My thought on Woodstock: what made it unique

I'm not one of those that think Woodstock changed the world. But for those who claim that it was just another concert, that it wasn't anything special, that they've been to Woodstock like events because they've been to a Phish concert, or a Dead show, or some punk festival, they are missing the point.

What made Woodstock unique is that it offered its audience a diversity of music that you simply do not see today (nor have you seen much since Woodstock for that matter). The array of musical styles on stage is mindboggling by today's standards, where most opening acts are barely tolerated by audiences and only if they are aimed at the same audience as the headliner. In contrast, Woodstock featured artists ranging from The Who and Jimi to Melanie and John Sebastian, from Mountain to Ravi Shankar, from Sha Na Na to the Buttefield Blues Band, and on and on. The Woodstock "generation" such as it was, embraced, in varying degrees, all of them. In college I knew people who had records by virtually every artist that played Woodstock, even when that meant that a record by the Incredible String Band shared a shelf with a record by Sly and the Family Stone.

Here is the complete list of performers and songs. This, and the fact that in pretty difficult conditions, the audience came together with a minimum of conflict and a maximum of community, is what makes Woodstock different from almost anything since (at least here in the US).

http://www.woodstock69.com/Woodstock_songs.htm

Obviously, it differentiates it from other rock concerts -- but it doesn't make it any different than other music festivals. Just as an example, here's the lineup from this year's Coachella:

http://www.coachella.com/event/lineup

Everything from TV on the Radio to Devandra Banhart. Leonard Cohen to Felix da Housecat. Public Enemy to the Ting Tings.

If anything, because of the inclusion of rap and electronic acts, you could make the case that the lineup for this year's Coachella is actually more diverse than that of Woodstock, which, while definitely varying in sound, stuck generally within the rock genre.


Edited to add: Also, with regard to the Woodstock generation having all their albums, I would argue that, again, that sort of diversity is reflected to an even greater extent in contemporary iPod playlists.

That would have been like the original 1969 Woodstock having Blind Lemon Jefferson headline

People who attended Woodstock weren't, generally speaking, also listening to their parents' Big Band or, to use your example, old blues records.

People who attended Coachella, however, listen to the Beatles.


Edited to add: Also, as we're talking about the relative diversity of festivals here, doesn't the fact that Coachella includes older acts show it to be all the more diverse?

At Boomers who won't give up the ghost.

If you asked a young person in 1969 what they thought of, say, the Lennon sisters, they'd laugh at the ridiculousness that they or anyone else they knew should be into that.

They somehow expect a 21 YO to be into Eric Clapton, while so many commercial radio programmers laugh themselves silly at the idea they should be playing Fleet Foxes or M. Ward.

And then they turn around and wonder why that 21 year old is pissed off and dissing everyone from U2 to ... Woodstock.

among others. Not only do radio stations refuse to play modern bands, they won't even play the modern music of old guys -- when's the last time you heard, say, a new Bruce Springsteen song on the radio?

In about 1 minute.

As someone who came of age in the 1960's, you are right on point.

While old blues was a part of popular music then (at least if your listened to the "alternative FM radio"), the range of music you get at festivals like Coachella is amazing.

I am flattered that folks 20 years younger than I show much more respect for the music I grew up on than I ever did for the music of my parent's generation

After all, the Beatles are still within the rock genre, and obviously, a lot of the stuff that's around today is built on the stuff from the 60s and 70s, so it makes sense that people would listen to the older stuff still.

But contrast that with old delta blues. Rock may be based on the blues, but only as far as structure and progression. Sonically, they don't have a lot in common, so it's understandable that kids in the 60s wouldn't bother with older stuff -- it was just so much different than what they were listening to.

for old blues artists, as did the Stones, Led Zeppellin................................... Blind Lemon would have been right at home at Woodstock.

:hi:

I know Sir Paul has made more than his share of commercialized pap ("Band on the Run"), but isn't this comparison a bit harsh?

"That would have been like the original 1969 Woodstock having Blind Lemon Jefferson headline"

That I can live with

Does that make it "particularly unqiue" for you? Or can you only look backwards? SINCE then and INSPIRED BY Woodstock, "it doesn't make it any different than other music festivals," as far as your concerned.... from your point of view in time, apparently unable to sort out that it was unique for its time and one of the first.

The other thing the OP didn't mention and you got around to in this subthread is radio. The same diversity well described in the OP was all around us on the free airwaves. I OP'd last night an attempt to share via youtube a set list of how it felt, how it FELT to be of that time. Someone else might put together a different set. Actually I requested that they do -- a bridge of music from that time to this. Got some Leonard Cohen and Hole and the thread is sinking.

