Differences between Woodstock '69 and Woodstock '94

woodstock.6: Differences between Woodstock '69 and Woodstock '94

woodstock.6.0: David Gans (tnf)  Sat 6 Aug 94 10:30


woodstock.6.1: Are We Really? (really)  Sat 6 Aug 94 14:37

 Today for those who were at the original Woodstock...the drug of choice now
 				i   s
 			F	I	B	E	R

woodstock.6.2: Steve Silberman (digaman)  Sat 6 Aug 94 15:25

 Everyone is older now.  Sic transit gloria mundi.
 But the kids, and most of the adults, as Pete Townshend said when he was
 young, are alright.

woodstock.6.3: Revolutionary Pit-Woofies (cynsa)  Sat 6 Aug 94 19:33

 better port-o-potties?

woodstock.6.4: Gail Williams (gail)  Sat 6 Aug 94 22:38

 Really, i love the FIBER slogan...  optical, homespun or bran?
 Wondering if there will be mud, and drumming on found objects.  Good old
 anytime fun...

woodstock.6.5: editorial comment (green)  Sat 6 Aug 94 23:30


woodstock.6.6: editorial comment (green)  Sat 6 Aug 94 23:31

 Remember, fiber spelled backward is REBIF!

woodstock.6.7: otis (nycjag)  Mon 8 Aug 94 07:35


woodstock.6.8: on the other side of the sun (miga)  Mon 8 Aug 94 11:31

 There's going to be a rave at Woodstock '94!  With Orbital and the Orb - I'm
 looking forward!

woodstock.6.9: Danica Remy (remy)  Mon 8 Aug 94 16:01

 trying to hook up with the Ravestock group today.

woodstock.6.10: long brainstemmed roses (gail)  Tue 9 Aug 94 12:19

 The corporate sponsorship is getting a lot of coverage for being a big
 I wonder what the diff is between the fees charged by the bands this time,
 and those negotiated in '69
 Could it be done by the old model today?

woodstock.6.11: otis (nycjag)  Tue 9 Aug 94 13:10

 I think band are getting around $250,000.

woodstock.6.12: editorial comment (green)  Tue 9 Aug 94 20:12

 in '69 there was no CNN or pay-per-view, there were no pre-event thematic
 pepsi commercials or product tie-ins. There was simply a *conviction* that
 this was *_SO COOL_*, that this was an emblem of *our* coolness and
 But in a way, that there are major media coverages of this one proves maybe
 that *this* generation is the one that's extremely important: this decade's
 Woodstock Generation has the whole world wanting their attention, and they
 have proved themselves worth paying attention to.

woodstock.6.13: editorial comment (green)  Thu 11 Aug 94 09:38

 sad about the restrinctions against food and children . . . .

woodstock.6.14: robert (wstock1)  Thu 11 Aug 94 11:43

 hey   VICTORIA how are you today? I am doing just fine though my handle is
 oh yea well go ///// yourself! and have asunny day
 so Robert do you think  you will ever let go of your anger and rage for
 women and deal with your intimacy issuses or am I doomed?.

woodstock.6.15: otis (nycjag)  Thu 11 Aug 94 11:44


woodstock.6.16: on the other side of the sun (miga)  Thu 11 Aug 94 12:11

 that was two at once!  [a two-headed person?!?  no just two people typing in
 the same response....]

woodstock.6.17: otis (nycjag)  Thu 11 Aug 94 12:11


woodstock.6.18: tourist (wstock5)  Thu 11 Aug 94 12:41

 consider the vast marketing effort behind this festival versus the mere
 radio and newspaper ads of the first one. Consider the far greater size of
 the music market --million -selling albums are routine, while in 1969 bands
 like the airplane or the who were lucky to go gold--and the number of
 blockbuster bands on the bill. Finally, consider the grudging response of 
 the public, which didn't exactly break down the doors for tickets. 
 Questions: Would people rather be couch potatoes? Do we no longer trust 
 vast crowds? Are the bands too darn mainstream to draw an active 
 audience? Just asking.

