American Politics & Pop Culture

I was very surprised by the film to see the level of investment that was made to make Woodstock happen. I had previously thought that it was cobbled together by a group of hippies, whereas the movie portrayed it to be a professionally run show that just got out of hand. I was also very struck to see many of the people attending the show really were just hoping to get into the show, even without a ticket. I guess they thought that the organizers agreed with their “free� ideals, and they were correct in that thinking. The adults in the film showed a wide variety of viewpoints, from the people who enjoyed having the ‘kids’ there and thought they were just having fun, to the people who were totally against it, and thinking that the show was evil. The owner of the farm, Max Yasgur, felt that his farm was really being used for the good of everyone, so he felt that the sacrifice of the land to be a worthy one. I noticed throughout the film, no matter how far away the attendees tried to distance themselves from conventional thought and wisdom, they were still enslaved by their human condition. Everyone needed food, and water, and bathrooms, and shelter. I noticed that there was still the classic element of teenage rebellion, and I enjoyed personally the sight of people calling home to their parents to tell them they were fine, something I have done many times myself. I don’t believe the rock music itself is the incarnation of all of those negative things, I rather see the music brings out elements of the people that listen to it, and certain groups of people listen to certain types of music. The comparison of the behavior of the attendees and the ideals of rock music seem to be almost in direct contrast. The perceived danger of listening to “the devils music� seems not to apply to this music crowd. I don’t really agree that Jimi Hendrix playing the Star Spangled Banner to be the finest piece of political rock and roll of the ’60s. While it was a moving piece of music, I don’t think it did well to embody the spirit of the original music and instead detracted from the message of the anthem.

Posted by nemme003 at 11:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After watching the movie I can see that Woodstock was an important cultural revolution for our country. It embodied a new idea of music and a new way of life. The legacy of Woodstock to this day holds an important part in shaping the politics for the future. I think it has a greater impact on our ideas today than it did when it happened. I think those who attended Woodstock embodied the new American youth. In the article, “Blame it on the Sixties�, Landon Y. Jones is quoted saying, “America’s largest generation was growing up in an age-segregated universe, cut off from outside society and … bound together by their own prolonged adolescence� (43). I think this generation was pushed to their limits and they fought back but in their own way. No generation has ever been as passionate about the social and political ideals that were wrong in this country. No generation has ever stood up or stepped out of “normal� society the way that those at Woodstock did. I do believe the music of the time helped to unite American youth and inspire them to make new change. The music spoke to the generation and helped to create change. I think the music inspired radical though and sexual revolution. Again I think we look back more on it today and look at it as hope for change now. We see what they did and we want to push for change as well. Grant Flatgard

Posted by flat0101 at 11:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week's film, Woodstock, was very accurate in depicting the realities of this rock music festival. For one, the viewpoints of the young adults in attendance were diametrically dissimilar from the viewpoints of older generations. This is exemplified in the interview of the young couple towards the beginning of the film. A common theme emerges in the sense that both the young man and woman lacked the means to communicate with their parents. What is really important to the young man was the freedom to do whatever made him happy. To his father, however, what was important was for his son to get a good education and have financial security. The film also stresses the importance of the festival. The emphasis was placed on the communal aspect of the gathering and not on the music. In the interviews, the young couple detailed their living situation in which they were both a part of a large communal house. Also, the cinematography of the film emphasized the communal aspect of Woodstock. Several camera shots showed the way in which people shared virtually everything, adding to the communal feel of the festival. In the film, people were sharing blankets and umbrellas when it was raining, as well as food, dry clothing and drugs. The communal feel of Woodstock is observed by scholars as well. Daniel Schowalter, in his article, "Remembering the Dangers of Rock and Roll: Toward a historical narrative of the rock festival," says that, "The film obscures its own music and is preoccupied with the delirious "effects" of the music on the fans and with the enchanting aura of the festival." This quote shows that the music of Woodstock, although legendary, took a backseat to the ideals of the time--togetherness, rebellion and compassion. These viewpoints do not go uncontested in the film, however. Several interviews throughout are representative of the older generations’ sentiments of the time. In an interview with an older townsman, he continues to opine that the festival is merely fueling the younger generation’s thirst for drugs and sex, and that rock n’ roll is the overriding cause. This leads us back to the way in which the viewpoints of the younger crowd deviated from those of the older generations, and how many communicative barriers were erected as well.

