Woodstock 1969 honoured with expansive 50th anniversary box set

brianlux

cp3iverson said:

The funniest (Maybe saddest?)thing to me is that Hendrix played at like 8am on Monday morning and 75% of the crowd was already long gone.  

And imagine how tired and wasted the remaining crowd must have been by then. 

And it's kind of amazing that despite Hendrix having only played with his new band, Gypsy Suns and Rainbows, for a very short period of time (and earlier tapes of them playing reveal a band that did not play well together), and that he and the band had probably been up all night partying, the performance is mostly very good, and sometimes excellent, particularly Jimi's legendary rendition of The Star Spangled Banner.

Meltdown99

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

I have a cousin who attended Woodstock.  It was not the greatest experience...after Woodstock, he left his hippie and partying ways behind...lol.  He was much older than me, he said it was a nice memory...but for the most part, it was kind of miserable.

A lot of things about the hippie era were miserable.  History has been kind to the hippie years.  A lot of younger people see pictures of smiling stoned hippies with flowers in their hair dancing and having a great time and everything is colorful and beautiful and groovy.  But there was a dark side to those days.  I lived right in the middle of the San Francisco scene in the latter few years of that era.   I lived on the edge of the Haight Ashbury from 1970 to 1973 and that neighborhood was filthy, there were a lot of people walking around with (as Dylan put it) "tombstones in their eyes", it was often dangerous and you almost could never walk through the center of that neighborhood without being harassed by freeloaders, junkies, and acid burn-outs.  And throughout that whole period, while some were tripping and grooving and bumming, many others were being blown to bits, poisoned with agent orange and traumatized for life by a brutal was going on halfway around the world.  

I don't mean to totally trash that period of time.  There were great movements being born at that time like the Peace Movement, Women's Liberation, Black Power and the Civil Rights Movement, the Chicano Movement, and the American Indian Movement, and there was great literature being written, and some of the best music on earth was being created.  But it was certainly not all a bed of roses- not by any stretch of the imagination.

From all the videos and pictures I have saw...it looks like no fun at all...

Have times really changed much?  You had the freeloaders and junkies in the '60s...you can go to any city today and see the homeless, freeloaders and drug addicts laying about...

Meltdown99

The Woodstock generation...lol

PJ_Soul

willbarclay said:

PJ_Soul said:

willbarclay said:

I dunno ... would have been pretty swell to see Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young at Woodstock.

oh, and the Band too

But both could be seen elsewhere, without all the inconvenience, lack of food, traffic jams, stink, and dirt.

Whats wrong with a little stink and dirt? 

It's stinky and dirty? And not nice clean dirt, like when you're camping normally. It would have been dirt full of spit, snot, rotting whatever, probably some piss and blood, and just all kinds of nasty bacteria ... And stinky humans? B.O. is one of the worst things in the world for me. I find it utterly intolerable, lol.

brianlux

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

I have a cousin who attended Woodstock.  It was not the greatest experience...after Woodstock, he left his hippie and partying ways behind...lol.  He was much older than me, he said it was a nice memory...but for the most part, it was kind of miserable.

A lot of things about the hippie era were miserable.  History has been kind to the hippie years.  A lot of younger people see pictures of smiling stoned hippies with flowers in their hair dancing and having a great time and everything is colorful and beautiful and groovy.  But there was a dark side to those days.  I lived right in the middle of the San Francisco scene in the latter few years of that era.   I lived on the edge of the Haight Ashbury from 1970 to 1973 and that neighborhood was filthy, there were a lot of people walking around with (as Dylan put it) "tombstones in their eyes", it was often dangerous and you almost could never walk through the center of that neighborhood without being harassed by freeloaders, junkies, and acid burn-outs.  And throughout that whole period, while some were tripping and grooving and bumming, many others were being blown to bits, poisoned with agent orange and traumatized for life by a brutal was going on halfway around the world.  

I don't mean to totally trash that period of time.  There were great movements being born at that time like the Peace Movement, Women's Liberation, Black Power and the Civil Rights Movement, the Chicano Movement, and the American Indian Movement, and there was great literature being written, and some of the best music on earth was being created.  But it was certainly not all a bed of roses- not by any stretch of the imagination.

From all the videos and pictures I have saw...it looks like no fun at all...

Have times really changed much?  You had the freeloaders and junkies in the '60s...you can go to any city today and see the homeless, freeloaders and drug addicts laying about...

I would say, yes.  Firstly, because back then you could be have a minimum wage job and live in a city like San Francisco.  In the three years I lived in the city I never had much more than a minimum wage job yet a couple other guys and I shared a three bedroom flat with full use of the garage and roof as a deck and shared use of a small yard out back.  The flat looked out over a large portion of the city and was in a good, safe neighborhood.  That same place today would probably rent for about $4500 a month.  That's $54,000 per year!

Another difference: as far as homelessness and drug addiction, It sure seems to me like  (especially in places like Seattle and San Francisco) there is more of both.  The big difference being that darned few of them today are telling anyone that what they are doing is "groovy".  It's a more sad situation today. 

So some things are better, some worse.

Oh, and most people were very optimistic back then.  We were going to change the world, Age of Aquarius and all that nonsense.

PJ_Soul

Absolutely, the cost of living is the #1 problem today IMO. People could live on any honest work back then. Not anymore. At the end of the day, that and the causes/people behind that is the reason everything is going to shit. And people are just sitting back and taking, still thinking that the current economic system works, and more and more people are anti-union every day. It makes no fucking sense.

