|
The Dead are f+#+ing awesome. But they wanted to get paid to play, they weren't playing Woodstock out of any altruistic hippy joy of the moment.
So don't forget to insert "get paid to" between drugs and play. Drugs don't pay for themselves, my friend, and the Dead were into some expensive s*+!...
I just can't stand this Boomer myth making. And I wasn't attacking the Dead, I was pointing out Woodstock became what it is after the fact. With a bunch of revisionist thinking.
Meh@The Grateful Dead.
Not my style. I love Velvet Underground tho :)
And Frank Zappa. But I think the music of the 60s is pretty overrated. I'm more of a punk/new wave/post punk guy. Wire, Throbbing Gristle, Talking Heads, Clash, Public Image Ltd.
The Dead are f+%&ing awesome.
Okay, cool, just as long as we're clear on the important issues.
Meh@The Grateful Dead.
Not my style. I love Velvet Underground tho :)
And Frank Zappa. But I think the music of the 60s is pretty overrated. I'm more of a punk/new wave/post punk guy. Wire, Throbbing Gristle, Talking Heads, Clash, Public Image Ltd.
Those bands are all cool, but if you're going to deny the Dead, you're dead to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those bands are all cool, but if you're going to deny the Dead, you're dead to me.
** spoiler omitted **
You guys are talking about the Dead Kennedys, right? ;-)
Can't stop the music derail!
I loved the DKs growing up; going back I can only take them in small doses. Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables? Awesome! Frankenchrist and Bedtime for Democracy? Shudder.
As the years went by and I heard more Alternative Tentacles releases I came to the conclusion that, despite my great respect for Mr. Biafra and general agreement with most of his political views, we don't share much musical taste in common.
The fact that the bands got paid is not a concern. I fully expect people to get fairly paid for the work they do. And the fact that they got paid isn't relevant to whether or not the gathering was the most famous civil gathering in US history and the cornerstone of the Peace movement.
Proof that Woodstock was the cornerstone of the peace movement still has yet to be provided, especially as the peace movement had already been going on for something like 5 years before Woodstock.
I have read widely about the sixties counterculture, the anti-war movement, and psychedelic rock. I am not saying this to be snooty, but, until this thread, I have never encountered anyone trying to make the argument that Woodstock was the most important event in the peace movement, let alone the cornerstone of said movement, or, for that matter, even an explicitly political event. It was billed as "Three Days of Peace and Music," true, but it was a rock concert. A significant one that captured the zeitgeist of 1969 hippiedom, sure, but nothing more.
I am not saying this to be snooty, but, until this thread, I have never encountered anyone trying to make the argument that Woodstock was the most important event in the peace movement, let alone the cornerstone of said movement, or, for that matter, even an explicitly political event.
Well obviously you're lying because if you had read ANYTHING you would understand the ontological manifestation of the zeitgeist! Pick up a book !
:k
I know of one person who went to Woodstock. She said it was just a concert she went to with friends, and has no idea why it has the reputation it does- there was no small amount of violence behind the scenes(although she is quick to say it was nothing like the violence that's seen at concerts today), and most people there were stoned out of their minds anyway. She remembers only bits and pieces herself.
Well obviously you're lying because if you had read ANYTHING you would understand the ontological manifestation of the zeitgeist! Pick up a book !
:k
[Flipping through the "O" section of the dictionary]
Man, I am just a dim-witted goblin Teamster. What the hell does this mean? Oh, I know who I can ask...
It means "Hell is other posters!"
|
|
The fact that the bands got paid is not a concern. I fully expect people to get fairly paid for the work they do. And the fact that they got paid isn't relevant to whether or not the gathering was the most famous civil gathering in US history and the cornerstone of the Peace movement.
It says peacefully, not unobtrusively. In fact half the effectiveness of assembling IS making a nuisance out of yourself.The most famous civil gathering in US history was Woodstock - which wasn't in a city. It managed to be quite effective without deliberately blocking the flow of emergency vehicles.
Wow, do you not know the history of that event. It was a clusterf!$#.
And, reading your further posts about it, you're falling into Boomer Revisionist History as well. The promoters and the bands had no interest other than getting paid, there wasn't any "cumbaya" going on. Hell, they had to fly cash in or half the bands weren't going on (including everyone's favorite "anti-establishment" act, the Grateful Dead).