Posted by stap0069 at 11:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I really enjoyed watching this film not only for its music but also for the documentary aspects of it as well. This film showed how the younger generation during that period of time really wanted to have this festival mean something. Many of the younger kids interviewed didn't care about who you were or where you came from, everyone at Woodstock was considered friend to them. Another thing that really surprised me about this festival that I didn't know about before was how much money the concert promoters lost putting on this festival. Also the amount of people in attendance was atsonishing and the fact that they were able to round up food, water, electricity and shelter for the thousands who didn't have any of these things. The people who were sharing didn't care about giving all of these things away to others, everyone was just happy to be at Woodstock and experiencing this cultural revolution of sorts. I can only imagine how the local towns people felt having all of these folks flooding your town. Some of the locals did not mind having the festival there and actually enjoyed how nice the kids really were that attended Woodstock. However the massive drug use and breaking of cultural norms also made a lot of other people in the town very aggressive and angry towards the festival goers. I was really surprised at how generous the farm owner was who allowed for those thousands of young people to go and really enjoy and express themselves in a way that had never been done before. The festival of Woodstock was truly revolutionary not only for its music but for the ideals and principles it stood for.

Posted by hove0107 at 11:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Having now watched this movie I have an entirely different view of the festival of Woodstock as well as the persona of the people that attended it. From my view I had always thought that the generation of young people that attended Woodstock had it all figured out in a sense. Considering the events of the previous year, it seems the young had much to protest about and made their presence heard in many ways for example, at the democratic convention in which they were greeted with a 12,000 man police force. But one year later at Woodstock, a couple was interviewed and described its attendees as “very lost� and further saying, “everyone is here looking for an answer when there isn’t one.� It seems this lack of answers is what draws them to the music.

Keeping this idea of being lost in mind, it’s not hard to find a place where it is reinforced through the music. Bob Dylan’s song Blowin in the wind is a perfect example of this persona. Although it was recorded 6 years earlier, its ideas were still very much alive. Its lyrics only beg more questions and no answers, “the answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.�

Posted by veire003 at 11:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Woodstock: 3 days of peace and music is a movie that goes well beyond comparison to other music related history documentary, but rather is one that ought to be both appealing and unappealing to the same critic. The movie was in a sense a true and unedited reality of what it’s like to have several hundred thousands of American young citizens stranded out in nowhere, with little food and not much privacy walls between each other. It also exhibited the power of music and how the majority of young adults and the older generations during the sixties viewed their society.

Through the feedbacks from people during the various interviews held in the movie, one could see that there was a clear distinction on view towards rock music. Some of the older people that were interviewed displayed anger towards the music event because of a notion that rock music was evil. The rest did not care much about the event, but rather were worried about every single negative outcomes that could take place as a result of lack of food and protection.

On the other side of viewpoints however, it seemed like the young adults cared less about their physical well beings, but were willing to withstand any inconveniences as they were continuously amazed by the fact that such event could take place. There were people smoking marijuana, sleeping on top of cars, wandering around nude, a man even publicly proposed to his girlfriend in the midst of the chaos, and basically an absolute sense of freedom in the air during the musical event.

One of the few things about the event that would probably be different if the event was held today is control. Even though it would cost a fortune to host such an event, the amount of control that the host would have on the event would be highly distinguishable: there probably would be a zero tolerance of marijuana smoking, nudity, and foul language. Apparently it would cost a fortune to control several hundred thousands of young people all at once, showing the reason why the rare music event made history.

