The 40th Anniversary of Woodstock
 

"Woodstock - 3 Days of Peace & Music"

What do you think of Woodstock '69? How do you feel about the event, the bands & artists, and the music?

Who had the notable most performance?
Do you think the music was better then?

(the line-up taken form wiki)

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.

Hell no, you're just being unfair.

The overall lineup was awesome, not just the big names, the little ones too, like Ten Years After, Johnny Winter and the opening act Richie Havens. It really was a great time for music.

If anyone is letting nostalgia cloud their judgement it's you, Woodstock 99 was clearly a piece of sh*t.

i didn't say the music was bad, the question was 'was music better back then?' and just about every hippie / boomer i run into who was 'with it' back in the 60s definitely thinks it was, and i think they're letting nostalgia confuse things.

it's not that the music is better or worse but that the perspective of youth is different.

i don't pretend that woodstock '99 was anything besides crap, woodstock '94 was only marginally better. look at what they were, thinly veiled facades to cover up a mad commercial cash grab hiding behind an idealistic banner. THAT is the legacy of woodstock (and the hippie movement in my eyes) - hypocrisy.

It was cut above every haphazard attempt to revise Woodstock, without a goddamn doubt.

I seriously can't stand people with your attitude, it always has to be about capitalism or another, that it somehow diminishes the quality of music or the importance of a musical movement. Chuck Berry is an old guy playing the same old songs he did 60 years ago for a bunch of senior citizens at casino's and ****. Why don't you rant about that?

I don't think anti-capitalism was all that the hippie movement was about. I don't see how it's hypocrisy so much as the natural order of things, or people changing their outlook on things as they get older.

You can't really say anything about woodstock that doesn't also apply to every other generation, it's just human nature to become part of the system, no matter how much you ralied against it in youth, isn't that the story of every generation? This is especially true in the music business.

Woodstock wasn't advertised as some rally against capitalism or anything like that, I don't think anyone ever claimed that it was such a thing, it was a big money maker, everyone knows that. It was about great music, community, getting high and doing a lot of f*cking and that was it, and goddamn if it didn't achieve everything it set out to do.

Chuck Berry never tried to pass himself off as anything besides some dude who played old songs on his guitar. he never talked about how his generation was changing the world (even though HIS generation DID accomplish significant social/cultural changes)

what is it about my attitude that you can't stand? is it the fact that i can look at the past, draw my own opinion on it and present it without giving a crap about having it validated and approved by someone else? the OP wanted to know what people thought, I posted what I thought on the matter. should i just not post for fear of having a different view than the MB hive mind?

the hippie movement wasn't anti-capitalism? i guess you're right, but i never claimed it was. there was most definitely a large element of anti-establishment, fight the power, stick it to the man BS throughout the movement though. the hippie commune movement wasn't exactly pro-capitalism either.

you claim i'm letting nostalgia cloud my view on things, at least i've got a view on them. your last comment on the festival shows you're clueless aside from what wiki and google are telling you, and just baiting me at this point. woodstock '69 made NO money, it turned out to be a great festival about community, getting high, and f*cking, but that is not at all what it was intended to be initially.

and with that, i'm done with another thread.

And this is why I don't like you, this is the kinda attitude that you like to settle all your arguments with and it's very redundant at this point.

Seriously, I'm expressing my opinion as well, just because it's not your totally revolutionary point of view doesn't mean it's not a goddamn point of view, seriously, stop being such a condescending ass.

I think the fact that it turned out to be different from what it was intended to be, IS the great beauty about Woodstock and it`s for that reason amongst others, that it holds its place in rock legend and always will.

Woodstock 69 is something that I dig out and watch every 3 or 4 years and even today as a music festival I find it unsurpassed. The whole 3 days are littered with outstanding performances starting with Ritchie Havens banging away on his guitar, the display of Santana highlighted by Mike Shrieve`s drum solo, watching both Grace Slick and Marty Balin perform with Jefferson Airplane, the vocal performance of Joe C*k*er, watching Alvin Lee of Ten Years After performing "Goin Home", the 25 song set by the Who probably gets my vote as the best performance especially "See Me, Hear Me...." and of course Jimi Hendrix winding down the marathon to a depleted crowd after the rains.

Personally, I envy those spectators that were there and witnessed the event as it happened.

As for the music, well that`s always going to be subjective but anybody with a general appreciation of music cannot fail to be impressed. I suppose, if somebody isn`t keen on 1960`s west coast american bands (which probably made up 50% of the set) and wasn`t too keen on either blues rock or folk rock, then watching the concert might be wasted on them. Saying that though, you could even forget the music and just watch the whole thing as a documentary and still be impressed.

I'm just upset that they are making another movie about it. WHY WATCH A GLAMOURIZED HOLLYWOOD RENDITION (or as Urban says "Hollywood crapfest") WHEN YOU CAN WATCH ACUTAL FOOTAGE AND DOCUMENTARY???????????????

LIKE THIS!!!!!!

http://www.altfg.com/Stars/posterw/woodstock.jpg