woodstock.6.19:  (m-glito) (mg-lito) (mglito)  Thu 11 Aug 94 12:53

 #14 appears to have embarked on a '69-style Woodstock adventure ;-)

woodstock.6.20: You flew to me (jmsommer)  Thu 11 Aug 94 12:53

 I know of several people who would have gone but felt that the restrictions
 were excessive, i.e. not being able to bring tents or water.  Is this true?!
 At the last concert I saw, it was 90 degrees in the shade and the concesion
 stands would not let you keep the *cap* to the $2.25 bottle of Evian 
 they were selling (9 oz).  I was told I could not have the cap to discourage
 me from filling the container up at a water fountain.  It si this attitude
 that turned the potential ticket buyers I know off to the event.  What's
 your opinion? :)

woodstock.6.21: The Next Generation (mglito)  Thu 11 Aug 94 13:30

 That's what turned *me* off to Woodstock '94 (that and the fact that I
 couln't have gone anyway :-)
 I have been to festivals that were much better organized, where food & water
 were allowed and where people could leave in the daytime to go get their
 infant formula from the car & return sometime *before* 8am the next day.
 IMHO that arrangement makes far more sense than the crap these promoters are
 subjecting people to.  There's nothing wrong with making a little money, but
 when you try and squeeze people for all that they're worth, they're not
 going to have very fond memories of your festival.

woodstock.6.22: Noah (wstock1)  Thu 11 Aug 94 14:08

 I think that the development of the Woodstock spirit reflects the
 development of the world, and that's too bad !!

woodstock.6.23: Jennifer Powell (jnfr)  Thu 11 Aug 94 17:44

 Well, seriously...not allowed the caps because you might get your own water!
 What bullshit...sounds like time to foment a little revolution.

woodstock.6.24: jlttd (wstock5)  Thu 11 Aug 94 17:45

 it's too bad that the locals won't get to make this into a permanent site,
 because of big lawyers screwing local lawyers in the contracts.  this would
 be fantastic if it became a performing atrs center, instead of a one shot
 deal.  the future only knows ...  because what we all think locally is that
 it's going to turn into housing developments.  they've put in roads and
 they're going to subdivide it.

woodstock.6.25: editorial comment (green)  Thu 11 Aug 94 18:09

 [dumb question: is this on the same site as WS1?]

woodstock.6.26: on the other side of the sun (miga)  Thu 11 Aug 94 18:14

 I think not... I think the original site is near Bethel.  BTW, tents are
 definitely permitted!

woodstock.6.27: susan j (wstock5)  Thu 11 Aug 94 19:29

 In 1969 two young men in a blue Bonneville crashed into my Hertz rental
 truck knocking it over a cliff.  The only thing that was left on the ridge
 was the bumper!!!  His companion ended up in the hosipital with a broken
 neck.  We were almost killed.  Where are you and if you're here  at the 1994
 Woodstock Festival ...there is no difference!  Never-the-less,  Pete and I
 are having a WONDERFUL TIME!!!!

woodstock.6.28: we (justride)  Fri 12 Aug 94 08:03

 I believe the original site was near Bethel, but was actually in the town of
 White Lake.

woodstock.6.29: woody (wstock3)  Fri 12 Aug 94 09:22

 well, from what I heard, It is a lot cleaner and more restricted in '94 than
 the last one in '69, but then again it is only Fri..

woodstock.6.30: dj (wstock5)  Fri 12 Aug 94 09:55

 Though I wasn't at the original (I'm old enough) I think the  obvious
 difference is the diversity.  I'm here with my son who is 19 and we both are
 fascinated by what we're seeing.  The difference in styles surpasses the
 original and the sense of the event being a wild mix of mainstream,
 rebellion and high tech is fascinating!

woodstock.6.31: yo dude (wstock3)  Fri 12 Aug 94 10:04

 we're here at woodstock and there are 50 million people in pollen encrusted
 fields and pepsi cups filled with grass, well  the bands haven't played yet
 because they're waiting to cash their checks at the nearest bank I heard
 they were paid 40 billion dollars each. not bad though because there are
 tons of people who haven't paid for a ticket so the only ones loosing money
 on this one are pepsi and not the music fans.  so tell me what do you think

woodstock.6.32: Old Fart Rock and Roll (mikejs)  Fri 12 Aug 94 10:12

 Is Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie going to shopw up ? :-)

woodstock.6.33: Robert Lauriston (duck)  Fri 12 Aug 94 10:13

 Maybe there's not such a big difference after all.
 The Hal Espen piece on Woodstock '94 in the 8/15 New Yorker makes an
 interesting argument that the original Woodstock was essentially a 
 media event, that it was not the music and the people and the mud in
 upstate New York that was some kinda defining moment for a generation,
 but the media hype that followed:  the big Life photo spread, the
 triple album, the wide-screen stereo movie, Abble Hoffman (who'd been
 knocked off the stage by Pete Townsend for trying to interrupt the 
 Who's set to make a speech) proclaiming "Woodstock Nation."  And, of
 course, the promoters then as now intended to make money.
 So Woodstock 2 just combined the rock festival and the media hype
 into a single event.  I guess you could say this is also the defining
 moment for a generation ... the Pepsi generation.
 Be young, have fun, have your Visa or Mastercard number ready.

