>I have to admit I'm confused by much of the attitude regarding The Who, and >their continued approach as performers. I don't think that other veterans >get as much gruff as they do, so I'm truly interested to hear opinions as >to what sets them apart. Why does the listening audience become so cynical >and vocal about them, as opposed to other acts like the Rolling Stones, >Pretty Things, NRBQ, Buddy Guy, BB King, Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan etc >etc.... I think possibly several reasons apply: * Many felt the band lost it when Moon dies, but after Ox went and they became The Two, it's like Keith and Mick with a backing band. * Because they are not releasing relevant new music and haven't for a long time; even longer than it's been for The Stones * Because they clearly are not as powerful as they once were, and teenage anthems coming from a guy in his sixties doesn't look right, especially in arenas. (Does anyone really believe Mick can't get any satisfaction?) * Because they did a farewell tour in the early 80s yet they're still here. That makes Brett Favre look like an amateur. I think people like Buddy Guy and BB King get a pass, and NRBQ and The Pretty Things are not household names (injustice but true), but none of them are going around playing greatest hits tours in stadiums. And I don't know who you talk to but I hear Macca and Dylan take a boatload of crap. Personally I'm fine with all of them doing what they want as long as they can - in today's world their presence does not preclude me from listening to anyone else. Nothing wrong with guys past 60 making music if they're still making music - Ian Hunter is at the top of his game, for example. See below: http://drbristol.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/t-g-i-f-ten-rock-survivors/ As for the SB, it didn't affect me either way. I didn't think it was a big deal that The Who were playing, and like every other performer except Prince, they really didn't do anything spectacular to seize the moment. But then again I don't watch the Super Bowl for the music. cheers bill