Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being a kid at the time in middle class america, to tell you the truth, I wondered what the big deal was. Most of the bands I didn't recognize - 10 Years After? Country Joe and the Fish? Mountain?
It was a hippy novelty event, and that's how it was treated on the mainstream news at the time. Later, the movie came out, and it got more notice. 6 months later, the free Rolling Stones Altamont festival was more of a sign of the times and got more coverage.
I like the Woodstock movie but I don't like the selection. The Who and Hendrix seemed to give the best performance., 10 Years After was pretty good. But I can't figure out why they devoted so much time to Ravi Shanker and Richie Havens and Joe Cocker instead of some of the other acts that could have been filmed. I don't think Janis or Creedence or The Band were filmed at all, I would have liked to see more of The Airplane, and The Who, and Crosby Still and Nash's electric set.
Thanks for all the responses all of which make me ponder the reasoning for the upcoming commitment to a museum dedicated to Woodstock. Inasmuch as I am within reasonable driving distance to the intended site, I will visit it and hopefully I'll learn what it is I missed or didn't miss!
Thanks for all the responses all of which make me ponder the reasoning for the upcoming commitment to a museum dedicated to Woodstock. Inasmuch as I am within reasonable driving distance to the intended site, I will visit it and hopefully I'll learn what it is I missed or didn't miss!
Really?? Is it actually going to be in Woodstock?
I think up the thruway I may have to venture to check this out
It will be in Bethel, NY. I believe it is opening this Spring, no formal announcement yet, but I heard through the Delaware Valley grape-vine that it is happening.
And it'[s closer to 17 (from 87) than 84, and then onto 17B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkate
Really?? Is it actually going to be in Woodstock?
I think up the thruway I may have to venture to check this out
I was 14 in the summer of '69, knew all about Woodstock, and had friends that went.
I felt like I really missed out. But I had moved from NY to Colorado in '68.
No way was I going to get to go.
Even if I had still been living in NY,I am not sure my parents would have let me go. However, my folks were far too permissive and probably would have allowed it. Ah well. It was an interesting time back then, for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Being a kid at the time in middle class america, to tell you the truth, I wondered what the big deal was. Most of the bands I didn't recognize - 10 Years After? Country Joe and the Fish? Mountain?
I knew all those bands. Rock music was a big deal back then, at least it was for me and my friends.
The later, bigger deal was the fact that so many people came peacefully (if muddlily) together. The concert, which had originally been a ticketed event, became free.
It became Woodstock Nation.
This was a visual, outward sign of a new movement.
Quote:
It was a hippy novelty event, and that's how it was treated on the mainstream news at the time. Later, the movie came out, and it got more notice. 6 months later, the free Rolling Stones Altamont festival was more of a sign of the times and got more coverage.
Yes.
Plus, Hell's Angels and a murder will often tend to get more coverage than hippies, no matter how happy they are.
However, just days before Woodstock took place, the horrifying Tate murders occurred in California. This did nothing to dull Woodstock's effect.
Sometimes, it just happens that way. I'll never know what it was like to be at Woodstock, but I know something of that communal feeling.
Quote:
I like the Woodstock movie but I don't like the selection. The Who and Hendrix seemed to give the best performance., 10 Years After was pretty good. But I can't figure out why they devoted so much time to Ravi Shanker and Richie Havens and Joe Cocker instead of some of the other acts that could have been filmed. I don't think Janis or Creedence or The Band were filmed at all, I would have liked to see more of The Airplane, and The Who, and Crosby Still and Nash's electric set.
I happen to like Havens (who opened the festival) and Cocker and Ravi, but perhaps the other acts such as CCR or Janis were not put in the movie for rather banal reasons--maybe the recording for their segment was off, or something? Or maybe they asked to not be in it? Who knows.
I saw CCR live and was actually disappointed with their blah, expressionless performance, but I think they had a lot of internal discord going on.
Santana, OTOH, was electrifiying.
It looks as if you are the only one to come forward who attended the festival.
I do think I've heard from friends who attended that it was bedlam--how could it not be with so many people, so few accommodations and such a small town with scarse services.
But it is part of the 60s history.
Thanks for sharing your experience--it lends much credence to Woodstock's reputation.
You are welcome! And although alot of my experience there was awful, I am glad i experienced it. I think we had alot of good ideas in the 60's but were quite naive to think drugs and music were the way to accomplish them.
Many of us felt that Woodstock was an east Coast attempt to rip off and profit from what was born here in Golden Gate Park and grew into the free rock concerts on Mt. Tam, which developed into the Monterey Pop Festival in the summer of 1967.
Monterey was the first large scale rock concert and the last one to have a real "Hippy Vibe". It was a non-profit event with the proceeds from the six buck admission going to charity. There was a true feeling of Peace and Love and a real sense of community.
Woodstock, on the other hand, with it's thousands of naked, mud caked, humans, bum-tripping on bad acid, was more like "Hippies in Hell".
Many of us felt that Woodstock was an east Coast attempt to rip off and profit from what was born here in Golden Gate Park and grew into the free rock concerts on Mt. Tam, which developed into the Monterey Pop Festival in the summer of 1967.
Monterey was the first large scale rock concert and the last one to have a real "Hippy Vibe". It was a non-profit event with the proceeds from the six buck admission going to charity. There was a true feeling of Peace and Love and a real sense of community.
Woodstock, on the other hand, with it's thousands of naked, mud caked, humans, bum-tripping on bad acid, was more like "Hippies in Hell".
Hah!
This must be where the expression "hipper than thou" came from.
Meanwhile, those of us in flyover country (read: Denver, Colorado) must have appeared to be truly the Great Unwashed to both the Left Coast as well as the East.
I don't think anyone will ever forget Monterey, but I think Woodstock was more than kids ODing in the mud.
Perhaps Woodstock was serendipitous rather than altruistically planned, but it still worked.
This must be where the expression "hipper than thou" came from.
No, that originated with the Beatniks.
We never tried to assert our Hippyness. We would just close our eyes and smile knowingly.
Later on, when we became enlightened, we would put our hands together bow, and kiss our thumbs.
We were really telling our East Coast brothers that we recognized the sacredness within them, but they always thought we were telling to kiss our azzes.
Many of us felt that Woodstock was an east Coast attempt to rip off and profit from what was born here in Golden Gate Park and grew into the free rock concerts on Mt. Tam, which developed into the Monterey Pop Festival in the summer of 1967.
Slightly off topic but related - I enjoyed the performances on the documentary 'Monterey Pop" much more than "Woodstock" movie - Janis, The Who, Hendirx, even the Mommas & the Poppas. Just amazing performances.
Also "Gimme Shelter", which had that fly on the wall feeling of being part of a disaster, is much better (not the performances really, but just the documentary itself and the feeling of pending doom that you get from watching it).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