woodstock.6.34: Adele Framer (tigereye)  Fri 12 Aug 94 10:23

 I think the huge crowd at Woodstock made merchandisers and advertisers 
 sit up and take notice -- these weren't just raggedy annoying kids with 
 naive political leanings, there was a MARKET out there.
 Yep, it was defining, all right.

woodstock.6.35: David Gans (tnf)  Fri 12 Aug 94 10:25

 That's what Bill Graham said.  When BUSINESS saw all those "consumers"
 gathereed in one place, "everybody grew a wax moustache."

woodstock.6.36: Mad Hatter (airman)  Fri 12 Aug 94 10:27

 Marketing marketing marketing. And syndication is where they can really make

woodstock.6.37: mork (wstock2)  Fri 12 Aug 94 10:41

 Too bad we can't have a beer at 94 woodstock!

woodstock.6.38: shawn cramer   (wstock2)  Fri 12 Aug 94 11:37

 well the music is more intence moshing is a dance banging in to each 
 other  there is a AA and NA meetings which has come a long way 
 since  69 the good thing is that drugs are looked at as failure now 
 whipits seem to be a drug used alot I am drug free at 
 woodstock and seeing it throgh clean eyes 

woodstock.6.39: otis (nycjag)  Fri 12 Aug 94 11:42

 so, the one thing that is not different is people getting in for free

woodstock.6.40: Michael at MicroTimes (microx)  Fri 12 Aug 94 13:09

 Would it really be Woodstock if people were NOT crashing the party?
 It is nice to see that some folks are getting in without an
 official "Woodstock '94" ticket.
 One thing that probably has changed in the 25 years is performer's
 pay. I recently read that in '69 Santana was paid $750, the Dead
 got a whopping $2250 (this according to the SF Chronicle.)
 As for Jimi Hendrix, his contract called for $18,000 but he
 got something closer to $30,000.

woodstock.6.41: mo (wstock1)  Fri 12 Aug 94 13:14

 If I had known 94 woodstock was like this I would of brought my son.
 But then again it is only Friday and they are still coming in bus loads.

woodstock.6.42: otis (nycjag)  Fri 12 Aug 94 13:15

 jimi got paid more? damn! yeah, it would not be woodstock without people
 crashing and i am not complaining, but if i were there with a ticket, i'd
 bitch for on e minute. or two;-)

woodstock.6.43: Naked Cheif and Big Mama   (wstock5)  Fri 12 Aug 94 13:31

 Woodstock may be expensive, but the bands are cool and I am here and you are

woodstock.6.44: gimme an "F"! (reva)  Fri 12 Aug 94 14:16

 I can't argue with that last statement.

woodstock.6.45: otis (nycjag)  Fri 12 Aug 94 14:17

 but, actaully some of the people here are there!

woodstock.6.46: gimme an "F"! (reva)  Fri 12 Aug 94 14:29

 Wherever you are, Otis, there you are.

woodstock.6.47: otis (nycjag)  Fri 12 Aug 94 14:30

 as are you!

woodstock.6.48: roger from pittsburgh (wstock3)  Fri 12 Aug 94 14:39

 69 was disorganized mayhem this is organized mayhem

woodstock.6.49: Port-o-san Info Society (sje)  Fri 12 Aug 94 14:52

 >#3:  It is my understanding that port-o-potty technology has changed little
 since 1969.
 Now, on the other hand, Charmin technology is much improved...

woodstock.6.50: woody (wstock4)  Fri 12 Aug 94 17:06

 The  difference is what I'm doing right now!!!!!!

woodstock.6.51: furthurKane,onlyandalways (wstock2)  Fri 12 Aug 94 17:53

 Live it? exactly how?
 Would you let me have beer?
 Would you let me bring a tent stake?
 Or are you afraid that we might de-evlove to the point of bludgeoning our
 collegues with metal poles????????

woodstock.6.52:    (ernie)  Fri 12 Aug 94 18:06

 Would that we would!!

