I am so glad someone at the Super Bowl has enough sense or whatever it is that motivates them to put classic rockers on as the hafltime show of the Superbowl instead of the Britney Spears or Kanye Wests or Taylor Swifts of the world.
I have always been a big Who fan, although before tonight almost all that fandom is in my memory and in my CD collection. They haven't made new music of consequence in decades. So I was a little curious as to how they would do at haltime of the Superbowl. I thought they were great. The music sounded fresh, the playing was superb, and the whole 12 minutes seemed brimming with excitement and enthusiasm.
Then I looked at a few web sites featuring commentary on the 'concert' and found a bunch of criticism about them being 'geezers' and 'boring' and 'over the hill', and 'embarrassing' , along with what I expected to see, many really good reviews and comments.
I honestly don't think people can be objective about something like this, younger people believe rock music is for young people, and the very idea of a 65 year old playing ear splitting guitar notes is nauseating. Consequently, no matter how well the Who did tonight, ageism, musical ageism was going to be brought forth. It's a generation gap, as we used to say so often.
Is rock and roll a young man's ( and woman's) game?
I think entertainers hate to give up the spotlight, and do what they know. Crooners like Perry Como and Andy Williams were doing their thing well into their 80's. Sinatra came close, Tony Bennett is still performing pretty regularly. Why would anyone think it would be different for the Who and Mick Jagger and Santana and Mc Cartney?
This was so much better than having some pathetic rappers soiling the Super Bowl stage with their nonsense it's not even funny.



