The 40th Anniversary of Woodstock

boo boo · 08-18-2009, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Yet's lets be fair and honest.

Well I don't know about you, but I've had the who and their classic rock cohorts smashed over my head for far too long at this point. The Who have been playing the same songs for 40 years now. At least Hendrix has an excuse.

And Costello released an album this summer - what is "new" to you? Yesterday?

And The White Stripes are NOT overexposed? The Who at least changed it up with every album, The Who still write new songs and of course they're gonna play their old standards, that's what old bands do.

Quote:

Also, where did I call you "unamerican."

I already told you, you made a comment to Lateralus and I mistakenly thought it was directed towards me, again I'm sorry.

TheBig3 · 08-18-2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

And The White Stripes are NOT overexposed? The Who at least changed it up with every album, The Who still write new songs and of course they're gonna play their old standards, that's what old bands do.

Well this is about Woodstock, but half of the Who is dead. They aren't writing crap anymore.

The White Stripes don't have one album that sounds like another unless we're going to fault them for having a sound.

Woodstock is, as far as I'm concerned, is not still relevant because of the music. There were countless better concerts mentioned in this thread and yet their relegated to the music nerds and publications like us who enjoy this hobby.

Woodstock is still relevant because rich, uppity white folks in the suburbs want to pretend they were part of something more important than their boring, failing marriages. Its still relevant because their well-fed children just want to rebel against the man who harasses them for wearing stupid t-shirts and having long hair.

What a ****ing revolution its become.

boo boo · 08-18-2009, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Well this is about Woodstock, but half of the Who is dead. They aren't writing crap anymore.

The White Stripes don't have one album that sounds like another unless we're going to fault them for having a sound.

Woodstock is, as far as I'm concerned, is not still relevant because of the music. There were countless better concerts mentioned in this thread and yet their relegated to the music nerds and publications like us who enjoy this hobby.

Woodstock is still relevant because rich, uppity white folks in the suburbs want to pretend they were part of something more important than their boring, failing marriages. Its still relevant because their well-fed children just want to rebel against the man who harasses them for wearing stupid t-shirts and having long hair.

What a ****ing revolution its become.

I'm sorry, this is the stupidest goddamn thing I've ever read.

GuitarBizarre · 08-19-2009, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I'm sorry, this is the stupidest goddamn thing I've ever read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I'm sorry, this is the stupidest goddamn thing I've ever read.

.

boo boo · 08-19-2009, 04:31 AM

Your point......

I fail to see it.

TheBig3 · 08-19-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I'm sorry, this is the stupidest goddamn thing I've ever read.

Don't apologize to me, you're the one with the problem.

boo boo · 08-19-2009, 09:10 AM

Look, you know me well enough by now, I try to be nice as often as I can but there are moments like these where I just can't lie to a person when what I think they're saying is really stupid.

You're the guy who made a whole thread devoted to calling a guy a retard, so you should relate.

GuitarBizarre · 08-19-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Your point......

I fail to see it.

Think of it as a slightly less peurile version of no u.

also:

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I fail.

Yes.

almauro · 08-21-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Woodstock is still relevant because rich, uppity white folks in the suburbs want to pretend they were part of something more important than their boring, failing marriages. Its still relevant because their well-fed children just want to rebel against the man who harasses them for wearing stupid t-shirts and having long hair.

Harsh assessment, but insightful. There is some truth to this statement, but the endless recycling of Woodstock has a lot to do about marketing this over-hyped event for profit.

Classof75 · 08-29-2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr dave

i think woodstock '69 is the high water mark of the hippie(crosy) movement. do you really expect people to not remember the ultra awesome woodstock '99 whenever this comes up?

the event itself was interesting, especially from a cultural perspective. the music was alright. i think a lot of people look back at that music and think it's somehow 'better' because they're associating it with the idealistic innocence that everyone was wrapping themselves in at the time. they're applying their memories of the time when they first heard that music as a reflection of the music as opposed to just being a reminder of being young. whatever.

hendrix owned that show.

By 1969 the "hippie movement" had already been commercialised. The real movement went off the rails by 1967. Interesting that Hendrix played Monterey Pop (1967) and blew everyone away, and then at Woodstock he "owned that show". Hendrix said in interviews that he did not enjoy the Woodstock "experience". Other bands that also played fantastic sets were Canned Heat, Johnny Winter and C.C.R. (they did not make the original Movie/soundtrack, but can be seen/heard on the 40th Ann. edition(s) that are out now). I'm sure everybody that was around back then had a different opinion of what was going on. With the war, changes in the status quo and popular culture going on then, probably not many people could "see it all" like we can sit back now and look at. The tensions created great art (music). That is tangible evidence of those times.