Meltdown99

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

I have a cousin who attended Woodstock.  It was not the greatest experience...after Woodstock, he left his hippie and partying ways behind...lol.  He was much older than me, he said it was a nice memory...but for the most part, it was kind of miserable.

A lot of things about the hippie era were miserable.  History has been kind to the hippie years.  A lot of younger people see pictures of smiling stoned hippies with flowers in their hair dancing and having a great time and everything is colorful and beautiful and groovy.  But there was a dark side to those days.  I lived right in the middle of the San Francisco scene in the latter few years of that era.   I lived on the edge of the Haight Ashbury from 1970 to 1973 and that neighborhood was filthy, there were a lot of people walking around with (as Dylan put it) "tombstones in their eyes", it was often dangerous and you almost could never walk through the center of that neighborhood without being harassed by freeloaders, junkies, and acid burn-outs.  And throughout that whole period, while some were tripping and grooving and bumming, many others were being blown to bits, poisoned with agent orange and traumatized for life by a brutal was going on halfway around the world.  

I don't mean to totally trash that period of time.  There were great movements being born at that time like the Peace Movement, Women's Liberation, Black Power and the Civil Rights Movement, the Chicano Movement, and the American Indian Movement, and there was great literature being written, and some of the best music on earth was being created.  But it was certainly not all a bed of roses- not by any stretch of the imagination.

From all the videos and pictures I have saw...it looks like no fun at all...

Have times really changed much?  You had the freeloaders and junkies in the '60s...you can go to any city today and see the homeless, freeloaders and drug addicts laying about...

I would say, yes.  Firstly, because back then you could be have a minimum wage job and live in a city like San Francisco.  In the three years I lived in the city I never had much more than a minimum wage job yet a couple other guys and I shared a three bedroom flat with full use of the garage and roof as a deck and shared use of a small yard out back.  The flat looked out over a large portion of the city and was in a good, safe neighborhood.  That same place today would probably rent for about $4500 a month.  That's $54,000 per year!

Another difference: as far as homelessness and drug addiction, It sure seems to me like  (especially in places like Seattle and San Francisco) there is more of both.  The big difference being that darned few of them today are telling anyone that what they are doing is "groovy".  It's a more sad situation today. 

So some things are better, some worse.

Oh, and most people were very optimistic back then.  We were going to change the world, Age of Aquarius and all that nonsense.

No offence...but these addicts laying about the streets are laying about because of drugs...where I live, 14/ is more than enough to get by, they are not living the life of Riley...but you should not be homeless...actually, at 14/hr and some financial planning a home can be had in my area.  The town I grew up in, you can still get a nice home for 150 g, the next city I lived in homes are equally as affordable.  There are towns and small cities all over Canada (and probably the US) that are just as affordable.  There is no solution to make places like San Fran or similar affordable...does it suck that at some point young people will not get to live in a city they may have dreamed of?  Maybe?  Maybe not?
Personally, I would rather live where it's affordable than fret about the cost of living...but that's me.

I have been to San Fran.  It's a lovely city, once you get past the smog and congestion...no fucking way would in a zoo like that.

These small towns and cities are full untapped potential for entrepreneurs to inject life in it...so maybe it's time that some of these people who are unhappy with the cost of living in large cities relocate...

And if you think the government will solve the problem, they will not.  

PJ_Soul

Of course, 65% of the homeless population has mental health problems (which is why all of those who blab about how they should just get off their asses and get a job are full of shit), and the vast majority have substance abuse issues. They aren't mostly people who simply can't live on $14/hour in some town in Ontario. Of course, most homeless people migrate to the west coast because it's the only place they can live in the winter on the streets, and even if they got jobs once they got here, you can't survive on BC minimum wage because the cost of living is too high (and the minimum wage isn't $14 here), and not in San Fran, Seattle, LA, or anywhere over here.

FWIW, some people who work full time and have no problem or addictions are becoming homeless in Vancouver because of the housing crisis. Even if they can afford something really really shitty, they can't find anything available in any case. They are starting to live in their cars and stuff while they wait to try and find any place to live that they can afford, and I'm not just talking minimum wage earners. I'm talking people who make $40K+ a year.

eeriepadave

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdyc9Q4Tx_w

Spiritual_Chaos

Woodstock 99 was better

bootlegger10

With all of the music available these days (and a lot essentially free or for very little charge on streaming sites) I just can't understand paying $800 for this set.  Yeah, their may be some unreleased stuff on it but I'd keep the $800 and listen to the other thousand hours of Neil Young or The Who music that you don't have to pay to listen to. 

Like with Pearl Jam, McCready plays a different solo or Eddie tags a song differently....do you really want to pay $800 to hear one of the hundreds of versions of Footsteps there are out there?

rummy

bootlegger10 said:

With all of the music available these days (and a lot essentially free or for very little charge on streaming sites) I just can't understand paying $800 for this set.  Yeah, their may be some unreleased stuff on it but I'd keep the $800 and listen to the other thousand hours of Neil Young or The Who music that you don't have to pay to listen to. 

Like with Pearl Jam, McCready plays a different solo or Eddie tags a song differently....do you really want to pay $800 to hear one of the hundreds of versions of Footsteps there are out there?

I can't argue with this logic.