
National Anthem and
sound awful and can
not get the pitch of
the notes? I can
tell you this go on
You Tube Phish sings
National Anthem at a
New Jersey Nets
Basketball game on
6-12-03. They did a
great job singing
the National Anthem.
I was a huge Who fan
back in the day, but
since their first
farewell tour back
in 82 or so I have
long thought that
they were done.
Based on musical
output since then I
think I am correct.
They absolutely lost
their edge when
Keith Moon died and
probably sometime
before then. But I’m
not trying to be one
of those types who
see the end in a
band when they lose
a founding member,
But I’m also not the
type to cling to a
band forever based
on their past
performances. I
still love and
respect the old
catalog, but I can
see the decline on
stage and in the
studio. Way back in
the late 70’s I
thought they had
lost their edge in
the recording
studio. The best Who
record of the last
30 years was Pete’s
Empty Glass in 1980.
Sure live they were
still a force, but a
fading one who, in
my opinion, have
sunk further and
further into parody
each time they hit
the stage. Sunday
was no exception.
The songs, all of
them were flat and
uninspired. Perhaps
it was the fact that
the audience was so
far from the stage,
that was definitely
a noticeable factor.
But the Who are not
a “greatest hits
medley” type of a
band. They need more
room for their songs
to come to life.
That said, based on
their last 30 years
track record, I
don’t think any
amount of time on
stage would have
helped. That being
said I was very
impressed with the
stage. As a visual
it was pretty darned
cool. I liked it
even better than
U2’s spaceship this
summer. Overall
though I agree with
Jim 100% on this
one, they should not
have been out there.
Who are they
going to get now?
Who are the acts
with a long history
and a deep catalog?
Elton John? Billy
Joel? Mellencamp for
Indy? How about ZZ
Top for Texas next
year? I really don’t
know who they will
choose but I till
definitely be an
older band with a
wide fan base.
And for those of
you seemign to get
angry with Jim, It's
his job to call them
as he see's it, not
to call it like you
want him to call it.
What is the point of
a columnist who is
never interesting or
original? We know
you will pan rock
acts that are past
their primes. We
know you like
obscure bands that
in your mind are
better than the acts
that are comfortable
and familiar to
older audiences. Why
bother to write it
again?
You could easily
have written this
before the halftime
show (perhaps you
did).
DeRogatis, you are
essentially Jay
Mariotti on a
different beat.
The folks railing on
Mr. DeRogatis here
probably haven't
bought a new record
in 31 years. Let's
move on, people. And
I know Zach Starkey
bears the name and
all, but COME ON.
Not even close to
paying tribute to
Mr. Moon. Simon
Phillips is long
tired of the smell
of old men, I
suppose.
The Who is not what
they once were,
understood. But, JIM
- who do you think
sets up the
fireworks, the sh*tty
light show, poor
camera angles, or
the awful medley of
song choices? CBS
and the NFL, not The
Who. Couple that
with your inaccurate
reporting that they
got paid and you
have an article that
wouldn't make it
through a freshmen
year journalism
course intact.
Long Live Rock, and
Long Live the Who,
the best band ever.
"What is the point
of a columnist who
is never interesting
or original? We know
you will pan rock
acts that are past
their primes. We
know you like
obscure bands that
in your mind are
better than the acts
that are comfortable
and familiar to
older audiences. Why
bother to write it
again?"
Well, I
think you answered
your own question.
"panning rock acts
that are past their
primes." Youre
admitting that these
bands are past their
primes... so what's
the problem? I mean,
what do you want?
Just give them a
pass because they
made good music 40
years ago? Be honest
with yourself: The
Who were a great
band. Up until 1975.
Now? They suck. It's
not BECAUSE they are
old. Plenty of old
rock acts are still
making good music to
this very day. Bob
Dylan. Neil
Young.... well,
that's all I can
think of now. But
you get my drift.
Even then, both of
them have made bad
albums or had bad
concerts. It
happens.
