Tell Me :
Talk
You doubt some of Daltry's vocals were dubbed??
Really?
I though they looked pretty good for a couple of old geezers and Pete just gets better with age! I think his playing is better now than in was 20 or 30 years ago. Unfortunately not the same for Daltry.
John Entwhistle is certainly missed, he added so much.
Green Day will definitely be Super Bowl material in another 15 years. The fat old white guys of 2025 will be misty-eyed with nostaligia for the Green Day concerts of their youth.
Ha - that's a laugh! There are plenty of bashers around for whom the Stones, whether individually or collectively, certainly ain't good enough. It doesn't take a crystal ball already to see what'll happen next time the Stones hit the stage.
If something could be wrong is to compare that performance to any other. Any other, by any other artist. Beyond music.
Hi S.S.,
I understand how emotive an issue that child-pornography is,and how this clouds the facts sometimes.
[www.petetownshendisinnocent.com] details what really went on,and what the mis-guided but well-intentioned old fool was doing.
Cheers,
Si.
Hi SimonN !
Thanks for the link .I had a quick look at it .Sorry but reading :
"He acknowledged using his credit card to enter a Web site advertising child pornography but he denied being a pedophile " is more than I can stand.
Oh,I see ,may be he meant he didn't sodomize the boy himself ????? He was just watching ?
Come on,would you give your credit card number to a site with ads of child pornography ? I won't .
Child pornography is illegal.
I apologize having brought the subject here,it's obviously not the point of this thread .
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
No,I haven't read it before I posted my 2d answer.So I'll edit it .
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
The Ed Sullivan Shows had a live vocal sung over a pre-recorded backing track.
Was that also true with the first Beatles Ed Sullivan appearence?
Surely the string section on 'As Tears Go By' in the Feb '66 show was playback?
You're certainly right about the first appearance (Oct '64) being live, though.
Ther were 5 appearances in total, isnt that right? Oct '64, Feb' 66, Aug '66, Jan '67 and Nov '69.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 15:36 by Gazza.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
1cdog
()
Date: February 9, 2010 03:50
Quote
black n blue
I doubt the vocals were dubbed. The part where Roger harp at the end looks like it was
You doubt some of Daltry's vocals were dubbed??
Really?
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
The Sicilian
()
Date: February 9, 2010 04:18
I'll chime in on the halftime event, I really think that they miss John Entwistle's presence on stage along with his playing. Starkey looks too young and out of place back there. In a way he was a slight distraction.
Pete's hat, scarf and shades just didn't cut it lookswise. We all know he can play. Roger looks too husky and he hair looks fake. He seems like he is wheezing at the mike. He did not sound good at all.
As far as the setlist is concerned well you can't expect much at this thing, it is an mega event that allowed them the exposure and it is like receiving a lifetime grammy award by taking the stage there.
Clearly, the Stones were way above this performance, but give the Who some credit, there is only two of them left. The thing is, this show is for the biggest audience any band will ever play in front of. Hopefully you see the best that they can offer at that time.
As much as we all complain about setlists and playin, we still have Mick singing strong. We should all be pleased about that.
Pete's hat, scarf and shades just didn't cut it lookswise. We all know he can play. Roger looks too husky and he hair looks fake. He seems like he is wheezing at the mike. He did not sound good at all.
As far as the setlist is concerned well you can't expect much at this thing, it is an mega event that allowed them the exposure and it is like receiving a lifetime grammy award by taking the stage there.
Clearly, the Stones were way above this performance, but give the Who some credit, there is only two of them left. The thing is, this show is for the biggest audience any band will ever play in front of. Hopefully you see the best that they can offer at that time.
As much as we all complain about setlists and playin, we still have Mick singing strong. We should all be pleased about that.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
coffeepotman
()
Date: February 9, 2010 04:30
Quote
The Sicilian
Pete's hat, scarf and shades just didn't cut it lookswise. We all know he can play. Roger looks too husky and he hair looks fake. He seems like he is wheezing at the mike. He did not sound good at all.
I though they looked pretty good for a couple of old geezers and Pete just gets better with age! I think his playing is better now than in was 20 or 30 years ago. Unfortunately not the same for Daltry.
John Entwhistle is certainly missed, he added so much.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
tomk
()
Date: February 9, 2010 04:43
A few thoughts: I thought the Who did okay, despite the lousy sound mix.