woodstock.6.53: stuart levitan (wstock3)  Fri 12 Aug 94 20:42

 The apparent absence of the "magic" that was the legacy of '69 points to the
 tremendous differences between the America of 1994 and the amerika of
 1969 -- differences that show this is a better country now than then.The
 weekend of Woodstock 1, 75 Americans died in Viet Nam, and it was war
 which wrent our country asunder and formed the backdrop for a gathering
 of the tribes. Now we fight no wars, and the debate which occupies our
 intense interest is over health care. A party for 500,000 at a time of war
 is bound to seem more special than a gathering half that size in a time of
 peace. But I would rather live in the country we've gotten back toda than
 the one we lost a generation ago. Of course, once we finally pass universal
 health care (single payer), I'll be even more sanguine  q

woodstock.6.54: Thou art that that thou art  (raemo)  Fri 12 Aug 94 22:10

 I think one of the differences is that in 69' people were wondering how many
 babies were born during the festival.
 In 94' I have a bet with several people as to how many people will be killed
 due to...whatever (gang violence, domestic violence, gay bashing....).
 Yeah. I know. I'm cynical.
 ...and you're not?
 (well, maybe put the cynicism on hold for the weekend)
 The ugly truth is that Rowanda, the Balkans, Haiti, neo-nazis and
 Republicans will *STILL* be happening come Monday.
 Question is: Is ANYTHING transformative happening that is going to make us
 SEE that this is a wounded, pained and suffering world that we're living on
 when the music stops and the trash cans are overflowing and people's clothes
 are dirty and you're heading back to the comfort of home....yeah, when the
 party's over....
 What are you gonna do come Monday?
 Just curious.

woodstock.6.55: infinity's child (dtv)  Fri 12 Aug 94 22:16

 You would have us all go around in a permanet funk?  Yeah, some stuff 
 sucks.  Some stuff is amazingly wonderful.  You can obsess on the downers 
 if you like, dude.  But that's not *all* there is to life.

woodstock.6.56: Kennedy Knight (wstock3)  Fri 12 Aug 94 22:29

 I believe that in concept, this is a very good idea, however, the outcome is
 almost purely manufactered for commercialism.

woodstock.6.57: infinity's child (dtv)  Fri 12 Aug 94 22:34

 I think we're all learning how to have fun IN SPITE of the commercial 
 crap. It's the ultimate rebellion.

woodstock.6.58: Howard Rheingold (hlr)  Fri 12 Aug 94 23:45

 Fun. It's a continuing thread in MY life.

woodstock.6.59: David Gans (tnf)  Sat 13 Aug 94 08:15

 I named my business Truth and Fun, Inc.!  These are two key factors in a
 healthy existence!

woodstock.6.60: dkdjl (wstock1)  Sat 13 Aug 94 09:41


woodstock.6.61: editorial comment (green)  Sat 13 Aug 94 10:28

 One difference that keeps running through my mind has to do with
 generational stuff, even though I can't articulate it that well. It's like
 people of the age of the attendees of the 69 one - or the actual attendees -
 the one this year is still playing music they can relate to (we), some of
 the performers are our age and "lifestyle," we out here in the audience can
 identify in a way, even if it's pretty remote.
 The people who in 69 were in their mid-40's were like "another generation" -
 they couldn't stand the music, they couldn't stand the clothes or the hair
 length or the politics or *anything*. I'm certainly not meaning to imply
 that there aren't great differences, and that there aren't things we oldies
 can learn from you, but it seems more like we might be on the same team
 rather than obvious opponants.

woodstock.6.62: ( O     O ) (bbraasch)  Sat 13 Aug 94 10:36

 my mother liked 'Lovely Rita Meter Maid'.

woodstock.6.63: David Gans (tnf)  Sat 13 Aug 94 11:05

 I _love_ Lovely Rita Meter Maid!  I'm marrying her next month!

woodstock.6.64: Conceived at Woodstock? NOT! (mglito)  Sat 13 Aug 94 12:08

 Oh, Dave, you're so romantic ;-)

woodstock.6.65: You let me get lucky with you (virginia)  Sat 13 Aug 94 13:21

 I have the impression that there isn't as much drinking or drugging at this
 Woodstock as the last one, although I could be wrong about that. This one
 probably has a lot more security, i.e. police presence.