A music critic
isn't supposed to be
a blind fan who
gives artists free
passes simply
because they made
one or two good
records a while ago.
He's just that. "A
critic."
In fact, I'd
venture so far as to
say that real music
fans don't give
their favorite
artists free passes
either. I like the
Who. "Tommy" and
"Live at Leeds" are
brilliant. This
show, much like
everything they've
done since the late
1970s, sucked. It's
just that simple.
Lighten up Jim! I
have never been that
much of a Who fan
but, these "Old
Timers" got up there
and ROCKED! As bad
as it was I thought
it was better than
most of the new
garbage today.
I couldn't agree
more- and it has
nothing to do with
their age. It has
everything to do
with a weak,
uninspired
performance,
questionable sound,
and mediocre,
noodle-y playing. It
simply was not very
good, and there's no
reason to feel the
need to defend a
mediocre performance
just because ya love
The Who. They
deserve better than
that.
Age? Whatever. Neil
Young, Paul
McCartney, and scads
of excellent bands
and artists in that
age group have
kicked my ass
repeatedly and have
in many ways
improved with
experience, have
better than ever
chops and can wipe
the floor up with
plenty of 20
somethings. Pete and
Roger simply didn't
do that last week.
Look up
ponderosastomp dot
com if you want
confirmation that
talent can indeed be
ageless.
It's nothing
personal--no one can
be great all of the
time. Sometimes it
just doesn't happen.
Thanks for calling
it like you saw it
Jim. Taste,
standards and
discretion are too
often confused with
harshness.
When you give too
much slack to
mediocrity, it is
unfair to those who
transcend it.
As for this The Who... The original was the most overrated band in rock history. And now they really are a sad mockery of even that.
Congrats to the Saints.
You're a f---ing piece of s---!
Lick my a------ while I shoot a huge f---ng ---- -- --- all over your ugly f---ing face!
The Stones in '06 looked a bit old, but they were struttin' and working hard; The Who, alas, didn't -- and I was willing to cut them a lot of slack.
I predict that this year's show will be the end of the bands from the 1960's (and/or, the end of the bands comprised of 60-year olds). That doesn't thrill me (I'm in my 50's myself, and this is the music I grew up to, and still listen to), but I understand the need for a show with real energy. The Who just didn't have it tonight.
I don't think DeRogatis is being overly harsh, just overly honest.
They are not even the Who. They are the Half-Who. They should be called Daltrey, Townshend & the Fill-Ins.
The performance was an embarrassment, and it was obvious to everyone not wearing rose-colored Who-fanboy glasses.
When will they start bringing in younger talent? Doesn't have to be obscene, it just has to be entertaining. I'd take a marching band performance any day, at least no one would be offended.
Speaking from my experience, most bands loosen up, get more fluid and cohesive as night goes along;
My Wife and I were smiling at each other w/ satisfaction watching my son dancing around w/ his GH guitar strapped on and mimicking Pete's windmill power chords!!
For "2 grizzled old pros" to be on their "A" game right out of the gate is askin' a lot. So please find a clue and show some respect.
And this is coming from a fan of The Who, past or present. I've seen and heard recent live stuff, it can still sound great. But it breaks my heart to think they lip-synched.
But to their fans, the performance by The Who's Left was a great reminder of what once was. It brought them (the fans) back to their youth and it was music that still reaches through the generations. They have done a great job of keeping their catalogue in front of people in TV ads and shows. Remember the Hummer ad (I think) with "Happy Jack"? The problem with having a very young band is that no one over 35 will be entertained - they don't know the music and don't identify with it, especially since "Rock" long ago splintered into Heavy Metal, Punk, Ska, Hip-hop, etc. At least the younger viewers know the anthems of people like The Who, the Stones, Tom Petty, etc.
