So, as many people are probably aware, this past week marked the fortieth anniversary of Woodstock. There have been all kinds of retrospectives, photo montages and interviews in newspapers and online, all focusing on the glory of this one weekend back in 1969. However, as a twenty-year-old music fan, I draw issue with all of this Woodstock-centric backslapping and reminiscing. To me, it sends out a few big messages that I don’t completely agree with:
1) Woodstock was awesome and represented the culmination of the 60s counterculture ideals.
Clearly, I wasn’t at Woodstock. All I have are descriptions that have been passed down through the years and the famous film to base any judgment on. However, what I’ve seen and heard sounds like a huge mudpit full of smelly hippies. This is certainly not my idea of a good time. The other problem with this whole “defined-an-era” type talk is that, to put it bluntly, the 60s failed. Forty years later, the hippies and all their associated ilk aren’t seen so much as forward-thinking cultural revolutionaries. They’re seen as ignorant, blissed-out idealists, who convinced themselves that the world could operate in a way that we now see it can’t. We can’t just all “love one another and get along.” It’s cynical but it’s true and celebrating Woodstock as a monument to the 60s sounds like you’re celebrating a monument to ignorance, if you ask me.
2) Woodstock was a one-of-a-kind event that can never happen again.
This is probably true. Woodstocks ’94 and ’99 pretty much proved that any attempts to recreate the old magic will end in a) more mud, b) rampant corporate gouging and c) sexual assault during Limp Bizkit sets. The mere fact that Limp Bizkit were allowed near anything with the name “Woodstock” attached to it is proof enough. However, this does not mean that Woodstock is “better” than any modern concert-going experience. All too often, I feel that Woodstock retrospectives imply that it was a better, more “pure” (whatever that means) live music experience than anything us modern hooligan teenagers go to. This is, again quite frankly, bullshit. The times have changed and live music is certainly different. But one is not better than the other. Those young whipper-snappers still enjoy live music, even if we don’t think we’re part of some forward-thinking cultural movement. We get a lot less muddy too.
3) The music at Woodstock was at an entirely different level.
This is the thing that irritates me the most about all this rose-tinted Woodstock lingering. Of course everyone is going to talk about the music at Woodstock and, of course, most of it was probably great. From what little film has survived from the concert, plenty of the performances seem stellar. However, this reinforces a belief that is widely kept throughout our (ie: American) culture: that the music of the late 60s was the best that music ever was and that no modern bands will ever reach this shining pedestal that we lift the 60s rock & rollers up upon. Anytime you see lists of “the best albums ever,” they are dominated by music from the 60s, especially the Woodstock bands (along with the Beatles, Stones, Dylan and so forth). All of these are great artists, but there are plenty of modern acts doing things just as amazing. The 60s were not the pinnacle of music. They had plenty of great artists…just like every other decade. Dwelling on the past of Woodstock and the supposed greatness of those musicians only makes it easier for people of an older generation to condescend towards the music of my own. The real tragedy is that this older generation has managed to convince their kids that this old music is better than modern music as well. I say this should end here. Enough retroactive romanticizing of Woodstock and the supposed “glory years” of the past. Live in the present. Embrace the modern. Find the greats of today who will become the classics of tomorrow. Stop living in the past.
1) Woodstock was awesome and represented the culmination of the 60s counterculture ideals.
Clearly, I wasn’t at Woodstock. All I have are descriptions that have been passed down through the years and the famous film to base any judgment on. However, what I’ve seen and heard sounds like a huge mudpit full of smelly hippies. This is certainly not my idea of a good time. The other problem with this whole “defined-an-era” type talk is that, to put it bluntly, the 60s failed. Forty years later, the hippies and all their associated ilk aren’t seen so much as forward-thinking cultural revolutionaries. They’re seen as ignorant, blissed-out idealists, who convinced themselves that the world could operate in a way that we now see it can’t. We can’t just all “love one another and get along.” It’s cynical but it’s true and celebrating Woodstock as a monument to the 60s sounds like you’re celebrating a monument to ignorance, if you ask me.
