The Mosh Pit 7.25.08: Was Woodstock Overrated?

Posted by Dan Haggerty on 07.25.2008

This week the Mosh Pit looks at the legend that is the music festival at Woodstock, and asks if it was really as good as history tells us.



What is up everyone? Glad all of you out there in the virtual land of the internet could sign on to the Mosh Pit today, and I hope something great is playing in the background. This is my personal brand of op-ed, music education, talkable news, and one man's take on the music he loves.

For the curious, that's one of the reasons I named this the Mosh Pit. It's various concepts slammed together into a whole. A form of ordered chaos. Bet you didn't think this column had that much foresight, did ya? If it makes you feel better, I also picked it because the name sounded cool.

This week is all about an old pet-peeve of mine: The high pedestal that the music festival Woodstock has been placed upon. So I'll just blow the question part of this weeks title to shreds by saying Woodstock is not only way overrated, but in all actuality was a lousy festival that gets by on the rub it get from the big names that showed up. Well, that and the media have been playing reach around with it for 40 years.

Some where, the classic rock writers here at 411 are tearing up my membership card to the Classic Music Club, so I better get to explaining.



Why Woodstock Is Overrated

This week I had the joy of having an age old debate with another music fan, and it is a subject that just drives me to distraction: Woodstock.

"Well Dan, are you referring to the original Woodstock or the modern one?"

Both. As far as I'm concerned, they are the same in effect and result.

"WHAT? Are you nuts? They are completely different! The first was all about the Summer of Love and…"

Ah… No. First, yes, I am nuts. I'm a metalhead business manager who will be wearing a suit coat over his Candlemass shirt while you read this (got to love casual dress Friday). Further, I write a column for a website where I recently interviewed my cat. Actually, that received good reaction so I'll need to bring the little rug back. Second, both Woodstocks, while obviously motivated by different cultural reasons, ultimately were over-hyped festivals that did little good for the music they represented, made their music scene look bad, and just plain failed at being a good music festival.

Yes, I'm going there. Hang for a bumpy ride!

You see, normally a music festival is just that – A huge gathering of bands where people hang and have a good time. Europe has got this down and we're making good headway here in America. People go – They have fun – The drink and some get a little silly – We see our favorite bands – Everyone goes home happy. Festivals are cool and fun. But earth shattering cultural events they are not.

The problem for Woodstock is that it is exactly treated like some huge cultural event of historical significance. You almost get the idea it was the epicenter for change and music, and if we had another event of such magnitude life would be good. The reality is that it is not any of those, and in fact the event itself even failed to be a good festival.

Sure, some good musical moments happened: Jimi Hendrix playing the Star Spangled Banner was great. Anyone who even thinks of trying that for the rest of the human races existence will be compared to Hendrix. But as a total festival, it failed.

Let's take it from the top.

Woodstock was originally supposed to be a concert that cost $18 or $24 to get in (prepaid versus at the gate). But due to the overwhelming response, the venture company that set it up decided to make it free. They literally cut the fence to let everyone in. Instead of 200,000 people, they ended up with half a million for three days. When it comes down to it, the site didn't have the resources to deal with a crowd of that size. That's what happens when the planners just up and invite anyone in for free. They didn't have enough food, water, bathrooms, and even medical supplies. Further, most of that half-million didn't plan ahead and showed up for three days without much thought of shelter, food, or water. I know – Hippies plan? Yea.

Those few who did bring stuff passed it around. Stories of cereal boxes and fruit getting passed with the joints have been told. So you got an audience that is over packed into this place and under fed. Then the sun baked people. And of course the drugs baked people.

Then the limited port-o-potties filled up, became useless, and flooded the grounds.

Then it rained.

So figuratively, and literally, the conditions were shit. People flooded the medical tents due to heat stroke, dehydration, and who knows what else from the muddy conditions people lived in for three days. It was so bad; people were actually taken by emergency vehicles to local hospitals (and those had a hell of time getting to a farm over packed by a two and a half times capacity).

