Neil Best leaves no stone unturned in the world of sports media.
Who did their best
I tried readers' patience one last time on the blog last week and in the Sunday paper with my obsession with the Who's selection for and performance during halftime of Super Bowl XLIV.
Good news: I'm done now, at least until the announcement of Herman's Hermits as the SBXLV halftime act.
First, though, here is an email I received from Kevin Chorusey of Holbrook, which is the most coherent take on this I've seen anywhere (certainly including anything written by me):
"Although I generally agreed the Who were not a good choice for the Super Bowl Halftime Show AND that they did not perform all that well, I don't think they deserve the barbs that you and others in the sports media have hurled their way. As a Who fan since 1969, I looked forward to seeing them in the SB showcase, and I'll admit that I was disappointed.
"Realistically, though, what could we expect? The NFL asked them to play, and they agreed. The NFL allotted them 12 minutes, and they whittled down several of their classics (particularly those associated with CBS cop dramas) to fit into that slot. Daltrey and Townshend were WAY out of their element, and it showed. But I commend them for giving it the best they had. They just didn't command that spotlight as Springsteen, McCartney, Petty, the Stones, and U2 have in recent years.
"At least they were smart enough to NOT play 'My Generation,' right?
"The NFL seems reluctant to give that spotlight to younger, more current performers who have not proven their staying power. Perhaps they should borrow a tactic from the Grammies and try to have a 'mystery guest' to generate buzz for the halftime show. The pairing of Elton John with Lady Gaga this year was a good move.
"Whatever, it is time for a new approach at Super Bowl Halftime. If anything, you can thank the Who for helping to make that point more obvious. But please ease up on the old guys."