Pete townsend at super bowl

As much as I enjoy this asshole’s music, I agree that they should not be playing at this year’s Super Bowl.

Townsend , on his website a few years ago, defended Michael Jackson and claimed he was being persecuted.

If this is in the wrong forum, please move.

Any thoughts?

Oh gawd no. Here we go again. Try getting your facts straight (including how to spell his name). What people like you don’t understand is that by demonizing Pete you lost an ally in the battle against CP. Trouble is, it’s impossible to convince the haters once they’ve made their minds up.

I’m afraid I’m going to need evidence of this, that he didn’t just claim “research” to get out a child pornography bust. What was he doing to mitigate child pornography before he got caught with it?

None of this matters with regard to the Super Bowl, of course. They have people with histories of moral ambiguity play it all the time. My objection comes from the fact that The Who sucks, and it’s time to stop having people play the Super Bowl who are nearly twice as old as the players on the field. How about some more contemporary groups that aren’t cheeseball pop or annoyingly melismatic R&B singers?

I have an open mind, please convince me that “Pete” (do you know him personally?) was really doing research on this subject and let me know what he has done since his arrest to combat CP.

Like Ray Lewis.

Anything to the rumor that Gary Glitter will be singing the national anthem at this year’s Super Bowl? :frowning:

The Who is one of my all-time top favorite groups, but I sort of agree with Airman that the Super Bowl might need to broaden its horizons, instead of continually hauling aged rock stars out of the crypt for one more show.

Posted by Pete in January 2002: A Different Bomb.

That probably isn’t enough to sway anyone’s opinion. Like I said, the haters won’t ever be convinced.

And, no, I don’t know him personally, but I have corresponded with him and conducted a couple of interviews.

Who (pardon the pun) are the haters? Anyone who questions why a famous rock star would be PAYING to see CP?

Maybe you know more about this than I do. So can you tell me exactly what he has done with his “research?”

It seems to me that he would have dedicated his life, his name and his fortune to stopping this evil. But I haven’t heard a thing about it.

And why would he write a blog defending Michael Jackson. That was very strange.

I think it’s lame because the Who are a bit…well, over the hill. The superbowl halftime is supposed to be a big fun show. Which isn’t to say that older bands or people can’t play…I just can’t see Pete Towshend really doing a great job of it.

Townshend’s CP bust amounted to a single visit to a homepage which he claimed he’d looked at for research (and Townhend had been active against child sex abuse cases before this incident). The one page he accessed did not actually contain any illegal images, IIRC, and he did not visit any other pages on the site.

Pete Townshend is the one person "I’ve ever found credible with the “research” defense, largely because he didn’t actually possess any CP, but had only accessed one page of one website on one occasion. People mock me for being too shrill about child abuse stuff, but even I need more than what they had on Pete Townshend to call somebody a pedophile.

I also think he’ll give a fine Superbowl performance. I’d much rather see him than some drivel like Taylor Swift or Carrie Underwood.

ETA, Townshend was CLEARED of the CP charges. by the way. Just FYI.

Why would George “Wham!” Michael cruise public bathrooms? He certainly has enough money and celebrity to walk into a bar and pretty much get his choice.

Why would Tiger Woods cheat if he already has a smokin’ hot wife?

The “Why” of things rarely enters into it

If Townshend’s activites would get another person banned from entering the USA then he shouldn’t be treated any differently.

I think the Who are a bit long in the tooth, but I think most of the die hard football fans are odler people who remember him, rather than a lot of the younger crowd which will only watch the Superbowl, because it’s the Superbowl and are not dedicated football fans.

You can say that again. When The Who started touring again a couple years ago I thought “That might be interesting. Kind of like how the Rolling Stones are still playing their old stuff.” NOT!!
I saw one of The Who’s recent concerts on one of Comcast’s hi-def channels. They were absolutely horrible. I would have felt like a fool if I had ponied up hundreds of bucks for tickets. They sounded like how Brian Wilson sounds these days tring to sing old Beach Boys songs. Or when Debbi Harry tried to make a comeback a few years ago singing old Blondie tunes. Yech.
The Stones are a rareity.

Or rather, in the words of one of the surviving founders, what exists today is actually a celebrity Who Tribute Band.

You’d need to argue with the Suits, who believe such acts won’t hold audiences of tens of millions of football viewers (which in turn means they believe football viewers are only familiar with cheeseball pop, melisma mamas, ArchaeoRock and Pop Country)

Anything else will make the Suits tremble in fear of “wardrobe malfunctions”, or someone saying the f-word (I take it Rog will sing the “radio-clean” singles version of Who Are You, then?) or, say, something like Lady Gaga simulating being bloodily killed… or merely that the people will have tuned away with a shout of "what is this f@g sht"* the moment they saw it was something outside their comfort zone.

