Should Pete Townsend & The Who be kicked off the Superbowl for his child porn past?
 

It seems several groups are calling for it.

See also:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010...who-super-bowl

http://www.nme.com/news/the-who/49055



Some say since he was cleared of those charges after what was a lengthy investigation he and the band should be allowed to play the Superbowl, while others are calling for a good old fashioned hangin'.

What do you think?

Should they be allowed to play?
Not play?
Don't give a shit?

It was for research.

Some folks are then asking, well if it was for research (presumably for a book) then...where's the book Pete? Or research paper, whatever.

I think that's a legitimate question.

They want to ban someone who was cleared of all charges and did not posess any images whatsoever. Thats pure bull.

IMHO they saw what they thought might be some low hanging fruit so sent off a letter to the NFL.

Should we also ban the Duke Lacrosse team from attending functions because they were CHARGED with rape?

If they started banning everyone that was accused of wrongdoing, they would have no act at all and probably no customers.

I think we should investigate those groups. Now of course I'm not saying that child porn is right or should be tolerated or even exist... but what I am saying is that whenever somebody stands up and shouts loud enough, you start to wonder what they are covering up in their own lives.

It takes long time to write a book. Kind of like it takes a long time for OJ to find the real killer.

not guilty until proven - and he was cleared

I hear you.

Personally I want to believe in the guy and would love to see them play the Superbowl. They've always been high on my list of the greatest bands of all time. However, although he was cleared of the charges there was apparently enough there to put him on the sex offenders list for several years. That obviously raises questions with a lot of people.

I do undertand the cause for concern though, and I'd have been surprised if there wasn't any sort of mention or uproar about them playing the SB, but I'm definitely leaning on the side of letting them play.

word is their want to have a children's choir onstage for one of the songs.

The Who ROCKS

So lets also be clear that they are not even saying that banning them would protect children. As a matter of simple fact, when he is on stage playing in front of a billion people worldwide, he is under more surveillance than anyone on earth possibly.

All they want to do is deprive him of something. Deplorable motive.

I think that sums it up pretty well.


.

Well considering they let Michael Jackson performed who actually touched children, why not let the Who perform?

i could have sworn he did publish a paper or a book or something

There's a joke in here somewhere about "wardrobe malfunctions" and Underoos.... but I'm going to leave it alone.

Maybe they should have Gary Glitter open and call it a theme.

In all seriousness though, The Who desperately need to hang up their spurs as a group. No reason Townsend and Daltry can't continue to perform as solo artists, or together as a duo billed as something else (I'd suggest "The Who's Left" or "The Who Cares?") but it is time to retire "The Who" as a band name.

No Keith Moon was bad enough, but no Moon AND no John Entwhistle? Please.

Unless they would request Garry Glitter as a support act it should be cool

:)

:2 cents:

I kinda agree. The Who, like CREAM, is a band where every member brought something so extremely unique to to the overall sound. They were all equally important and irreplaceable.

Guess I wasn't the only one to think about Gary Glitter

:winkwink:

But yeah, although a die hard The Who fan I agree that no rhytm section = no The Who.

John Entwhistle was always a hero of mine.

yes, and replaced with Lady Gaga!

pa-pa-pa-pa-POKER FACE!

Yep.

Don't get me wrong; I love much of Townsend's songwriting (at least through the mid 70s or so), but without that rhythm section propelling things along... they are pretty damn ho-hum as a live act.

I love the music of the Who...

If they are allowed to still play (which might be in doubt, since advertisers paying big bucks for ad spots might get skittish if enough furor is created), I think it's a safe bet that they won't be playing "Fiddle About":



From The Smoking Gun:

Here is what Townsend wrote in 2002, in a piece titled, "A Different Bomb":

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...townshend1.gif

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...townshend2.gif

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...townshend3.gif

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...townshend4.gif

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...townshend5.gif

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...townshend6.gif

In case of Red X, click HERE to read.

ADG

ADG, awesome input as usual.

Agreed that without Moon and Entwistle they're not the same Who as in the past, but other bands have replaced members and still carried on as usual or done concerts. Kiss, Van Halen, Led Zepp, Floyd, all have played at one time or another with replacement members.

The Who's lineup, or what I can find mentioned of it, looks like this since about 2004...

I think that with just Daltry and Townsend as the only originals they're still going to be great to see performing at the SB. I look forward to it and will be dissapointed if they end up getting yanked.

Wiki has some good reading on the band, Townsend, and his ordeal with the cops etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Townshend -- see "Operation Ore" section.

Yes they did -- and not one ever approached the energy or punch of the original with their replacement lineup, IMO.

It's all a "taste thing," obviously. I'm not saying that anybody who likes the above bands just as much in their latter day forms is 'wrong,' because there's no right or wrong where music is concerned -- there's just what you like and what you don't.

I see The Who as a once-great band chasing past glory, and falling short of the standard they established in their salad days, but it doesn't affect my appreciation of the portion of their catalog that I have always enjoyed. It just means that while I'd have climbed Mt. Everest to see them live in the 60's/70's, in 2010 I might not even watch them on free TV from the comfort of my own couch.

In the end, I suppose I should really say "more power to them" because The Who has managed to sustain popularity for decades (literally), and across generations of listeners. That's an impressive feat by any measure.... whatever I may think of a guy in his sixties signing the line "hope I die before I get old." :winkwink:

If someone's cleared they're cleared.

