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 ATMS!!!!! 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 difference. 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 specialness. 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 sunny 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 huh? 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 the money. woodstock.6.37: mork (wstock2) Fri 12 Aug 94 10:41 Too bad we can't have a beer at 94 woodstock! p 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. --mrmr 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 not. 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? Wouldstock. 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 raemo, 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. r ? 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 sadjfhdgf 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 Heh. 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. YMMV. 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 message 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. Ben 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 ps 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
See the main Woodstock project page for more
of the backstory.
See the main Woodstock project page for more of the backstory.
Italic footnote comments made February 2001.
Copyright 1994, 2001 The WELL. All rights reserved.