Woodstock Question

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by icenine

The performances were really not that great except for Hendrix and the Who...

Yeh, Flock of Seagulls and The Ramones couldn't make it...

[icenine]

Hey you know your what music are you listening to now thread?

any one ever list the Woodstock album?

lol

[icenine]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

There weren't too many black kids at Woodstock, for a variety of reasons. Even tho the concert both opened(Richie Havens) and closed(Jimi Hendrix) with black music acts, there wasn't much in between that would draw tons of folks from New York. And New York and the near east coast were the only major spontaneous geographical draw for Woodstock.

Also, 1969 was not a time for black hippies. Being a hippie meant wanting to tune out and drop out from conventional square society, and for the most part, black kids were too busy trying to get a toehold inside the door of opportunity. If you didn't come from success, there was little reason to "drop out" when you had little to start with.

Third, upstate New York was not a nirvana for black kids. Few were willing to count on the willingness of segregationist America to provide food and water for them for a lost weekend. Minorities knew they would be hassled at every turn, so they were not willing to go to an underadvertised musical exposition with no food, little water, and no money for half a week. White kids could afford to be naive and count on help from strangers.

It would have been a far more attended event had half the acts been Motown artists.

probably pretty close to the mark...

the tv show Madmen shows some of the sort of racist bias present on Madison Ave during the early 60s

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by icenine

Hey you know your what music are you listening to now thread?

any one ever list the Woodstock album?

lol

puff,puff. I listed it in the movie thread, IIRC. I never made it to the show but the wife did.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by bobabode

puff,puff. I listed it in the movie thread, IIRC. I never made it to the show but the wife did.

you see

millions of posts in your thread and I think not one mention of that soundtrack lol


well at least your wife was there anyway! I mean she did see Hendrix!

[Zeke]

Woodstock was both echo and mirage, formed when a butterfly's wings flapped in Haight-Ashbury two summers prior to form a stunning climax that could end in only one way: with everybody going home.

Why?

Because, by this time, the movement was already over. Woodstock was as much hippy vibe nostalgia as having any sort of on-site validity related to ongoing cultural revolution.

Many people romanticize Woodstock in the same manner that most American Indians do with the Battle of the Little Bighorn. In both cases, we witnessed a flash-in-the-pan high mark of a "different culture which no longer exists and didn't really exist then" because it's ultimate eradication had already been assured.

Woodstock worked because the participants tacitly knew this.

Altamont didn't because -- in just four months -- it was no longer possible to even pharmaceutically keep up the delusion.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

There are moments, events in history that become symbolic. Woodstock is indeed one of them. A very special and meaningful event to many, myself included.

You have every right to view it without the romance and nostalgia but folks also see it, fairly I might add, as a warm and bonding cultural experience that had great personal and communal meaning. This is also a reality.

Peace brother.

It was more than good dope and bad acid.

Very good, Noon. You have stated your case well.

Take care of yourself, and enjoy the holidays.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Woodstock was both echo and mirage, formed when a butterfly's wings flapped in Haight-Ashbury two summers prior to form a stunning climax that could end in only one way: with everybody going home.

Why?

Because, by this time, the movement was already over. Woodstock was as much hippy vibe nostalgia as having any sort of on-site validity related to ongoing cultural revolution.

Many people romanticize Woodstock in the same manner that most American Indians do with the Battle of the Little Bighorn. In both cases, we witnessed a flash-in-the-pan high mark of a "different culture which no longer exists and didn't really exist then" because it's ultimate eradication had already been assured.

Woodstock worked because the participants tacitly knew this.

Altamont didn't because -- in just four months -- it was no longer possible to even pharmaceutically keep up the delusion.

Another excellent response.

Hell, I might just nominate you for the Don McLean "Moment of Clarity" award. You deserve it!!!

In my estimation, Woodstock has now been analyzed completely up and down, left to right, front to back, and inside and out.

Which will allow us to move to more pressing queries, such as who really WAS the Walrus???

Chas

[donquixote99]

Which came first, the Walrus or the Eggman?

[donquixote99]

I join Charles in praising Noone's and Zeke's contributions, which do a good job of evoking the mythical reality and significance of Woodstock.