Then again I've HARDLY EVER heard a band sound good on live TV, there always seems to be something odd. Even the first Beatles Ed SUllivan show has kind of an strange mix (same for the Stones). Apparently the medley was Roger's idea.
Pete just wanted do four or five songs, which I feel they should have done
(Can't Explain, Substitute, and pick two others, in my opinion), that would have been too awesome. ANd I'm the biggest Who/Townshend fan in the world, but I really
don't like that Fender rig he's been using the past few years. I don't think it
fits his live sound as good as the Hiwatts. Also, WHo shows were always pretty much hit or miss gigs. They never were an in-between band...but this isn't the same WHo as the old day. I love Zak's drumming, but they sounded better live
with Kenny Jones.
Then again I've HARDLY EVER heard a band sound good on live TV, there always seems to be something odd. Even the first Beatles Ed SUllivan show has kind of an strange mix (same for the Stones). Apparently the medley was Roger's idea.
Pete just wanted do four or five songs, which I feel they should have done
(Can't Explain, Substitute, and pick two others, in my opinion), that would have been too awesome. ANd I'm the biggest Who/Townshend fan in the world, but I really
don't like that Fender rig he's been using the past few years. I don't think it
fits his live sound as good as the Hiwatts. Also, WHo shows were always pretty much hit or miss gigs. They never were an in-between band...but this isn't the same WHo as the old day. I love Zak's drumming, but they sounded better live
with Kenny Jones.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
Rip This
()
Date: February 9, 2010 05:21
.......all I know is that I haven't watched/gotten through an entire half time show except for the Stones....or Prince..hats of to the Who....loved the stage....
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
tatters
()
Date: February 9, 2010 05:38
Quote
Cafaro
The Who didnt cut it for me. Sorry. I would rather see a younger band. They have the "classic rock" bands play because 75% of the audience at the Super Bowl are older fat white guys.
Sorry but it;s the truth.
Did you see Steve Winwood? Awful.
The Who sounded pretty lame. Maybe it was the mix. Roger seemed out of breath. I don;t know....It was more like Pete/Roger vs. the Who. I havent enjoyed the Who since Who Are You anyway so....
I think that they should have newer acts up there myself. I would rather see someone on par with Green Day than a classic rock band like The Who.The Who are past their prime, let's see bands that are in their prime. there are a lot of really good rock bands out there that could use that exposure. What about putting a JAck White band up there, ot Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, The Donnas,even Brian Setzer.
Green Day will definitely be Super Bowl material in another 15 years. The fat old white guys of 2025 will be misty-eyed with nostaligia for the Green Day concerts of their youth.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 9, 2010 05:52
Sounded pretty good to me! I don't like medlies at all, cheesy, but at least the music sounded pretty good. And to my surprise Roger put out! Baba was particularly good.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
fyp933
()
Date: February 9, 2010 06:10
A couple of thoughts about the half time show
as a spectacle it was great
the Who were not as bad as I thought they were going to be be
(specifically Roger's vocals)
Roger sounded flat - if he was mostly lip syncing you would think they would of used a better vocal performance.
time to lose the 60's classic rock bands, maybe have Foo Fighters, Metallica, Green Day, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam or have Cheap Trick/Joan Jett share the half time doing 2 or 3 songs each.
as a spectacle it was great
the Who were not as bad as I thought they were going to be be
(specifically Roger's vocals)
Roger sounded flat - if he was mostly lip syncing you would think they would of used a better vocal performance.
time to lose the 60's classic rock bands, maybe have Foo Fighters, Metallica, Green Day, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam or have Cheap Trick/Joan Jett share the half time doing 2 or 3 songs each.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: February 9, 2010 06:15
Quote
Cafaro
The Who didnt cut it for me. Sorry. I would rather see a younger band. They have the "classic rock" bands play because 75% of the audience at the Super Bowl are older fat white guys.
Sorry but it;s the truth.Quote
Could you possibly be any more cliche or offensive. Go ahead and post a picture of your stud looking self and tell us all about your nobel prize winning life you @#$%& loser.
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
little queenie
()
Date: February 9, 2010 09:16
i thought the who sounded OK yesterday but after just watching the clip of the stones from 06 (thanks SCL) - the stones blew the who away...
