General Music Chat

Colors,

I think those questions "ARE" relevant. And the reason why, is because you are dismissing HISTORY as part of this equation. You are judging them as if they are a NEW band, coming out on stage and presenting themselves to the world for the first time. And yes, if we are using that judgement, then they left alot to be desired.

But when you factor in their AGE and their HISTORY and that they are LEGENDS... it changes the equation.

I would compare it to an aging ball player like Babe Ruth, and a father takes his son out to see him play, though he has lost a step or two, and no longer hits as accurately.

The father says to his son... "That's him right there! He's older now, but he can still get around the field pretty well.... do you know son, that when I was your age, I watched him do something that to this day stands in the record books. I was sitting half way up the stands, and I watched as he came to the plate, and he...."

This was a HISTORIC event, because these are LEGENDS of Rock and Roll. A whole new generation got to see that, though these guys are in their mid 60's, they still know how to rock. It was a great chance for bonding between generations, as older fans can share with the younger, what these guys were all about back in the day, and it expands the horizons of young people, growing up mostly with Rap, Dance Pop and Screamo, and let's them hear some great classic rock, and get to know these great songs once again.

You cannot just "forget", that these guys, are the age, that some people get put into nursing homes at bro!

Being able to do something is not a prerequisite for criticism.

HUH??? How can one criticize something another hasn't done or is not capable of?

We're all musicians here, if you want to criticize the Who, that's fine with me but also keep in mind the conditions. And I stick by what I said, I feel it was very valid. If you want to say they were old, didn't play well, lip synched or whatever, fine.

I still ask...

Could YOU do better?

Perfect way to frame it if you ask me, if you wanna slam them, ok put up or shut up. Could YOU do better??? They have proven themselves for over 40 years. You saw that, the whole stadium was singing along...

so can you do better?

I don't want to attack you personally, but you're not thinking straight on this...

How can one criticize something another hasn't done or is not capable of?

People do it all the time. Exhibit A: I don't think Simon Cowell could carry a tune in a bucket, but he's a brilliant critic of vocal performances. It's because he UNDERSTANDS what sounds good and what doesn't, and what makes a performance electric, and what does not.

Exhibit B: I don't know jack sh*t about plastic surgery, but I can spot a bad boob job just as easily as the next guy. I don't have to be a surgeon to critique someone else's work.

Just like YOU don't have to be a chef to critique a meal you had a local restaurant. Your taste buds will let you know if it was a good job or not...

Criticism is about observation and synthesis. It's about taking input through your five senses and then analyzing the result. Was that meal any good? Was that breast implant botched? Did "The Who" give a great performance, a bad one, or was it just mediocre?


You do not have to be able to DO something in order to be a critic of something. You just have to be able to THINK and ANALYZE what is happening. Being critical of something requires intelligence, not skill and talent.

Skill and talent are required for PERFORMANCE.

You're mistaking performance for criticism and acting like they're the same thing. They're not.




Again, I am not trying to cut on you personally here - you're making a fairly common mistake that has been made by many people before you, and I am sure many more after you will make the same mistake.

But skill and talent in a thing is not a prerequisite to being able to criticize something...

Here's another old saying for you Pete:

I don't know what good art is, but I know what I like.

Watch the movie "All About Eve". George Sanderson's character was the theater critic for the newspaper, and though he never worked in the theater, he was feared by theater folk for what he could write. Of course it helps to have some background knowledge of a subject to be able to be a good critic, it's not required to have actually done the thing.

Colors,

I think those questions "ARE" relevant. And the reason why, is because you are dismissing HISTORY as part of this equation. You are judging them as if they are a NEW band, coming out on stage. And yes, if we are using that judgement, then they left alot to be desired.

But when you factor in their AGE and their HISTORY and that they are LEGENDS... it changes the equation.

Craig, you're misreading me here... it's disappointing that you're interjecting into this discussion, but I am not surprised. It's what you do.

I could have sworn this was an open DISCUSSION forum.

Did I miss the button labeled "private chat"?

Gotta run... meeting a prospective client at the studio!

I'll check back later!

This was a HISTORIC event, because these are LEGENDS of Rock and Roll. A whole new generation got to see that, though these guys are in their mid 60's, they still know how to rock. It was a great chance for bonding between generations, as older fans can share with the younger, what these guys were all about back in the day, and it expands the horizons of young people, growing up mostly with Rap, Dance Pop and Screamo, and let's them hear some great classic rock, and get to know these great songs once again.

You cannot just "forget", that these guys, are the age, that some people get put into nursing homes at bro!

It was a historic event because it was a superbowl, not because The Who played at halftime.


I'm looking at this from the point of view of the event itself: it's an American event, and it's Football.