Posted by onon0006 at 11:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ask anyone who was a teenager during the time of Woodstock about the festival, and chances are they will tell fond memories of listening to the artists that played there, albeit on the radio or record player, and wishing they could be experiencing the festival celebrating peace, love, and freedom. Just as Beatlemania had swept seemingly the entire youth population 6 years earlier, Woodstock was an event unlike any other in history, as it had almost unanimous support from an entire nation of disenfranchised, determined youth looking for an outlet to find themselves. Musicians had preached for years about freedom and sexuality and all sorts of "controversial" things. Woodstock offered a chance for them to really present their messages, and the artists delivered. The Woodstock Festival deserves to be considered the greatest musical event of the past 100 years or so, as it truly exemplifies all the emotions and ideas the artists were singing about. Unlike the fiasco 30 years later (Woodstock '99), violence and violent criminal behavior (as opposed to just criminal behavior, as quite a few laws regarding possession of illegal substances were infringed) was kept to a minimum, as everyone was there for the music, not for themselves. It was an experience to be envied by all who were not there, as the culmination of the music, the people, and the ideas created an atmosphere that will likely never be felt again.

Posted by hanse978 at 11:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The documentary we watched about the Woodstock music festival showed the stark cultural divide between the youth of the 1960s and their parents. Although some of the locals were open-minded and helpful when it came to the visitors, several of the older residents interviewed exemplified the typical “stuffy�, conservative attitude regarding the free spirited youth invading their quiet town. It’s understandable to see the different degrees of response, as the small rural town of Bethel, New York became a very literal crossroads between the conservative 1940s white picket fence American dream and the free, liberal, experimental, and rebellious attitude of the time’s youth. Some simply viewed the intruders as simply that, reckless and inconsiderate punks with no regard or respect for their elders. Others were impartial or just recognized the severity of the situation and the necessity to help by providing food and other forms of assistance. However, a few like Max Yasgur whose farm the festival was hosted on, appreciated the spirit of the event and the peaceful, although unavoidably disruptive, gathering. Despite some of the locals’ objections, there’s no denying that the Woodstock music festival of 1969 represented a crossing of generational ideals in a time of some of the strongest political and cultural upheaval since the American Civil War.

Posted by dunh0037 at 11:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The most common generalization applied to rock music by its critics is that it degrades the minds and souls of its listeners. It has been accused of inducing euphoric trances when presented to crowds, and some may point to Woodstock as an example of this effect. People may try to logically decipher the reasoning of standing in a muddy field with half a million strangers, with no apparent plan or control of one’s situation. Many did not have many changes of clothes, and a lot of people slept in the open field. People were running short on food and there were very unsanitary conditions, but they appeared happy and stayed throughout the festival. There was sex, drugs, and other types of debauchery, and critics of rock music can take these observations and hold them as evidence for the damage it affects. Schowalter observes how rock is “targeted as a cause for moral decay in society,� and from the appearance of the festival he could be right. I don’t believe that it was the music, however that caused people to do drugs, or caused any type of slip into debauchery. The townspeople spoke very positively of the kids that attended, and the mood was generally good and peaceful. If rock really is a horrible influence, it is surprising then that half a million people coexisted peacefully. There were no major riots or violence, which could only be expected if young people’s minds were grossly twisted by a deviant media. I think that those who disapprove of rock music will continue to point the finger and assign a corrupting influence. People do morally wrong things in the presence of rock music, but people do morally wrong things without it. Rock music is simply the acting scapegoat of the better half of the century for the desire of young adults to rebel against the “right� social behaviors.

Alex Schreiner

Posted by schr0845 at 11:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Although some may view rock music as “the incarnation of resistance, revolution, debauchery, sexuality, dissent, violence, mayhem, anarchism, and more,� I believe that rock music and its followers have multiple times proven to be otherwise. As Tipper Gore puts it in the Schowalter article, “the essential character of rock music posits it as a great harm to its auditors and that this condition can only worsen.� Woodstock was one example that contradicted this. We saw in the film a crowd that was using drugs, without clothing, and many other things, but that was the great opposite of violent anarchy in nature. The same article goes on to describe that Max Yasgur “was eloquent in congratulating the well-behaved crowd� that had taken over his farm property. He was not the least bit angry in his speech, and in fact was happy to see such a large group behaving peacefully. This was indeed a bit surprising, considering the physical toll taken by his farmland.