He beat the charges, fair or unfair, it's not for the peanut gallery to pick and choose.

meanwhile it's ok to have criminals on the field playing...
and of course all of those "healthy wholesome" viagra and beer ads...

Wow, I was going to say that, whatever the rules in the UK are, the USA is innocent until proven guilty. I admit to being kinda nauseated reading the resultant "research" paper though. I'm not sure someone needs to be in jail for being a pedophile, if they are neither assaulting children nor consuming cp. But someone who says he thinks nobody could possibly resist the allure of cp possibly being out there . . . well, that someone is a pedophile. I might not want a friend with kids to date him, but I'm not sure I see the issue with a watered-down version of The Who performing at a football game either.

I guess bands get to play about a 20-minute set at the Super Bowl, so here are my picks for the Who's set list:









These are not necessarily my favorite Who songs, just the ones I think will be most recognizable to the largest audience.

My favorite Who songs include Pinball Wizard (cool chord progressions), I Can See For Miles, Behind Blue Eyes, The Seeker, and many, many others, now that I reflect back on them.

My favorite Who song of all time is "Love Reign O'er Me" (also known as Pete's Theme):



ADG

ADG, thanks for the posts, good stuff.

.

Let them play,it will be a great halftime show

Nope, not at all......
and I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL at least thinks about giving in to the pressure.
After all, they unbelievably banned teams from playing Rock and Roll Part 2 after touchdowns. Obviously, hearing a song that was recorded almost 40 years ago by someone later convicted of cp charges....would immediately drive entire tens of thousands of people out of football stadiums in search of little kids :error

They were cleared, where is the problem, they are going to be on stage for about 30 minutes, doing what they do best. They have done concerts etc for years so why the big deal now !

if any of you think pete "all I can do is play guitar and fuck teen girls" was researching a book (looking at child porn), you guys are very naive.

I suppose you have some kind of proof of that? It was never said that he touched anyone in a sexual way...If he did then he should have been put away..Just saying...:2 cents:

Agreed. This line really did it for me too-

Thanks for posting that ADG!

I've never sought out CP & I don't think I need a pat on the back for resisting temptation. I would like to think most people on this earth find it abhorrent as I do. I wouldn't compare it to a free line of blow, I would compare it to tasting feces.

You know feces is out there, you know you can get it for free, but most people- though they have never tasted fecal matter before- know it tastes like shit. Only a very select deranged segment of our population will cross that line. Normal people don't compare the temptation factor of CP to a table of blow, they compare it to a table of shit, to see it as anything otherwise on a taste / interest level reveals chomo tendencies. :2 cents:

by comparing it to drugs, it shows he actually has a desire for it, that he thinks he has to "fight off" like an addiction. Those of us with no pedo feelings dont even look at the stuff, have ZERO DESIRE to, and need no recognition for not looking!

His comparison proves to me more than a doubt he has pedo urges. he probably fucked more 13--14 year olds than Jagger.

Exactamundo! :thumbsup

Former??? How does that happen.

yeah, and i drove three hours with a case of wine coolers and a box of rubbers only to talk.

yeah, that.

He was cleared of charges. The police etc know a lot more than us GFY members, and since he was cleared, the matter is ended. Why do forum members feel they know the full story based on The Smoking Gun etc :D lol

And fmltube ... once again, you're using teh interwebz to base your 'facts' on Michael Jackson ... when in fact, what you think you know, you don't :)

if he was cleared, yes, he should be allowed.

it's not like the guy will jump on the kids and bang them right there.

"The issue is, it sends the wrong message to American families."

I bet most American families did not even know. So now they know, and that child care group can be credited for sending the wrong message...

Was waiting for someone to say it.

He definitely did have research-like materials and writings on hand to back up that claim, but I suppose it's a case of if you believe that's all he was doing or if you believe he was doing that AND indulging his fantasies and urges and possibly using the research angle as his cover.


Will anyone here admit they will boycott the superbowl if The Who plays?

depends on if he's writing a book and need research.



so, to anyone saying it's ok. would you leave your child alone with him?

I don't think anyone is saying that it's ok, the question is over him playing halftime at the superbowl, not opening a daycare center. :2 cents:

Don't get me wrong- I think he's a chomo, or at a minimum someone who gets off on the fantasy of CP.

http://www.trigonman3.com/bn/epic-wi...-pedo-bear.jpg

http://images.encyclopediadramatica....ris-hansen.gif

ADG

let him play! At least we wont get little wayne or some other untalented rapper to fuck the show up

As I said, I think it would have been a bigger surprise had no one said a thing and The Who just go ahead and play without a peep or note of complaint. These complaints come as no surprise whatsoever.

People want to stand up for what's right on issues such as this, while the rest of us who weren't sent the memo just have to judge for ourselves as to what's acceptable and what isn't, hopefully after gathering all the facts.

In other words I think not saying anything at all might have sent an even worse message. :2 cents:

Their point has been made. Whether it's effective or not, whether they get to play or not, is really immaterial. They're getting heard, more and more people are aware. That's probably all these groups can hope for seeing as he wasn't convicted. Their argument would carry a lot more weight had he been found guilty and sentenced.