All that "cornerstone of the peace movement" b$+!$+@+ was tacked on after the fact.
Seriously.
Woodstock wasn't the "cornerstone" of anything. That is very revisionist history.
|
|
I know of one person who went to Woodstock. She said it was just a concert she went to with friends, and has no idea why it has the reputation it does- there was no small amount of violence behind the scenes(although she is quick to say it was nothing like the violence that's seen at concerts today), and most people there were stoned out of their minds anyway. She remembers only bits and pieces herself.
My dad went also. He told me it was just a concert, and all of the "cultural phenomenon" stuff really didn't gain any traction until the movie came out and everyone made it out to be bigger than it was, impact-wise.
|
|
Dude, you're going by a poster. It's called "advertising".
I bet you think Budweiser makes frogs talk, too.
And, its message was that 400,000 people will show up to a concert without a ticket, break down a fence and leave a few thousand tons of trash behind. And, had the promoters NOT paid a bunch of those performers on the spot, and half the acts didn't go on, I doubt it would have been all that peaceful when nearly half a million kids got pissed there wasn't any concert.
|
|
My evidence would be, you know, what really happened. What the promoters said. What the bands did before they'd go on. Stuff like that. All documented. All public information.
And, you know, that "Aquarian Exposition"? Um, they even had a song called "Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In", by the Fifth Dimension that came out like two years before Woodstock, so, wow, they were trying to cash in on something. That's what promoters do.
At the time, there were no doubt some people who hoped it would be the culmination of the age of love or whatever. No doubt there were many, many more who just wanted to get wasted and listen to some awesome tunes and maybe pick up a few STDs while they were at it. No doubt there were any number of people (*ahem * Joe Cocker *) there who overdid the above to the point where they don't remember anyway.
The point is, though, that regardless of whether Woodstock was a non-event at the time, after the fact it did come to be the symbol of the whole '60s Hippie thing. That isn't any more "revisionist" than the symbolic importance we now give to the signing of the Delcaration of Independence (which also didn't actually happen all at once, as one big event, but later came to symbolize something bigger than the pieces actually were).
Meh. It became the symbol of how much cooler our parents (baby boomers, for those of my generation) were than us. Old hippies need to STFU.
Sure, but those same Boomers wanted their parents to STFU about Rosie the Riveter and the beach at Normandy and so on, and those people in turn used to want their parents to STFU about leaving Oklahoma for California, or Prohibition, or whatever. In 100 AD they were saying the same thing about their parents' symbologizing the eruption of Vesuvius as the end of some era. Hell, we'll already talking like that about 9/11. The younger folks will maybe reference OWS the same way to their kids -- who knows?
Everyone wants their parents to STFU.
One of the things Woodstock DIDN'T do was deliberately create a gathering which undermined the way people will view it (such as OWS blocking the paths of emergency vehicles).
Theft, destruction of private property, public intoxication were all rife -- and at one point there were rumors they had to close the NY state Throughway. Most of OWS has been pretty tame by comparison.
Also remember that Woodstock came to symbolize the same era that included such fun events as the Kent State Massacre.
|
|
The point isn't whether or not our parents were cooler than we are.
The point is that Woodstock has had cultural importance for 40 years. If Occupy Wall Street wants to have any lasting importance, it should take some lessons from Woodstock on how to do it.
One of the things Woodstock DIDN'T do was deliberately create a gathering which undermined the way people will view it (such as OWS blocking the paths of emergency vehicles).
Woodstock shut down a huge chunk of the NY Thruway. One of the reasons one of the people that died did so, they couldn't get help to them.
Ninja's by Kirth.
I never heard my grandfathers talk about Normandy, kind of like I never heard my dad talk about Vietnam. One thing I noticed about war, the more someone talks about it, the less likely they actually experienced it.
True that.
I used to always wish my great-grandfather would stop talking about the end of the stagecoaches, however.
|
|
One of the things Woodstock DIDN'T do was deliberately create a gathering which undermined the way people will view it (such as OWS blocking the paths of emergency vehicles).Theft, destruction of private property, public intoxication were all rife -- and at one point there were rumors they had to close the NY state Throughway. Most of OWS has been pretty tame by comparison.