Michael Wadleigh’s film also captured one of the bigger themes of the era, which was, as the Walley article states, that the “sixties in its purest form was a shining historical moment that was supposed to raise consciousness… It was not meant to be brokered by goods, fashion, or style, which weakened its total effect.� In other words, Woodstock, taken as a piece of the sixties, represented the initiative by many people to raise awareness of what was going on in the world, and lessen the focus from usual daily obligations to things that really mattered politically and socially. In itself, Woodstock could be considered one of the greatest peace demonstrations of the time.

Posted by joh02361 at 11:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On display at Woodstock were radical ideas, notions of sexuality, ways of living, society, and of course-music. In the midst of all these were aspects of “normalicity� and things that go on in everyday life. Some of the “normal� aspects of teenage/young adult life is to be a little rebellious and make a stand against the older generation. What was surprising, however, is the fact that these young adults came together and broke away and established aspirations and conventions (pg262 A. Wolfe). “Being a 1960’s youth was dangerous for those U.S. Youth who resisted their elders call to kill in a war youth did not support,� article, on the enduring, popularity of Cream’s ‘sunshine of your love’: Sonic synecdoche of the ‘psychedelic 60s,’ by A. Wolfe (pg262). They were not willing to do what their elders wanted them to do but, wanted their say to be just as important as theirs. They were sent to fight, kill, and die for unclear reasons and motives. “If that fight was flawed, then, so too was the nation that stood behind it,� according to the book Vietnam (pg.317). The young adults caught on fairly quickly to the system. They were not sure of the war in Vietnam and why we were there? The war was flawed and the nation backing it. These young adults stood up against the government in an attempt to bring about a change. The young adults of the older generation were struggling to define themselves (pg.39 ‘blame it on the sixties’). “The sixties were about the freedom to question and arrive at answers and still question more…� (pg.44 ‘blame it on the sixties’). The young adults were in search of answers of why the things that were taking place being taken? Because the government and the elders were in control it was understandable why the young adults rebelled against them.

Posted by karp0040 at 11:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It appears to me that the critical analysis of Woodstock and the sixties focuses too much on the social liberties taken by many teens rather than the true goal of those participating in Woodstock and the war protests. The adults and others who were not involved in the protests may have oftentimes viewed the "peace effort" as an easy way to rationalize laziness, sexuality and recreational drug use. While this may hold true in certain cases, the overall goal of the rebellion and change was to exercise their rights as Americans to question the government and authority and to stand up for what they believed was right. In order to achieve this, it required them to do outlandish things, rebel, and ultimately reshape the culture. In his article Blame it on the Sixties, Walley states that "The true spirit of the sixties, not counterculture or its subsequent peregrinations and material permutations, believed in nonrepresentational living, free of endorsement contracts, where one didn't have to be true to one's high school alma mater." (67) This establishes that by living the free spirited way that many of the "hippies" of the sixties did, they were establishing that they were free to do as they pleased as Americans and that they were not bound by social or cultural rules of the time. In doing this, they changed the country. Not through political channels, but rather, they changed the social aspects of America, which in turn changed the mindset of Americans, and ultimately allowed them to achieve the peace they desired.

Posted by marsh401 at 11:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In time of war, Woodstock was a huge peace demonstration that last 3 days. In the documentary film Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music shows images of young people involved in many acts that was outrageous in the spirit of peace. At the festival young people were drinking, using drugs, having sexing, dancing and bathing nude, which their parents saw as dangers. This is a great image of the generation gap and how the cultural norm was growing and changing between parents their children.
I was surprised that all of the town’s people did not have strong negative view of the festival and the inconvenience it caused. Even the farmer Max Yasgur, wasn’t angry that is farm was destroyed but saw the spirit and the purpose of the festival. He stated that young people have proven to the world they can come together for music, fun and peace.
In the film the split screen is powerful. It shows in one side the musician performing and the other side the effect it had on the people. The festival wasn’t just the music but what the music drove the people to do “ In the Woodstock, then it is not the music which defines the pop festival- rather it is the effects of the music which begin to characterize it as the film captures the vast scale of this unreality� (Schowalter, 91)

Posted by mula0013 at 11:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the film the majority of the people who attended Woodstock were young teenagers who were very interested in rock music. It was a relatively new type of music, and wasn’t well accepted by the adults of the time. In the movie everyone who attended the festival was seemed to be very laid back, and the people of the nearby town were the complete opposite. The townspeople were much more uptight, and disgusted that these people were at a gathering like Woodstock. When they were interviewed in the film they were very passionate about their disproval of the music and the idea of a peace gathering like this.