Was it sad? Yeah, in a certain way. Because it reminded us of what we have become or will become - old, with all its infirmities and failings. To The Who's original fans, it was like looking in a mirror. To the young and still immortal, it was a glimpse of what is to come. The Who once played at my high school (yes, $3.50/ticket - Shawnee Mission South, Nov. 1967), "Hope I die before I get old,...talkin' 'bout my ge-ge-generation..." Well, they have gotten old. We should all be so lucky. Strong and powerful in their 20's, they are still giving "Maximum R&B" in their '60s. They gave it what they had and that's all you can ask. I enjoyed it just the same. Rock will never end....
Long live Rock, dead or alive!"
You're just looking for reasons to dump on them.
When did Townshend ever sing in tune?
But what caught me most by surprise was Erin F's comment...
PHISH?! REALLY?!
I was a huge Who fan back in the day, but since their first farewell tour back in 82 or so I have long thought that they were done. Based on musical output since then I think I am correct. They absolutely lost their edge when Keith Moon died and probably sometime before then. But I’m not trying to be one of those types who see the end in a band when they lose a founding member, But I’m also not the type to cling to a band forever based on their past performances. I still love and respect the old catalog, but I can see the decline on stage and in the studio. Way back in the late 70’s I thought they had lost their edge in the recording studio. The best Who record of the last 30 years was Pete’s Empty Glass in 1980. Sure live they were still a force, but a fading one who, in my opinion, have sunk further and further into parody each time they hit the stage. Sunday was no exception.
The songs, all of them were flat and uninspired. Perhaps it was the fact that the audience was so far from the stage, that was definitely a noticeable factor. But the Who are not a “greatest hits medley” type of a band. They need more room for their songs to come to life. That said, based on their last 30 years track record, I don’t think any amount of time on stage would have helped. That being said I was very impressed with the stage. As a visual it was pretty darned cool. I liked it even better than U2’s spaceship this summer. Overall though I agree with Jim 100% on this one, they should not have been out there.
Who are they going to get now? Who are the acts with a long history and a deep catalog? Elton John? Billy Joel? Mellencamp for Indy? How about ZZ Top for Texas next year? I really don’t know who they will choose but I till definitely be an older band with a wide fan base.
And for those of you seemign to get angry with Jim, It's his job to call them as he see's it, not to call it like you want him to call it.
You could easily have written this before the halftime show (perhaps you did).
DeRogatis, you are essentially Jay Mariotti on a different beat.
One word, pussies: MASTODON.
Long Live Rock, and Long Live the Who, the best band ever.
Well, I think you answered your own question. "panning rock acts that are past their primes." Youre admitting that these bands are past their primes... so what's the problem? I mean, what do you want?
Just give them a pass because they made good music 40 years ago? Be honest with yourself: The Who were a great band. Up until 1975. Now? They suck. It's not BECAUSE they are old. Plenty of old rock acts are still making good music to this very day. Bob Dylan. Neil Young.... well, that's all I can think of now. But you get my drift. Even then, both of them have made bad albums or had bad concerts. It happens.
A music critic isn't supposed to be a blind fan who gives artists free passes simply because they made one or two good records a while ago. He's just that. "A critic."
In fact, I'd venture so far as to say that real music fans don't give their favorite artists free passes either. I like the Who. "Tommy" and "Live at Leeds" are brilliant. This show, much like everything they've done since the late 1970s, sucked. It's just that simple.
Age? Whatever. Neil Young, Paul McCartney, and scads of excellent bands and artists in that age group have kicked my ass repeatedly and have in many ways improved with experience, have better than ever chops and can wipe the floor up with plenty of 20 somethings. Pete and Roger simply didn't do that last week. Look up ponderosastomp dot com if you want confirmation that talent can indeed be ageless.
It's nothing personal--no one can be great all of the time. Sometimes it just doesn't happen.
Thanks for calling it like you saw it Jim. Taste, standards and discretion are too often confused with harshness.
When you give too much slack to mediocrity, it is unfair to those who transcend it.