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: February 9, 2010 09:25
yeah I agree the Stones were better.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 9, 2010 10:46
"No. The Music just wasn´t good and irrelevant."
And the stones were? Bah.....
And the stones were? Bah.....
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
Beast
()
Date: February 9, 2010 12:00
Quote
ablett
If it aint the stones then it aint good enough.
Ha - that's a laugh! There are plenty of bashers around for whom the Stones, whether individually or collectively, certainly ain't good enough. It doesn't take a crystal ball already to see what'll happen next time the Stones hit the stage.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
leteyer
()
Date: February 9, 2010 12:33
Quote
fuwa
I was disappointed. They looked flat compared to the Concert For New York City, 8 years ago.
If something could be wrong is to compare that performance to any other. Any other, by any other artist. Beyond music.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: February 9, 2010 13:11
Everyone can say what they want,but the Who really didn’t sound good.
"See Me Feel Me":
Pete Townshend is still on the U.K.'s official sex offenders list for accessing internet child pornography (he used his credit card to access a Texas-based child pornography website )
How come Janet's wardrobe malfunction was considered much more offensive than Townshend's presence now?
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
"See Me Feel Me":
Pete Townshend is still on the U.K.'s official sex offenders list for accessing internet child pornography (he used his credit card to access a Texas-based child pornography website )
How come Janet's wardrobe malfunction was considered much more offensive than Townshend's presence now?
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
leteyer
()
Date: February 9, 2010 13:23
Now, coming back to US-football.
They've already published the odds for the next SuperBowl:
"Indianapolis is a 7-1 favorite to take home the NFL championship, followed by the San Diego Chargers (8-1), New Orleans Saints (9-1) and the New England Patriots (10-1)."
They've already published the odds for the next SuperBowl:
"Indianapolis is a 7-1 favorite to take home the NFL championship, followed by the San Diego Chargers (8-1), New Orleans Saints (9-1) and the New England Patriots (10-1)."
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
SimonN
()
Date: February 9, 2010 13:31
Quote
SwayStones
"See Me Feel Me":
Pete Townshend is still on the U.K.'s official sex offenders list for accessing internet child pornography (he used his credit card to access a Texas-based child pornography website )
How come Janet's wardrobe malfunction was considered much more offensive than Townshend's presence now?
Hi S.S.,
I understand how emotive an issue that child-pornography is,and how this clouds the facts sometimes.
[www.petetownshendisinnocent.com] details what really went on,and what the mis-guided but well-intentioned old fool was doing.
Cheers,
Si.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: February 9, 2010 13:43
Quote
SimonNQuote
SwayStones
"See Me Feel Me":
Pete Townshend is still on the U.K.'s official sex offenders list for accessing internet child pornography (he used his credit card to access a Texas-based child pornography website )
How come Janet's wardrobe malfunction was considered much more offensive than Townshend's presence now?
Hi S.S.,
I understand how emotive an issue that child-pornography is,and how this clouds the facts sometimes.
[www.petetownshendisinnocent.com] details what really went on,and what the mis-guided but well-intentioned old fool was doing.
Cheers,
Si.
Hi SimonN !
Thanks for the link .I had a quick look at it .Sorry but reading :
"He acknowledged using his credit card to enter a Web site advertising child pornography but he denied being a pedophile " is more than I can stand.
Oh,I see ,may be he meant he didn't sodomize the boy himself ????? He was just watching ?
Come on,would you give your credit card number to a site with ads of child pornography ? I won't .
Child pornography is illegal.
I apologize having brought the subject here,it's obviously not the point of this thread .
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 9, 2010 13:57
Blimey, its like reading the tabloids.
He accessed the site once. No evidence was found on any computers of any child porn downloads. He'd been involved at an indepth level in the past AGAINST child abuse and written papers regarding the matter. He'd also work with charities against child abuse.
No charges were brought. He was placed on the register on a technicality. So please, read what your given in full.
He accessed the site once. No evidence was found on any computers of any child porn downloads. He'd been involved at an indepth level in the past AGAINST child abuse and written papers regarding the matter. He'd also work with charities against child abuse.