These differing points of view show how much change was taking place in the world. Socially the threat of communism was still brewing, and the war in Vietnam was very controversial. Many images of the war were broadcast on television, and the gruesome pictures caused a greater support for the peace effort. The film reflects these changes in society, because we see a side of society that had been hidden before. Never before had such a large group of young people come together and peacefully congregated and listen to music for three days. Rock music brought all these people together for a common cause, and before this nobody ever realized the power of music.

The music played at Woodstock was also uncommon. The festival was full protest music, like Bob Dylan’s Blown in the Wind, and Masters of War, and Joe McDonald’s I feel like I’m fixin to die. Again, this different type of music shows the generation gap. It spoke to thousands of teenagers, many of whom came to Woodstock, but it did noting for people who lived in the town. These members of society don’t see eye to eye on issues like rock music and the war in Vietnam.

Posted by elmxx014 at 11:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Woodstock: Three Days of Peace and music showed how great of a difference one generation could make between the youth and adults of the late sixties. The adults in the film were protrayed as grumpy stubborn elders while the kids at the festival were depicted as reckless radicals. The elders seemed too uptight to appreciate the groundbreaking event, including the loud music and especially the crazy kids.
The townspeople saw the festival only for its destruction and inconvenience. One man claimed the Woodstock's attendees were trespasssing on his property, while another was angry because the milkman would not be able to get through and his milk would spoil. Yet another elderly couple were bickering with the camera man, saying the festival was a shitty and disgraceful mess. The adults were most likely dissapointed of their younger generation. they probably would have even denied their teenage years, the time in their lives where they could have potentially related to the crazy teenagers parked up and down their streets.
The young people took a drastically different take on the festival and life in general. It was a peaceful get together, which just happened to turn into a gathering of a staggering half million kids. They didn't see it as a "shitty mess" but as a celebration of music, peace, love, and drugs, everything that defined their lives. The fact that the festival turned into a disaster area, and stopped one of New York's major freeways was of no significance to the kids at woodstock. Their only response was that it was "far out."
The Woodstock attendees had interesting views of life and how they fit into society as a whole. The kids accepted labels and stereotypes thrown on their age group. They don't mind being called freaks, straying from the views and beliefs of their rigid parents was most likely a conscious attempt. They were so much more free and hopeful of what lied ahead of them then the elders. Some were free enough to make love in a flowery field in close proximity to the concert ground, not caring who saw. Such a sight was most likely nothing out of the ordinary, sex was natural. Just taking that part out of context is something to think about. You see, if the couple had sex in a different location, say on the bitter old couple's front lawn, it would have been deeply unaccepted by the community. The festival created its own community where anything went, nothing could have been too outrageous.
The music itself created a voice of the youth. It must have felt so liberating for them to hear, along with thousands of others, messages of rebellion against the government and war. It lgave them power in letting them know they weren't alone in their beliefs.
Most of the kids had no idea where they were going in life but they had no problem with that. Not knowing what lied ahead for them was just another adventure, much like that of the festical. all they needed was dope, friends, and music and they were unstoppable. I recall the young girl who had no plans whatsoever accept to get to the festival. She had no money, no ticket, and had bummed a ride from a guy she had met a few months ago to get there. That was very similar to the thinking of all the other people at Woodstock. The point was to live in the moment, to experience life here and now. Their future was of no real importance, they would just go with the flow once they got there.

Posted by kolsu002 at 11:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Watching parts of the Woodstock movie is possibly the best documentary on the flower children culture of the late 60's. Early on, one of the people attending refers to himself as a freak much to the surprise of the middle aged local man who feels the term is too extreme. To me this is one of the most important parts of what we watched because it shows a confrontaion between the counter culture and the "normal" culture. It didn't result in violence or conflict outside of some grumbling from the townfolk, most people seemed to think that they were nice kids having a party. Perhaps though, they didn't understand what the kids were really representing, concepts like peace, free love, and the reckless abuse of narcotics on hopes of achieving enlightenment. Despite the enthusiasm of the people at the festival, they could not have lived like they were for long and chances are they new it. But what I think they were trying to say was that it was possible to get along with people which was, in their minds, against the old and evil that ran the country.

