OT - No more geezer rock

If next year, John Densmore and Ray Manzareck play, can we call it "The Doors"? No camera shots of the lead singer, only John and Ray. (Maybe include Robbie, if he's willing to).

really ceased to be The Who when Moon died, and definitely when Entwistle died, I don't care what Daltry and Townsend think. "Hope I die before I get old," indeed- nice way to make a lyric ironic. -- geezer who was a big Who fan way back when

their ridiculous stunt. I thought The Who was OK and I'm 45. I thing Springsteen was a good idea. Problem is, what current act could they run out there to keep the crowd fired up that won't have the execs and the guys in truck sweating bullets waiting for an f-bomb or obscene gesture? Delay or no delay, you can't bleep out parts of the halftime show or have half the audience change the channel when the show starts. Shaina Twain is great to look at, but she probably doesn't keep an audience, The Who or the Stones can get us middle-agers to relate, but the younger (hipper)crowd is bored. Clapton would be cool, but not enough energy to keep the crowd into it. He couldn't really sing Cocaine, could he? The Rap and Hip-Hop guys probably couldn't trusted to keep it clean and the 40-plus crowd would leave the room. It's a tough sell no matter who's on the stage. AC/DC would get the crowd going, but is it too heavy for the network? U2 would make some political statement and cost too much. Is there anyone else left?

Broadcast a live puppy bowl from the stadium. I dare you not to watch that.

None- they let it burn out and then they follow it around for twenty years.....

GUCCI & WAKA FLOCKA

GUCCI & WAKA FLOCKA ...........double post, posting from my phone.

They should just have two bands play at each halftime during the playoffs; then whittle it down to the the last two "best" bands to play at the Super Bowl halftime and the crowd/audience votes for the winner. I could care less if they're famous, after defeating 2-4 other bands during the playoffs they'd BE famous. We get enough commercials during the game as it is, at least this might add a bit of legitimate variety and drama.

Kidding me? Yea I really want to hear some rapper! Or maybe some nobody that can rap and can't sing a lick. I guess I am just to old for this thread! Sorry!

Am I the only one saddened that they didn't play My Generation in all of its ironic "...hope I die before I get old..." glory?

Speaking of "safe," was it really safe to have Prince on there a few years ago, stroking his giant demonic guitar phallus?

What better place to mend the fences between Waters and Gilmour than the SB. Who wouldn't want to watch Gilmour play those syruppy smooth solos from Comfortably Numb.

Presenting the Superbowl XLV Halftime Show:

It wasn't the best but I enjoyed the halftime show. I still think it's a shame that Metallica hasn't played the SB halftime show yet.

I'm twenty-two, and I loved the fuck out of the half-time show. The Who wrote some of the greatest rock 'n roll songs ever written. Period. They have earned the right to play them whenever, wherever, until they die. Honestly, anyone who says they'd rather hear Lady fucking Gaga instead of The Who at ANY age either a.) lacks any sense of Western music's history or b.) has deplorable taste. Geezer rock for the win.

I'm confused as many posters say they don't like the old rock, but when at UM games, the young, hip students sing "Living on a Prayer" and "Don't Stop Believing" at the top of their lungs. I highly doubt that they would have a problem with Bon Jovi or Journey playing the show. I do agree, however, that the networks and league will continue to push for older rock that can accommodate the mass audience, and whether I would want it or not, I can't see rap appealing to the masses that watch the Super Bowl. Also, to those who want Jay-Z, he is now over 40. I not sure the young crowd would want a "geezer" rapper up their performing.

is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, I'm frankly glad that the NFL has given some classic rock artists the stage, because it's much better than the alternative. I would much rather have bands like The Who play than have to listen to the latest craptacular artist being forced upon our ears by Disney. The older bands are still popular, and at many of them are actually good. All of the mass-market bands today suck, and because the NFL won't ever schedule the modern innovative bands like Radiohead or the Arcade Fire, we would be stuck with absolute garbage like the Jonas Brothers or something equally lame. Given that lowest common denominator aspect, put the bands onstage that don't suck. And because we're too prudish in this country to allow swear words on television, we'll never get to see some of the great rappers perform at the Super Bowl halftime show. It makes me laugh when people who watch hundreds of murders and thousands of acts of violence on TV every year get up to complain about WORDS. As for the actual show, I don't get all of the people saying that The Who were terrible - sure, it wasn't a perfect performance. But that's just how live music is - I don't think some of the younger people out there today realize just how much the modern recording studio has affected music. I'm in my early twenties and I didn't find out until recently just how much modern equipment can improve the raw tracks. One of the comments upthread nailed it - autotune can make any somewhat-talented bimbo (like Swift or whoever the latest blonde-haired object is) sound good. Go listen to recordings of Stevie Nicks and Fleetwood Mac performing "Rhiannon" in the 70s, and then listen, if you dare, to this year's Grammy version where Swift took the lead. The appeal of live music is that it DOESN'T sound sterile or perfect - it's imperfect music being played by imperfect human beings, but it has character and improvisation and a resonance that studio recordings just often seem to lack. I for one, thought The Who played pretty well considering their age. And their stage, as customary, was very impressive.