woodstock.6.66: Prodigal Son (bgordon)  Sat 13 Aug 94 13:46

 The quality of the music. I just don't think you can compare the greatness
 of most of the acts at Woodstock '69 to Woodstock '94. Jimi Hendrix,
 Santana, The Who, Janis Joplin, Joan Baez, C,S&N. Go see the Director's Cut
 if you haven't, it was a real treat to see more photage of those acts
 including others. There are too many sour grapes out there, who like to
 dwell on the crappy aspects of Woodstock, ie. the rain, how many of the
 artists who played died a long time ago. Still, Ive read too much about it,
 and i highly recommend if you never got it, Life Magazine did a a great 20th
 anniversary issue back in '89. Filled with great photos, and quotes from
 those who were there. Long live Woodstock '69.

woodstock.6.67: David Gans (tnf)  Sat 13 Aug 94 13:48

 The security people are called "Peace patrol."  That seems Orwellian to me.

woodstock.6.68: Conceived at Woodstock? NOT! (mglito)  Sat 13 Aug 94 13:59

 Depends on how peaceful they are IMO.

woodstock.6.69: Puddnhead Wilson (warfrat)  Sat 13 Aug 94 14:37

 Wavy Gravy did a good job in '69. Too bad he did't do "security" this time.

woodstock.6.70: editorial comment (green)  Sat 13 Aug 94 16:10

 [was he the guy in the country joe commercial who says, too bad there's no
 condos yet? On like about my 20th time seeing it I suddenly recognized that
 I think it's him dressed up in a golfer outfit! a crackup!]

woodstock.6.71: David Gans (tnf)  Sat 13 Aug 94 16:32

 No, that's not Wavy.

woodstock.6.72: editorial comment (green)  Sat 13 Aug 94 16:40

 [you're probably right - but look closely at him the next time they run it -
 I think he's got on a red golf cap - I'll check again too . . . .]

woodstock.6.73: David Gans (tnf)  Sat 13 Aug 94 16:40

 I just saw it.  It's not Wavy.

woodstock.6.74: Puddnhead Wilson (warfrat)  Sat 13 Aug 94 17:13

 PHEW! Don't think I could've handled that one. :-)

woodstock.6.75: editorial comment (green)  Sat 13 Aug 94 17:34

 yeah - I'm kinda relieved - thanks!

woodstock.6.76: lots of mud (wstock5)  Sat 13 Aug 94 20:16

 this is a response to gail you bet your sweet ass that there is mud.
 there isn't a place here that isn't muddy or rapidly becoming muddy.

woodstock.6.77: ( O     O ) (bbraasch)  Sat 13 Aug 94 21:18

 >  I _love_ Lovely Rita Meter Maid!  I'm marrying her next month!
 My mother would like  too.

woodstock.6.78: Alan Feldstein (fiddle)  Sun 14 Aug 94 00:40

 In 69 the only profanity I can remember was Country Joe's Fish Cheer and
 Steven Stills' "scared shitless" statement..in 94 I think the only bands so
 far who have not used the f word multiple times are the Band and CSN!!

woodstock.6.79: Ben Austin (wstock3)  Sun 14 Aug 94 07:33

  In 1969, I was a mere six years old, so I can't speak with too
  mcuh authority here.  But I would imagine that people then were
  trading ponchos for acid.  Now, we are trading coffee for internet
  access.  Such are the times.

woodstock.6.80: Jane Gallion (chalis)  Sun 14 Aug 94 08:21

 Hi times . Sure are a lot of differences between what I'm reading
 here & what the media reports. plus la change, plus la meme chose, huh?

woodstock.6.81: Alan Turner (arturner)  Sun 14 Aug 94 09:14

 Will brew coffee for internet access!
 Will brew *Starbucks* coffee for a T3 connection.

woodstock.6.82: Robin Joss (joss)  Sun 14 Aug 94 13:21

 I find that I was too young too understand Woodstock '69 and am now too old
 ... through it all, I've maintained my Marcia Brady methos of dance.

woodstock.6.83: Catphish John (catphish)  Sun 14 Aug 94 13:34

 What bgordon said in #66.  I didn't go to GreedStock because there
 are a large # of acts I'd never pay to see live (especially all
 the eMpTyV acts on Friday).

woodstock.6.84: gimme an E! (kwinb)  Sun 14 Aug 94 14:07

 ooh good idea im off to brew some coffee

Italic footnote comments made February 2001.

Copyright 1994, 2001 The WELL. All rights reserved.