No charges were brought. He was placed on the register on a technicality. So please, read what your given in full.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
SimonN
()
Date: February 9, 2010 14:05
Hi S.S.,
Please believe me when I say that I find the whole subject beyond comprehension:my belief has been and still is that PT was stupid to access whatever site,but that he did so with good intentions.
Ian Maclagan summed it up for me...
"15 Jan 2003- On the subject of Pete Townshend's recent troubles, widely reported but rarely described as what it is: bullshit. What follows is a copy of a post Rupert Williams made on this site's message board. I find it to be quite succinct and a far better response than Pete's own press release. Of course, Pete's under a tad bit of pressure and perhaps isn't quite his eloquent self.
[Don't] believe the knee-jerk reaction of the media. I remember reading P.T's diary on his website over a year ago when he openly admitted checking out the site which he'd initially stumbled on by accident while innocently searching for something with his young son.
O.K. it was a bit dumb to [later] pay to view the site, but he stated over a year ago what his reasons were and that he'd sought legal advise ([from] a retired detective) before doing so. After viewing the porn site, he even went as far as to close his own site down for a while because he was so disgusted by what the internet had become that he didn't want to be a part of it himself.
I believe he'll be exonerated once the police investigate things a bit further.
Cheers, Rupe. Daltrey has stated the same basic story, as well as loads of others. Pete's been wearing this story on his sleeve for months. Would a pedophile openly discuss such things, unsolicited, on his own website? He's been forthright about the whole story nearly since the day it happened. In fact, police are now scurrying to track the call he made to them months ago to report the problem.
Many articles in papers and on the web are giving incomplete and biased stories, and few of them even match each other, much less what will be disclosed as the truth. Pete is no Gary Glitter. He's not Jonathan King. He's no pedophile. His classification as 'suspected pedophile' has "witch hunt" written all over it, and libelous damage is being done as a direct result, and no paper will use the ink necessary to exonerate him, much less directly apologize once the investigation is dropped. But haven't we all learned by now that most of the press are shameless whores?
Pete's piece that he wrote for his website that mentions the problem of rampant pedophilia on the internet has been temporarily archived here.
14 Jan 2003- Well, I got the images for the chord section back online, and also put together the chords for Cindy Incidentally.
And, Pete Townshend is innocent. Don't let the crap media criticize and crucify him. Many of the facts of the case are already before us, and Rupe did a great job of outlining them on the message board. When the dust settles, a lot of apologies will be owed Pete. Now, this whole FBI/Scotland Yard dragnet is hopefully doing a lot of good, but to drag Townshend into it is pure witchhunt BS. Gary Glitter should be hunted down like a dog for being the perv he is, but he was given a slap on the wrist. More damage is being done to Pete just by being dragged into this, and he's innocent. That's a @#$%& shame."
Cheers,
Si.
Please believe me when I say that I find the whole subject beyond comprehension:my belief has been and still is that PT was stupid to access whatever site,but that he did so with good intentions.
Ian Maclagan summed it up for me...
"15 Jan 2003- On the subject of Pete Townshend's recent troubles, widely reported but rarely described as what it is: bullshit. What follows is a copy of a post Rupert Williams made on this site's message board. I find it to be quite succinct and a far better response than Pete's own press release. Of course, Pete's under a tad bit of pressure and perhaps isn't quite his eloquent self.
[Don't] believe the knee-jerk reaction of the media. I remember reading P.T's diary on his website over a year ago when he openly admitted checking out the site which he'd initially stumbled on by accident while innocently searching for something with his young son.
O.K. it was a bit dumb to [later] pay to view the site, but he stated over a year ago what his reasons were and that he'd sought legal advise ([from] a retired detective) before doing so. After viewing the porn site, he even went as far as to close his own site down for a while because he was so disgusted by what the internet had become that he didn't want to be a part of it himself.
I believe he'll be exonerated once the police investigate things a bit further.
Cheers, Rupe. Daltrey has stated the same basic story, as well as loads of others. Pete's been wearing this story on his sleeve for months. Would a pedophile openly discuss such things, unsolicited, on his own website? He's been forthright about the whole story nearly since the day it happened. In fact, police are now scurrying to track the call he made to them months ago to report the problem.
