Who's Next?

    Ideally, this would've been written right after the Super Bowl while the event was still fresh in everyone's minds (assuming, of course, you were not in the French Quarter of N'awlins, in which case you either will never forget the celebrations or simply do not remember anything). I was very happy with the day: party, friends, Saints victory, etc, etc... Everything, that is, except the halftime show. If you missed it, or don't keep up with football events, the Who preformed a medley of hits. You can watch it here: part 1 and 2.
    But brace yourself! This no longer is the 70's, where a live show by the Who would be something to look forward to. This is Super Bowl XLIV. That's 43 years since the first Super Bowl in 1967. In that year, the Who were only a few years into their fame and continuing to gain popularity. Two of their biggest albums would be released within the next half-decade: 1969 with Tommy and 1971 with Who's Next?. At this time, it was more traditional to feature university marching bands during Super Bowl halftime shows, and the stark no-man's-land between culture and counter-culture of the era would most likely have prevented such a radical band from showcasing their crazy rock 'n' roll antics anyway. Slowly, in the 80's, mainstream bands began performing the shows, until it became the norm. By 2000, the current popular artists were just as an expected feature as the humorous commercials. Enter 2004 with Nipplegate, as it now has been called. Ever since, the big networks have had the FCC on their rears, making sure nothing even remotely controversial can happen during one of America's benchmarks. The only bands to play at halftime afterward have been past their popularity, and in some cases their prime, by at least 20 years. Ironic that once wild bands like the Rolling Stones and the Who are now considered tame in comparison to the things recent pop culture can produce.
    I'm not arguing that these bands don't deserve the honor of being showcased before the largest sporting event. The legacy of these groups, like Paul McCartney and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, dictates their right to play for the masses. Bruce Springsteen, decades after Born to Run and Born in the U.S.A. has won a Grammy for his album just two-and-a-half weeks ago! He's still churning out good stuff! But listening to 65-year-old Roger Daltrey belt out "Teenage Wasteland!" in a gravely voice was a bit much. I admire the persistence and effort for continuing to hit the stage in the fourth-quarter of one's life, but considering the quality of that show? My friend looked at me during the show and murmured, "Some guys should know when to step out of the spotlight. Someone's gonna get fired over this!" I think the Super Bowl could put a little more appeal into itself with younger bands that might rouse up the crowd better. There's plenty who wouldn't cause controversy.
    So the question became, what popular band would appeal to the masses and create the least amount of controversy? We threw names around ranging from the Flaming Lips (a great live show, but kind of limited in appeal) to Metallica (again, not everyone's favorite band, and while surely a good act, they're bound to cause upheaval) to AC/DC (which suffers from the same Old-Man-Syndrome as the last five-years worth of halftime performers). So Who's Next? Well, we settled on Nickelback at the party, but they would need to have a leash. Instead of songs like "Animals" and "Figured You Out," they would have to play tunes along the lines of "Gotta Be Somebody" and "Rockstar." Other safe bands could be The Fray, Brad Paisley, Weezer, Kelly Clarkson, Sugarland, and perhaps Coldplay. While many of those bands fall into certain niches, I'd reckon it's impossible to find a band every single person could enjoy. These blanket bands may compromise the genre-gaps, but at the very least put on a good show. I'd love to hear your opinions on the matter though! Who do you think would make a good halftime performance?