Pete Townshend is 70 years old. If you're telling me that over 50% of that crowd attending the Super Bowl was comprised of 70-year-old people, I'm going to disagree.

The super bowl is an expensive event. It's for corporate people and their families. The average age of people at the event is probably between 30-50 years old.

From my point of view, you don't drag out a couple of aging 70-year-old rockers to an event comprised of mainly people from the 30-50 age group. If you want to appeal to the crowd, you need to bring someone in that more of the audience can connect with.

On top of that, they were clearly not at the top of their game. Again, I say the stage was great - best I've ever seen. But that performance wasn't exciting and I don't see how it connects with a 30-year-old from Wall Street who obviously didn't grow up listening to them.

That's my opinion. You're free to disagree as I know you will.

It was more entertaining than a marching band. I got my money's worth, since it was on tv. The Who is the Who, rock-n-roll royalty. You don't throw rotton tomatoes at your wife because she's getting old and her boobies are sagging. I'm just saying. Ya bunch of old jaded bastards.

It was more entertaining than a marching band. I got my money's worth, since it was on tv. The Who is the Who, rock-n-roll royalty. You don't throw rotton tomatoes at your wife because she's getting old and her boobies are sagging. I'm just saying. Ya bunch of old jaded bastards.

Nah my wife left me when I started sagging!

Best thing that ever happened to me!

From my point of view, you don't drag out a couple of aging 70-year-old rockers to an event comprised of mainly people from the 30-50 age group. If you want to appeal to the crowd, you need to bring someone in that more of the audience can connect with.

I get you. But the crowd WAS singing with them on many of the songs, and cheering wildly for them. Maybe it came across better THERE than on TV?

I guess what it seems to come down to, is what someone's opinion of The Who was "BEFORE" they got old. When you consider them legends, you are probably more likely to appreciate seeing them live... even at this age. If fact, it would make you think it was pretty cool, that they are still going at it like that! If you didn't really care for them BEFORE, then of course, it would be a bad choice, for those people.

That's my opinion. You're free to disagree as I know you will.

Well, not completely. No band will please everyone. I don't mind seeing legends, even when they are past their prime. In fact, at that age, it's cool to me, that ANYONE could pull that off.

But I agree with you, that there is plenty of room to put some more modern acts. There are some modern bands that have some songs that have crossover appeal.

I was thinking that maybe it would be a cool idea, that they find a LOCALLY FAMOUS act to perform, either at half time, as a warm up for a big name, or maybe as a pre-game concert.

They know which stadium the game will be held in, well in advance of the Superbowl. Let's say it was going to be played in the Superdome in Louisiana... so you get a big LOCAL act from there, to play in the show. It would be a boon to local acts. Showcasing the talent of a band known in that particular city or state, and would give them great exposure to an international audience, as well as highlighting the musical flavor of that particular city... A chance for the music of that city to shine, on a national or international stage.

Or a band representing each team's city/state. So in this case we could have had Dr. John the Nightripper and John Mellencamp.

I guess what it seems to come down to, is what someone's opinion of The Who was "BEFORE" they got old. When you consider them legends, you are probably more likely to appreciate seeing them live... even at this age.

I'm well aware of the legendary status of "The Who". I learned one of their songs (that they played at the Super Bowl) when I was cutting my teeth on my first guitar. Their status and legacy are not at question; at least not to me.

To me, this is like saying your going to put on a passing clinic for college players, and to do it you're going to get Joe Montana - when he's 70.

Now, Joe's status in the NFL is set. He's a Hall of Famer. His legacy is cast.

But if I want to put on a clinic for how to throw the football and quarterback a team and manage a game, I need to get someone relevant.... Someone like Peyton Manning or Drew Breese. Someone who is actually playing in the NFL, who the players know and can recognize and relate to....


To me, putting The Who on that stage was like putting Montana in a passing camp for kids when he's 70 years old and well beyond his prime. Sure, he probably has a thing or two he can teach kids, but he's clearly beyond his years...

But I agree with you, that there is plenty of room to put some more modern acts. There are some modern bands that have some songs that have crossover appeal.

And that's all I'm really trying to say.

Your logic is slightly flawed CF. The Who were not there to "put on a clinic", they were there to entertain people at the event and all over the world. I'm guessing that most people would say it was entertaining, even though we have dissected their performance and its shortcomings.

To me it's more like inviting Don Rickles to a roast; sure the guy's old and maybe not as funny as he used to be, but he's a legend. And you must respect legends.

150 million people watched the Superbowl. I bet most of them said "Oh cool The Who is performing... These guys are rock legends."

but he's a legend. And you must respect legends.

Precisely!