-Thomas Kuppe

Posted by kupp0012 at 11:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Change is usually turbulent. The 60's were turbulent and I believe this was due to the fear of change or the fear of things not changing. African Americans feared the oppression from the rest of society and young white kids feared for their futures during a military draft, a draft for a war that was opposed by so many at the time. Woodstock seemed to address some of these fears that young people were facing at the time. Although Woodstock seemed like it would be the epitome of chaos caused by social differences that mirrored the rest of society at the time, it wasn't. Young people came together to listen to music and take part in peace, love and unity and the social norms held by some attendees weren't exactly parallel with the rest of society's norms. Monogamy was the only sexual practice acceptable at the time and after the interview with the young man and girl you realize that polygamy was also acceptable for some youth. Drug use was not acceptable at the time, but among these attendees it seemed as though drug usage was common. While these practices separated the youth from older generations, I think the interviews of local adults resonated a long way because I doubt the locals would have been so friendly if they didn't share some common ground, such as anti-war feelings. This common ground was due to a closing gap between generations that Gerstle discusses in the reading, "a gap separating American political ideals from actual practices." So, even though there was a widening gap between social norms between a young and old generation, there was a closing gap between pro and anti war opinions.

Posted by cros0189 at 11:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The music festival Woodstock is and will always be remembered as one of the most powerful and influencial events in our country. The film 'Woodstock: 3 days of Peace and Music' shows just that and makes the viewer feel as if they were right there watching and listening in real life. A lot of people, people who were against this festival, typically thought that it was only about sex and drugs, but this was not the case. Woodstock was a gathering of tons of music-loving people who wanted to promote peace and not war. While their older generations were off fighting a war in Vietnam, these people were celebrating the happiness and warmth rock and roll music brings to them. This festival was also a time for young people to rebel a little bit from their parents. They would use Woodstock as a way to get away from their everyday lives and families and be who they want to be and discover the beauty of rock and roll music. I never knew where Woodstock was held and I found it very interesting to hear about what the farmland owner had to say about the festival. After seeing all the garbage that was left and the foundation ruined from all the people, I was sure that Max Yasgur, the farmland owner, would be furious, but he wasn't. He was just happy that the young people got their point across and very proud that he got to experience it the way he did. I also found it interesting that even some other townsmen were so helpful with the attendees. They shared their bathrooms and gave them food to make sure they were eating enough. I thought Jimi Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner was amazing! Everytime I hear our national anthem I get the goosebumps, but then when I heard his version, wow! It's amazing how such a powerful song can be twisted around and still mean the same thing, but get a different point across. Woodstock was the start to millions of music festivals and will always be remembered as such a powerful event to promote peace through music. I wish I could have been apart of it.

Posted by Katrina Heikes at 11:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the Woodstock documentary it was surprising how the audience was portrayed. From far an image of hedonistic white male youths bent on anarchy that is frequently linked to rock and roll they were a mix of ages, races and temperaments. There was normal teenage behavior mixed in with all the talk of love and revolution.
As Walley said, the movement gathered together a broad spectrum of racial, gender and social different people (55). There were males, females, blacks, whites, wealthy and poor all converged in one great mass.
The scenes in the film where the kids were all lined up and calling home really stuck out. It was surprising to see both that they were young enough that a call home was appropriate and that they still observed this traditional subservience to their elders. It was a matter of respect even when they mockingly complained of their parents concerns. They were acknowledging that there was danger in large crowds but reassuring their parents of their safety.
I also found it very refreshing that they included some footage of people wanting to leave. From the male trying to get out of the gridlock to work on time the next morning to the girl freaking out about the large crowds and lack of food, it was good to see that not everyone was blindly submissive to the peace, love and happiness ethos pushed on the crowd. It was surprising to see how quickly the crowd would correct anyone that tried to complain about the lack of food or the rain and mud. Everyone surrounding would point out how important it was that it was happening and what a great time they were having, which I would not expect to see today.