Many articles in papers and on the web are giving incomplete and biased stories, and few of them even match each other, much less what will be disclosed as the truth. Pete is no Gary Glitter. He's not Jonathan King. He's no pedophile. His classification as 'suspected pedophile' has "witch hunt" written all over it, and libelous damage is being done as a direct result, and no paper will use the ink necessary to exonerate him, much less directly apologize once the investigation is dropped. But haven't we all learned by now that most of the press are shameless whores?
Pete's piece that he wrote for his website that mentions the problem of rampant pedophilia on the internet has been temporarily archived here.
14 Jan 2003- Well, I got the images for the chord section back online, and also put together the chords for Cindy Incidentally.
And, Pete Townshend is innocent. Don't let the crap media criticize and crucify him. Many of the facts of the case are already before us, and Rupe did a great job of outlining them on the message board. When the dust settles, a lot of apologies will be owed Pete. Now, this whole FBI/Scotland Yard dragnet is hopefully doing a lot of good, but to drag Townshend into it is pure witchhunt BS. Gary Glitter should be hunted down like a dog for being the perv he is, but he was given a slap on the wrist. More damage is being done to Pete just by being dragged into this, and he's innocent. That's a @#$%& shame."
Cheers,
Si.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: February 9, 2010 14:07
.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 14:29 by SwayStones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 14:29 by SwayStones.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 9, 2010 14:12
Find one official article that states that!
Do you really think the NFL would promote a peodo on the biggest sports event in the world?
Do you really think the NFL would promote a peodo on the biggest sports event in the world?
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
ablett
()
Date: February 9, 2010 14:12
Swaystone.... have you read Simons post?
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: February 9, 2010 14:29
Quote
ablett
Swaystone.... have you read Simons post?
No,I haven't read it before I posted my 2d answer.So I'll edit it .
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
SwayStones
()
Date: February 9, 2010 14:32
Amazing photos from the Saints here :
[www.life.com]
And some of the Super Bowl Haltimes :
[www.life.com]
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
[www.life.com]
And some of the Super Bowl Haltimes :
[www.life.com]
I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: February 9, 2010 15:10
Quote
tomk
A few thoughts: I thought the Who did okay, despite the lousy sound mix.
Then again I've HARDLY EVER heard a band sound good on live TV, there always seems to be something odd.
The Ed Sullivan Shows had a live vocal sung over a pre-recorded backing track.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
Ket
()
Date: February 9, 2010 15:15
Quote
GazzaQuote
tomk
A few thoughts: I thought the Who did okay, despite the lousy sound mix.
Then again I've HARDLY EVER heard a band sound good on live TV, there always seems to be something odd.
The Ed Sullivan Shows had a live vocal sung over a pre-recorded backing track.
Was that also true with the first Beatles Ed Sullivan appearence?
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
with sssoul
()
Date: February 9, 2010 15:26
>> The Ed Sullivan Shows had a live vocal sung over a pre-recorded backing track. <<
if you mean the Stones' appearances: up through february 1966 they were all-the-way live.
from september 1966 onward they went the playback+vocals route.
if you mean the Stones' appearances: up through february 1966 they were all-the-way live.
from september 1966 onward they went the playback+vocals route.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: February 9, 2010 15:29
Dont know, Ket. Plus the Stones' appearances weren't always live broadcasts. The last appearance (23 November '69) was taped five days earlier.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 15:35 by Gazza.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 15:35 by Gazza.
Re: OT: Superbowl comments and discussions
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: February 9, 2010 15:32
Quote
with sssoul
>> The Ed Sullivan Shows had a live vocal sung over a pre-recorded backing track. <<
if you mean the Stones' appearances: up through february 1966 they were all-the-way live.
from september 1966 onward they went the playback+vocals route.
Surely the string section on 'As Tears Go By' in the Feb '66 show was playback?
You're certainly right about the first appearance (Oct '64) being live, though.
Ther were 5 appearances in total, isnt that right? Oct '64, Feb' 66, Aug '66, Jan '67 and Nov '69.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-02-09 15:36 by Gazza.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Antonio218 , Bjorn , BlueLands , caschimann , DandelionPowderman , Erhard51 , guyrachel , Heart for Stones , highgatehillbilly , JMoisica , jp.M , Kuntaman , Mr.Soul , O2 , RaahenTiikeri , sandandglue , Spud , tiffanyblu , witterings
Guests:
1870
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10