Also remember that Woodstock came to symbolize the same era that included such fun events as the Kent State Massacre.
Or Altamonte just a month or so later. And Charles Manson. And a host of riots.
Or Altamonte just a month or so later.
"The Stones said those guys are great for security -- you just pay 'em in beer!" The Hell's Angels sort of got an unfairly bad rep for that whole deal. Place was still a mess, though!
the bikers' reaction was a bit overkill.
Considering these were guys whose primary chemical constituents were alcohol and testosterone, I'm at a loss as to how anyone didn't see that coming. You wouldn't catch me assigning my psycho attack kittens the job of safeguarding the breakables just because, you know, I can just pay them in catnip and save on expenses that way.
Well, methamphetamine as well. The Angels were the premiere producers of such until they started putting taggants in P2P.
Angel dust, too (thus the freaking name of the freaking drug!) Every time someone says, "We didn't have all these drug problems when we were kids!" I just stare at them, bug-eyed. Sometimes I say, "Yeah, all these kids doing PCP nowadays..."
I think the main point of disconnect in this whole conversation is that "the hippies" didn't equal "the anti-war movement."
Which is not to say that your average hippie didn't hate LBJ or Nixon; or that your average anti-war protestor didn't wear long hair or bellbottoms.
But they weren't the same thing at all: from the beginnings of the birth of what we now call "hippie" there was a disconnect between the Berkeley radicals who were always protesting about something over at UCal and the hipsters who were hanging out in the Haight, getting high and listening to folk records.
The Yippies, led by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, tried to explicitly turn the hippies into an anti-war force and you know what happened? Abbie got kicked in the balls by Pete Townshend. On the stage at Woodstock!
As for the Hell's Angels, well, they had been partying hardcore with the Ken Keseyites for the previous couple of years. I think Hunter Thompson's book had just come out and they were kind of seen through a romantic outlaw prism. Then they started dropping acid at Kesey's happenings and rubbing shoulders with Allen Ginsberg and the Grateful Dead. One thing leads to another, and, all of a sudden they're doing security at Altamont!
No one ever said people make the best decisions when they're tripping!
Drugs are, and have been, everywhere. All one can do is just plain refuse to use them if they don't want to do them.
|
|
I think the main point of disconnect in this whole conversation is that "the hippies" didn't equal "the anti-war movement."
Which is not to say that your average hippie didn't hate LBJ or Nixon; or that your average anti-war protestor didn't wear long hair or bellbottoms.
But they weren't the same thing at all: from the beginnings of the birth of what we now call "hippie" there was a disconnect between the Berkeley radicals who were always protesting about something over at UCal and the hipsters who were hanging out in the Haight, getting high and listening to folk records.
The Yippies, led by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, tried to explicitly turn the hippies into an anti-war force and you know what happened? Abbie got kicked in the balls by Pete Townshend. On the stage at Woodstock!
The who weren't even part of any hippie style movement, to take this further. They came out of the Mod scene in Britain.
Man, now that Christmas is over, I sure hope Occupy NH is still going on. I mean, it's fun to talk about hippies and Woodstock, but there's got to be something else to fill these pages with.
Okay, you two, cut it out.
EDIT: Interesting is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. And, Citizen HD is far from the only person on this thread who's opinion is unchanging.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, you two, cut it out.
EDIT: Interesting is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. And, Citizen HD is far from the only person on this thread who's opinion is unchanging.
TBH my it is very hard to change my opinion on anything that I have any knowledge or experience of. I have plenty of ignorant opinions and those are readily changed. With facts and a strong argument that is. I think it's much more important, from my perspective, to come here and try to understand the opposition. So that my opinions, even those I continue to feel justified in holding, don't become dogmatic. Everyone on these boards helps me to understand the opposing belief, and I hope I occasionally do the same. I have no illusions of being able to dissuade people from their beliefs.
Director of Game Development
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I’ve found interesting about this movement is the call from outsiders to have the movement define its actual motivations and explain what it’s about (which I think the base call to get moneyed interests out of politics seems clear enough). However, there’s not a similar call for established political forces to define themselves and actually stick true to those established ideals.
I mean, if everyone already expects politicians to lie and swindle, what else are you expecting? Are you selling out your vote for some sort of comfort?