Woodstock 69 is highly overrated.

[WolfStar999]

Originally posted by YankeeRose
Sounds like a great line up...but what was the behavior of the fans like? How many assaults, robberies, drug arrests, etc did they have? I have never heard of any rock festival, other than Woodstock 69, that had absolutely none of these.

Except for Doc McGhee (I don't care how his name is spelled.) screwing over Motley Crue (Bon Jovi as a headliner? PUH-lease!!), the festival went very smoothly, and the fans had a total blast. I've researched it extensively. Now if you want a festival that went totally awry and resulted in rape and violence (perpetrated by the Russian Military Police, no less), it would be Monsters of Rock in Moscow with AC/DC, Metallica, The Black Crowes, and Pantera in '91. That was just brutal.

[YankeeRose]

I'm not asking for the most violent....I'm asking if there were any others that had absolutely no arrests at all, for any reason...

[Kelly]

I kind of agree that Woodstock 69 is overrated as an event. There were, however, some classic performances - the Who stand out for me - but Sha Na fuckin Na certainly look pretty odd there!

It was pretty historic in some sense that it was maybe a symbol of that hippy era (I hate hippies!), but at the end of the day it was just a concert - did it change the world? I don't think so, but who cares! 3 days taking drugs, listening to great music, getting laid - sounds great to me!

[Wayne L.]

Woodstock 69 is highly overrated as a rock festival despite classic performances by the Who, Ten Years After, Santana, Country Joe McDonald, CSN&Y & Jimi Hendrix if you have seen the documentary because it defines the baby boomers of the 60's youth generation more so than Bob Dylan, the Beatles & the Kennedy assassination. There were much better rock festivals afterward which never got much attention for some reason but should have like the Texas Pop Festival two weeks after Woodstock back in 69, Cal. Jam 1 & 2 in 74/78, Texxas Jam in 78/79 & the US Festival in 82/83 which were just as significant despite not being as historical but Woodstock 69 is looked at positively mostly because there was no violence unlike at Altamont 5 months later.

[YankeeRose]

Wayne..you sound like you're quoting someone else's declaration in a debate....

Also...Although infamous, Altemont was, by no means, the success that Woodstock '69 was.

[Marlowe01]

Woodstock 1969 is famous for more reasons than just the fact no deaths occurred and because of the lineup. No festival will ever be the same in terms of ambience of it all.

[Matt White]

Woodstock '69? I was 1 years old. Couldn't give a fuck! The sixties are WAY over-rated anyway. The 60's generation keeps their LONG forgotten youth alive by the constant campaign to keep it in the public eye. WHO CARES?!?! 2004. WELCOME TO THE FUTURE MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!

DAVE OR THE GRAVE BABY!!!

[YankeeRose]

You sound so young and dumb....it's kinda pitiful.

[Matt White]

Originally posted by YankeeRose
You sound so young and dumb....it's kinda pitiful.

Oh yeah Momma, and at 5 I'm sure you were DIGGIN' the 60's. Get over it sister. Your a late 70's-early80's chick. The 60's were gone as fast as the 90's, and Gen-x ani't beatin' the drum to tell EVERYBODy younger how COOL it was. And lose the feathered hair and hip-huggers, time to act your age.

DAVE OR THE GRAVE BABY!!!!

[Dan]

Originally posted by Wayne L.
Woodstock 69 is highly overrated as a rock festival despite classic performances by the Who, Ten Years After, Santana, Country Joe McDonald, CSN&Y & Jimi Hendrix if you have seen the documentary because it defines the baby boomers of the 60's youth generation more so than Bob Dylan, the Beatles & the Kennedy assassination. There were much better rock festivals afterward which never got much attention for some reason but should have like the Texas Pop Festival two weeks after Woodstock back in 69, Cal. Jam 1 & 2 in 74/78, Texxas Jam in 78/79 & the US Festival in 82/83 which were just as significant despite not being as historical but Woodstock 69 is looked at positively mostly because there was no violence unlike at Altamont 5 months later.

This is when Wayne L at an early age wanted to be a ShoeSaleman.

[monkeythe]

I think the movie helped Woodstock keeps its place in history. Despite not being born for several years at the time of the event I have seen the movie and can comment on that event. The other festivals don't have that luxury of a movie that is aired semi-regularly and that is why Woodstock will always be considered as big as it is. I am a prety big music fan and have never seen many of the events listed in previous threads.
All of the other festivals, for as big as they at the time will not age as well due to the lack of people seeing them.

[Panamark]

Wayne L ?????????

Did you happen to see how many naked women's feet there
was at woodstock 69 ??

I thought any crowd footage of that gig would be in your private
collection !

[CROWBAR]

WAYNE L.= HIGHLY OVERATED

[Rikk]

I hate hippies. Anyway, there was so much shitty music in Woodstock '69 (Jefferson Airplane, Country Joe, Joan Baez), and rather greedy promoters (no matter what they'd have you believe). But the bottom line is that there were some good performances. But for the most part, the film was a rather tricky edit, making the festival look more important than it was and making the performances look top-notch. But many bands listed the festival as having among their worst performances. Two big-name acts refused to have their parts included in the film (Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Grateful Dead) because of shabby performances. One act refused to be filmed (Neil Young with CSNY). Janis Joplin was originally cut out of the film because of a rather lacklustre performance (she's only in the Director's Cut). Hendrix's performance, as famous as it was, was actually extremely sloppy by his standards. The Who performed what Pete Townshend has called their "worst performance".

You want the ultimate late 60's/early 70's festival: ISLE OF WIGHT '70. Great film, plus two more entire DVDs dedicated to almost complete performances by two huge acts...again, THE WHO and JIMI HENDRIX. THE WHO's performance is amazing, 100 times better than Woodstock (too bad it's not quite complete on the DVD), and HENDRIX's performance, while also a bit sloppy by his standards, is much more exciting and again a great 2-hour DVD of its own. Other amazing performances: TEN YEARS AFTER (who were also excellent at Woodstock), FREE and many others. THE DOORS also played one of their last performances at the Isle of Wight, though their performance was a bit lacklustre (Morrison was really tired).

Woodstock '69 is, indeed, over-rated.

[Vivian Campbell]

Originally posted by Matt White
Woodstock '69? I was 1 years old. Couldn't give a fuck! The sixties are WAY over-rated anyway. The 60's generation keeps their LONG forgotten youth alive by the constant campaign to keep it in the public eye. WHO CARES?!?! 2004. WELCOME TO THE FUTURE MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!

DAVE OR THE GRAVE BABY!!!

Right on Matt!