Does that sound like a good time? You couldn't pay me to go hungry and live in excrement laden, over-packed conditions for three days. So sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but as a music festival – Woodstock failed. And it failed BAD.

There are really two reasons things went bad. One, the people organizing the show blew it by being underprepared. They threw the doors open and didn't have the ability to handle the mass of humanity that showed up. I hate to say it, but they should have kept the cover charge so they could control capacity. The other was the hippies themselves. Let's face it – They showed up with no food or protection for three days, and then just sat in those conditions. They didn't have the sense to do something about it - Hell, leave… do SOMETHING. At least the kids at the second Woodstock had the energy to get pissed and burn the place. Not that I'm condoning arson, because I'm not, just that those kids at least had the common sense to know when they were being shit on by the organizers. The original Woodstock crowd got shit on literally and just took it.

Goddamn. I'd be gone. And if not the wife would have abandoned me on day one. Actually, one look and she probably wouldn't have stopped the car.

So this over packed toilet bowl of humanity is held up as a shinning beacon of the 60's Cultural Revolution? And the great bands of that era are linked to it like there is some symbiotic relationship between the two. No way. Woodstock came at the end of the 60's and after those bands were already rolling. It's a disgrace that bands like the Beatles, the Who, or Hendrix get linked to this mess. The fact is, they already made great music, they influenced people (and would have continued to do so anyway), and if anything, that pathetic display of piss-poor organization got the rub off of those musicians hard work. Would I have loved to see Hendrix play that day? Or The Who play a 25 song set including all of Tommy? Hell yes – Just not at this festival.

And that is the real crime. They screwed up bad at Woodstock, and between rose-tinted lenses that wish for the "magic" of the hippie era (don't get me started), and the revolutionary music of people like the Beatles or the Who, Woodstock would be an unknown failed festival that wasn't worth the crap that got stuck to peoples feet.

No wonder Sabbath invented the darkness of heavy metal the next year.


Encore

So please people – Learn to love, or at best respect, the great bands of the 60's. But treat the summer of love and Woodstock for what it really was: A bad festival. Admitting it doesn't change the bands that made rock and roll what it is today, and if anything, those bands don't deserved to be linked to the organizational debacle that was this festival. Woodstock II really did capture the essence of the original one, with its crappy organization that had no regard for the audience. But at least the second time the fans had the common sense to not take it.








Music Factoid


The Beatles didn't play at Woodstock because John Lennon demanded that the organizers had to let Yoko Ono's "Plastic Ono Band" play also, or they wouldn't appear; to the organizers credit they refused to sign on the Beatles (?!) versus having to put Darth Yoko on stage.





Parting Shots
Little bits of metal news, music industry news, and site happenings.

How in the HELL does Metallica think "
Unforgiven III" is a good idea. I still haven't forgiven them for the second one! I'm trying to stay positive here people, but… Damn

Man, I'm excited to hear the new Alice Cooper album. I saw the man live last year and it was a fun show. But the hype says it's a return to form, so that's probably the kiss of death right there. I doubt it will up to the 70's material, but I'd be happy with something close.

B.B. King is going to do a new album, and bring some blues legends with him. That should be good. There is something great about the man putting out music after all of this time, not to mention he still performs live. Now there is a real national treasure.

I had to laugh about people talking up the picture of Spears and her kid, whose playing with her pack of cigarettes. Have we become that PC of a society? When I was a kid, my mom would give me a dollar and a letter for the grocery store clerk. I'd use the letter to buy her cigs, and then I got to keep the change for some candy. No way today's police nanny state would let that fly.

News flash to TMZ and Entertainment Tonight. Madonna is playing you chumps like a fiddle. She's not pulling all of that crap… She's working you idiots for the free publicity. I've watched her create controversy for 25 years, always riding the wave to be relevant, and she is doing it again. Even if a fraction of it is true, it's being done intentionally to get maximum bang for her buck out of you.

Final Thoughts

It's been real. It's been fun. It was even real fun venting on Woodstock. But in the end it's all about the music, so check out the bands that were there and then turn them up to 11. Keep it real folks and feel see you next week.