First one in. And Im stoked about the WHO!!!!!

Cannot possibly be worst than the Rolling Stones'

The Who were awesome live last year so expect good things!

Nice, finally a band I'm interested in.

Rollings Stones, The Who... i mean they're good but this aint the 50s. jus sayin

If they gave us the Who, we'd have a problem. If they did the obvious and put in Lady GaGa, we'd have a problem.

But I know what you mean

Right on. Too bad I hate American Football and won't be watching.

Yeah ThisLife... because the Who and the Stones were huge in the 50s...

i wouldnt know.

Its kind of true about these bands though. They always pick a band that has been out of their prime for a while. In a way thats great though so we don't see bands like Nickelback. I personally am very excited about this though.

This will be good. I was satisfied with Bruce Springsteen.

I don't understand who people think are going to play these things anyway if you aren't satisfied with this! So yeah this "ain't the 50s" but as Vedder said it's better than Nickelback even if you aren't a Who fan. I agree that these bands are obviously not in their prime but it's way cooler to see classic bands than any pop/rap monstrosity or whatever they could scrape up. Maybe they'll "catch up" next year and get the Jonas Brothers if you'd prefer a modern band...?

lol

Pretty much continuing the trend since "nipplegate" of hiring old, washed up bands to play the Super Bowl. But hey, atleast its not Nickelback, Hinder, Three Days Grace, Lil Wayne, Lady Gaga, or some other godawful commercial artist

The Who isn't washed up you dumb peasant.

"Rollings Stones, The Who... i mean they're good but this aint the 50s. jus sayin" dumbest comment i've ever read.

isnt the whole reason they keep getting older bands is because they dont want a repeat of janet on stage?

do people realise that the new Who is nothing like the hold Who, really?

I don't know if you can say "nothing like". Moon and Entwistle were definitely huge pieces of the Who without a doubt - but arguably the "bigger half" of the band certainly is close. As I said - I saw them last year and they were stellar live and played the songs true to the originals. Had this been only Daltrey or only Townshend with others I would admit it's time to move on without the name (like both have done with respective solo tours and albums).

but yet they still kickass live

Though not like the old Who, it's still the Who. A classic band that can still bring it. That's all that matters.

Well, half the Who will play anyway. It's still better than any other band that played SB halftime that I can remember.

and hey we got ringo's son playing so thats basically 1/4 of the beatles on stage too

who?

zak starkey...ringo's first kid lol

anyone down for a seance to raise keith for the performance?

It's still better than any other band that played SB halftime that I can remember.

WHAT ABOUT N'SYNC AND AEROSMITH DOING BYE BYE BYE AND WALK THIS WAY AT THE SAME TIME HOLY SHIT

Awesome! Cannot wait to listen to The Who while I go grab more adult beverages from the fridge and converse with friends.

I second what Anotherbrick said about the Who live. They were awesome at VH1 rocks the Who just over a year ago.

I think this is quite good news. Lets go steelers 14-2

nice. last year's show with Springsteen was awesome and this probably will be too

Shweet! I hope they play coachella too

I think Converge should play the Super Bowl...

That would be sweet lol, the player will kill each other in the second half.

Aside from this thread being retarded, this is cool.

Great band one of the few classic rock bands I still like.

sweet as usual i have something to look foward to other than commercials for the superbowl, as for the sport i could care less

The Who Sell Out?

Haha - perfect reference.

eh, alright.

not complaining.

I think some modern bands like The White Stripes (although they might not have the same mass appeal), Foo Fighters, or Red Hot Chili Peppers would be incredible for a Super Bowl half-time show.

I like this, though. The Stones were terrible, as was Bruce.

ya man cause playing a show where over 90 million people watch is totally selling out..why the fuck would they want to do that

Just a reference to the Who album I believe - not a knock...?

The Stones were bad (although I love them and have heard their shows are awesome) but Springsteen was awesome! What were you watching!?

I for one am looking forward to this. I've never heard of these guys putting on a less than great performance. (my dad has seen them half a dozen times or so)

bruce is always awesome, shut your face dan

Springstein is self-indulgent. Hopefully, The Who will spare us all and not perform crotchal knee-slides at the camera lens.

Yesss!... I grew up with The Who. Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey are still excellent live performers.

As long as Pete smashes one of his guitars, I'll be satisfied.

CelestialDust: I'd shut my face but face-shutting surgery is way too expensive, unless you'd be willing to donate to the Shut Dan's Face Foundation.

As long as Pete smashes one of his guitars, I'll be satisfied.

Seconded

As long as Pete smashes one of his guitars, I'll be satisfied.

*pete swings guitar up to smash it*
*hip dislocates*

if they perform anything like they did back in the day, this will slay.

but whatever goes down, it'll EASILY be better than Bruce Springsteen.