Should I do this?

http://www.superbowlproductions.com/

If they can promise free beer/whiskey, I just might.

why wouldnt you

does it say if they let you stay for the game?

Observation: This is not the Who. It's like saying McCartney is the Beatles.

If its legit, I say go for it. Personally, if I have a production company, I'm not letting 600 total noobs touch equipment, but that just me. 600? Wow, that seems...excessive.

thank you.

jesus you two are nit picky

Hmm, let's see. The current Who tours without their two prime instrumentalists. The current Rolling Stones tour with... oh yeah, all original members except for the bass player and the "new guy" who's been with the band for 35 years.

Yeah, it's exactly the same.

Was about to post the same thing.

Wasn't clear if Fish was advocating it was the same or if was different with that.

As for doing this, I think it would be pretty cool experience to do maybe once but it could also be more trouble than it's worth.

Maybe I just value my time with friends and cold beer for the SB more though.

Being a little literal there, huh rads?

Let's see. How many songs did McCartney contribute to the Beatles as well as being a prime instrumentalist? How many songs did the missing Who members contribute? I'm pretty sure most of the world would accept the Beatles sans your favorite retard Ringo as the Beatles. Yeah, it's the exactly same analogy there too. You didn't jump all over the inconsistency there.

I was kind of hinting at a broader point though. That bands only exist in a certain time and place regardless of membership. At best, even the original members themselves can only recreate that later. I have no interest in seeing the Pixies because it's really not the Pixies to me. Not that there is any thing wrong with anyone enjoying the new Pixies on stage. Townshend and Daltrey on stage again is about the same to me. He'll do his windmill. Daltrey will do his thing and everyone will enjoy a little time warp.

That's cuz me and Harry are bros.

no, i'm right there with you.

i'd rather sit on my couch.

true, but 50% > 25%

Pete Townsend isn't a prime instrumentalist of the Who?

I'm gonna need a fucking slide-rule to understand this.

It would be hard not to laugh a little bit if they played my generation.

Paul McCartney bills himself by his name, not as "The Beatles".

Townsend is cool, Daltrey... sure, whatever. But without Keith Fucking Moon and John Entwistle, this ain't The Who.

Who said that he is?

This is me agreeing with Harry. Sorry I didn't use quotes to keep things straight.

So when do the stones stop being the stones? When Jagger dies, or when Richards leaks out all of his formaldehyde?

Not that we care about subjective opinions around here, but in my opinion, they never recovered from losing Brian Jones.

I think the qualities that made Keith Moon a dynamic member of the Who were gone before or around Quadrophenia. So I don't think seeing Moon w/ the Who in 73' was the same. It could have been any drummer at that point. He was bloated and could barely play.

The Stones stop being the Stones to me already, and it has nothing to do with Jones.

Definitely not. Townsend was smart enough to realize right off the top that Moon and Entwistle were monsters. Listen to those early Who sides and listen to what's going on. Moon and Entwistle play like they're the lead instrument. Townsend plays rhythm. It's fucking awesome, and it's what made the Who the Who.

Well exactly... I would wager that the Who were kinda the Who even after Moon died... Kenney Lane was solid... but Who Are You was clearly the last recorded version of the real Who. And after 1983 it was an occasional flash of Whonicity, but it wasn't the Who. I saw the Who early and often. I saw them w/Entwistle in 1999 and without him shortly after his heart gave out in 2002. They had something going on in 1999 (Rads is absolutely correct... musically Entwistle melodic bass lines out front WERE the Who... thanks Bro) but they were a public TV oldies fundraiser show without him.

The Stones... also early and often... I am about ready to say they are no longer the Stones, but the Scorsese movies definetely documented something pretty much like the Stones.

Loss of members, loss of skill level with age, loss of relevancy... a decoupling from the zeitgeist... it's a complicated question of when a great band stops being what it is.

Each cell in the human body is replaced every 10 to 12 years. All the major (and minor) organs are replaced, all the muscles, even the bones.

So all those old bands from the 1960's and 1970's are now literally different people. The larynx that sang 'Under My Thumb' at Altamont is not the same larynx as sings in stadiums in 2010, the brain that wrote 'Yesterday' is no longer the same brain, the arms Townshead windmilled are no longer the same arms. Townshead himself has been physically replaced numerous times.

Of course some of you may say that 'we' are a soul rather than purely physical beings but I'd like to hear Radcliffe, the strident atheist, who presumably believes we are merely complex chemical reactions between physical objects explain why the current Rolling Stones are more valid than the current 'Who' when not a single hair, not a single blood cell nor finger nail or brain cell exists that was present at the recording of 'Beggars Banquet'.