2) Woodstock was a one-of-a-kind event that can never happen again.
This is probably true. Woodstocks ’94 and ’99 pretty much proved that any attempts to recreate the old magic will end in a) more mud, b) rampant corporate gouging and c) sexual assault during Limp Bizkit sets. The mere fact that Limp Bizkit were allowed near anything with the name “Woodstock” attached to it is proof enough. However, this does not mean that Woodstock is “better” than any modern concert-going experience. All too often, I feel that Woodstock retrospectives imply that it was a better, more “pure” (whatever that means) live music experience than anything us modern hooligan teenagers go to. This is, again quite frankly, bullshit. The times have changed and live music is certainly different. But one is not better than the other. Those young whipper-snappers still enjoy live music, even if we don’t think we’re part of some forward-thinking cultural movement. We get a lot less muddy too.
3) The music at Woodstock was at an entirely different level.
This is the thing that irritates me the most about all this rose-tinted Woodstock lingering. Of course everyone is going to talk about the music at Woodstock and, of course, most of it was probably great. From what little film has survived from the concert, plenty of the performances seem stellar. However, this reinforces a belief that is widely kept throughout our (ie: American) culture: that the music of the late 60s was the best that music ever was and that no modern bands will ever reach this shining pedestal that we lift the 60s rock & rollers up upon. Anytime you see lists of “the best albums ever,” they are dominated by music from the 60s, especially the Woodstock bands (along with the Beatles, Stones, Dylan and so forth). All of these are great artists, but there are plenty of modern acts doing things just as amazing. The 60s were not the pinnacle of music. They had plenty of great artists…just like every other decade. Dwelling on the past of Woodstock and the supposed greatness of those musicians only makes it easier for people of an older generation to condescend towards the music of my own. The real tragedy is that this older generation has managed to convince their kids that this old music is better than modern music as well. I say this should end here. Enough retroactive romanticizing of Woodstock and the supposed “glory years” of the past. Live in the present. Embrace the modern. Find the greats of today who will become the classics of tomorrow. Stop living in the past.
1) I don't disagree that the culture that spawned woodstock was ignorant and subsequently failed because of that. However, it certainly is a monument to THAT culture and fairly well represents the culmination of that cultures ideals.
ReplyDelete2) I don't think a concert of that magnitude with a line-up of that calibre will ever happen again. For three soid days you had band after band, all of whom were giants of popular music. Based on stylistic divisions of modern music alone I don't think you will ever see such an extensive line-up of todays muiscal icons. Also, logisticaly it would be nearly impossible ('94 and '99 being exhibits A and B respectively)
3) The quality of music at Woodstock was at times unforgettable, other times (most of the time) mediocre and average at best. The elements that brought it to an "entirely different level" were the people involved and the circumstances under which it occurred. Never before had anything of this size been orchestrated, so you could say it really did raise the bar. As for the quality of the musicians and their place in music history; perhaps they are a little overhyped at times, but they are all amazing bands that produced amazing and timeless albums. Honestly it seems like you often resent the fact they are repeatedly drilled into us. I feel like you unjustly ignore them because of this in your own critiques.
Woodstock was certainly a one-time show. Nothing like it will ever happen again. The mentality of the people who performed, organized, and attended the festival will never rematerialize itself. Sure it was a giant mudpit, but they were all hippies! Thats the kind of shit they liked and they were have a grand old time playing in the mud and listening to some kick ass music while doing it. Just because it doesnt sound very appealing to us doesnt mean they didnt enjoy the hell out of it. I don't think anyone of our generation can understand the nostalgia of something like Woodstock because we weren't there and we don't fully understand the circumstances and the times. We live in a completely different world with a completely different mindset. All we have from woodstock are some pictures and a few incomplete recordings.