Anyone who tunes into the half-time show and is surprised by all that “f@g sh*t” hasn’t been watching half-time shows for the past decade.

I don’t have any proof of anything when it comes to Pete being innocent. You can find the articles, read the wiki discussion pages, etc and make up your own minds.

However, I think I can lay claim to being the closest thing this board has to being a scholar of his life and work. I’ve been a fan of his band and his music for 40 years; I’ve read everything by and about him that I could get ahold of in those four decades. You can say he was a drunk, a drug addict, an adulterer, a pompous ass who has foot-in-mouth disease. You can say his music sucks and that he’s a dinosaur past his prime. I wouldn’t argue any of those points with you. But I draw the line and have to speak up when he’s accused of pedophilia. I simply do not believe that it is true.

What Pete admitted to and what he received a caution for was providing credit card information to the Landslide website. (See the wiki article on Operation Ore) Fourteen of Pete’s computers were confiscated, and no evidence of CP was found after a 4-month investigation.

The research ended on that day back in 2003. The reason you never heard any more about it? Here’s what he wrote in a letter to Rolling Stone:

As far as him defending Michael Jackson, they met at the BPI Awards in 1984. Pete was a fan of his music. I don’t think he knew Michael any better than that. His “defended” someone that he had met, liked and respected as an artist.

Really? Let’s look at the half time acts for the past decade, not counting 2010. Courtesy of Wikipedia.

2009 - Bruce Springsteen and the E Street band
2008 - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
2007 - Prince and the Florida University A&M Band
2006 - The Rolling Stones
2005 - Paul McCartney
2004 - Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, Jessica Simpson, Nelly, P. Diddy, Kid Rock
2003 - Shania Twain, No Doubt, Sting
2002 - U2
2001 - Aerosmith, 'N Sync, Britney Spears, Nelly, Mary J. Blige
2000 - Phil Collins, Christina Aguilera, Enrique Iglesias, Toni Braxton
1999 - Stevie Wonder, Gloria Estefan, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Savion Glover

None of those acts strikes me as being out of anyone’s comfort zone, not even Justin and Janet up to the time of their “wardrobe malfunction.” All popular, “safe” acts that have stirred relatively little controversy and that “Middle America” can be presumed to be comfortable with. Almost all these acts fall within JRDelerious’s set of “cheeseball pop, melisma mamas, ArchaeoRock and Pop Country.” Prince raised some ire among Tipper Gore and her set with his lyrics, and there was that whole “Artist formerly known as” business when he was at war with his record company, Warner Bros. And Britney had her bizarre little episodes, but that was pretty long after her Super Bowl appearance. But outside of 2004’s show, there has been very little in the Super Bowl shows that would make millions of Americans turn away in bewilderment or disgust. Or replay over and over as millions of people were reported to have done in making the incident TiVo’s most re-watched segment up to that date. Something on the order of another Timberlake/Jackson incident would indeed be a major surprise to the viewers whom the network executives perceive as having a sensitive nature.

Here is another point.

How can “The Who” be performing when TWO out of the four members are no longer alive?

I can see calling themselves “The Who” when Keith Moon died, but without Entwistle shouldn’t they be called “Halfa- Who” or “HalfAssWho”?

Seriously, when Townshend dies, will Daltrey still perform with new musicians as “The Who”?

And when he dies, will those new musicians get to keep the name?

They should probably go by Townshend/Daltrey these days but I guess most bands keep their name even when 2 guys quit or die. Stones only have 3 original guys left out of 5.

As a further note regarding the Who’s place in rock history, they were turning out worthwhile music well into the '80s, far beyond the point where other top bands of their era had either broken up or fossilized into parodies of themselves. Townshend has had some solid solo efforts as well.

So if they’ve gone on too long, so what? They do what they want, some diehard fans are happy and I don’t have to watch halftime at the Super Bowl.

Well into the 80s is not 100% right, they had albums out in 81 and 82. Their next album came out in 2006. Townshend put solo albums out in the late 80s and early 90s. Townshend announced they are putting out another Who concept album in 2010.

I’m not referring to the musical acts so much as I am the pageantry found in the show as a whole. The choreography and costumes wouldn’t be out of place in a musical. Put that kind of thing in the context of something besides the Super Bowl and I’m sure we’ll find someone talking about the “f@g sh!t.” I happen to like musicals myself.