People apparently like fighting about this generational stuff. One person here who is claiming being "pissed off" is the right response. Maybe. But pissed off at who? The older generations "lame music" and tiresome nostalgia? Or the corporations that took over the music industry, killed it off, bought up the airwaves and now own all media?

So you and OP didn't consder the difference reflected by diverse radio at the time, the OP did make the point about demographics with the "opening band" comment, which you chose to miss because an ALTERNATIVE megaconcert, has diverse bands.

The difference is between the times of shared public experience -- as daily life, not an occasional outing -- via public airwaves and times of private space, earbudded humans choosing individual songs to shove directly into their heads.

The organizers of that very festival did Miami Pop a year before, and Monterey Pop in '67 was really the blueprint for this sort of thing. I certainly appreciate Woodstock as a cultural watershed of course. And like I said in my first comment on this thread, I agree that Woodstock has a diverse lineup.

Also, I did not "chose to miss" the opening band comment. Indeed, my very first sentence talked about Woodstock being different from standard rock concerts -- agreeing, in essence, with the OP's comment that Woodstock is different than concerts with an opening band.

I don't understand how you took my comment to be at all argumentative or confrontational. That wasn't how it was intended. I think maybe you might be looking to be offended?

On edit: Upon re-reading my original comment, I think you might have read it to say that I don't find Woodstock to be unique in any case. That's not how that was intended. What I meant was "The diversity of the lineup is not the factor that makes Woodstock -- certainly a unique event -- the unique event that it was." That make more sense?

Not only are you bent on missing the OP's points and mine, you are not listening, ready to be right and counter whatever is said, even if you misread it.

:boring:

Your post had thread main points:

"Obviously, it differentiates it from other rock concerts -- but it doesn't make it any different than other music festivals."

"...this year's Coachella is actually more diverse than that of Woodstock, which, while definitely varying in sound, stuck generally within the rock genre."

"...that sort of diversity is reflected to an even greater extent in contemporary iPod playlists."

If you were interested in discussion, you would have listened to what I said. Since this is a continuation of the generational wars for you -- or because of reading comprehension -- that's just not happening.


I said Woodstock was "one of the first." You argued something I did not say.

'So you and OP didn't consider the difference reflected by diverse radio at the time, the OP did make the point about demographics with the "opening band" comment...'

I said "made a point about demographics...." and you're misreading both my post and the OP: "agreeing, in essence, with the OP's comment that Woodstock is different than concerts with an opening band."

Anyway.

and I won't be your monkey. Sorry.

The fact that you are unable to carry on discussion and project that I am "offended" at all says more about you. (If you misread something do you ever go back and say, Oh Yeah, I can see that differently now?)

You only see or listen to what is already in your head, you're stuck and can't perceive past it. Or even acknowledge it when it's pointed out to you OR acknowledge that a discussion is different from a battle and you are stuck on being RIGHT so you're gonna get even MORE pompous about how RIGHT you are, INTENT on missing the POINTS!!! :rofl:


It's sad really. That is classic representation of the kind of miscommunication skills common these days, on DU and elsewhere.

Good luck with that. :toast:

I thought it was about a large group of people coming together for a communal experience that involved sharing with open hearts and a sense of joy.

I've had those experiences at Dead concerts, Art conventions, Ritual work.

At spontaneous gathers like in Union Square Park in NY after September 11th.

At community events like Chowder & Clam Shucking Contests.

I've had multiple Woodstocks throughout my adult life. I seek them out and occasionally work on organizing them. Maybe there's a difference in what we all consider made Woodstock, Woodstock.

1968: Woodstock <== Sha-Na-Na

1973: Vietnam War ended

1975: the rest of the Vietnam War ended

1976: Jimmy Carter elected president

1985: Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie write that "We are the World"

1988: Television becomes less of a medium for pure escapism from the world's worries with the invention of "reality television"

1994: Sharon Gless stars in Cagney & Lacey: The Return

2001: The French hold up signs saying, "We are all Americans now" although, sadly, the signs are in French and so nobody realizes just how solidified we are.

2002: The French make amends by relinquishing intellectual proprietary rights to "French fries"

Obviously change doesn't happen overnight, but the clear trend here is toward greater unity and harmony in the world.

:popcorn:

America's Most Wanted. Happy now, ya big popcorn sloth?

:shrug: Muthashrugga

Reality's gone downhill ever since.

I LOVED those guys.

ed. to add -- nice post. :hippie:

Don't forget diverse music shared the airwaves as well...

Rock and soul and folk acts back to back.