Nyssa Shawstad
Works Cited
Walley, David. “Blame it on the 60’s� in Teenage Nervous Breakdown: Music and
Politics in the Post-Elvis Age (Routledge, 2006) pp. 39-67

Posted by shaw0139 at 10:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I found myself to be very impartial to the documentary we watched this week about Woodstock. It was kind of a chaotic and nonlinear film. It makes sense artistically to make this documentary in this way because it showed the confusion and disorganization of the actual Woodstock music festival.

Although this wasn’t my favorite film we have viewed in class it was informative and taught me more about Woodstock. I found it interesting to see the reactions of the townspeople and the reactions of adults concerning the group of young people, a.k.a. the freaks, who were in town for the music festival.

A surprising number of the adults thought what the festival-goers were doing was fine, and they were really impressed by how nice and polite the kids were. But there were a few adults interviewed that were really upset about what was going on. They thought all the kids were doing was smoking pot, stealing, and generally being out of line. It was interesting to see two very different perspectives from an older generation. And when it came down to it a large number of adults cared enough about the people at Woodstock to provide food to all the people attending the music festival.

Another reaction I found to be surprising was that of the farmer who owned the property Woodstock was being held on. He was okay with the fact that his farmland was being completely ruined because of this event. And he even made a statement on stage to the attendees of Woodstock that this event was making a huge statement to the world. I found it interesting that this statement was made by a man that stereotypically would seem to be against a festival like Woodstock. And the fact that he was okay with what was going on on his property was really worthy of note.

I think this event really helped to show an older generation, and the world, what exactly it was that the younger generation of America wanted - peace. For there being so many people in attendance, problems with misconduct appeared to be slim to none, which is astounding. I believe this festival was a great way for a younger and more liberal generation to show the world what it was that they wanted and how willing they were to support a cause they truly believed in.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 10:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My friend Paul has this idea for a party: Everyone gets naked and then a person walks around with a tray of drinks that all have rufies in them except for one. Everyone drinks, everyone passes out except for that one person and he or she gets to have whatever experience they want with whomever they want in a room filled with unconscious naked people. I told him it would never fly and although kind of funny, a good majority of people would probably get offended just via the invitation. “Loosen up, man, it’s about facilitating an experience for one person,� he told me. I don’t think I found any merit in his counter-argument until I read Walley’s Blame it on the Sixties article. I think he summed up the use of drugs at that time the best by saying that it was “…one way to build an experience.� Maybe it’s how he phrased it without limitations, using one way instead of the way but I think it really placed the intent around Woodstock within something more innocent then a “party mentality.� The documentary showed a variety of activities and viewpoints within the attendees and those affected by Woodstock but I found the overall message of experimentation much more interesting. You have this generation who grows up under the rule of a much more strict older generation and they reacted to that authoritarian by not being complacent with one type of experiencing the world. They made mistakes, inevitably, but it seemed like that was part of it, and the documentary portrayed Woodstock as it should have been portrayed: As a organized mess of people trying to figure their world out for themselves.

Posted by mende058 at 10:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout the woodstock movie, people comment on how this event has created a city with a population in the top ten cities of America. While this may be an exaggeration, it is important to note what kind of city this was. After all, the people had no food, no shelter, no work to do. All of their food had to be provided for them as though they were refugees. However, had the concert lasted any longer, the people may not have been able to stay; without people to provide for them, they were helpless. So, on the one hand, the hippies had a brilliant, spiritual idea that they were gathering for peace and harmony and to truly connect with others. But, on the other hand, the bands and the stagehands were the only ones working, so there is a definite limit to how long they could live like this. How can a city remain without people making or acquiring food?
Actually, it even becomes difficult to imagine a city without shelter; when one thinks of a city, they wouldn't consider a farm field full of people to be a city. It is the temporary, parasitic nature of the hippies that probably caused their demise. Sooner or later, they all had to fill that void within themselves, the void they'd been filling with spiritual healing and drugs, and actually put some food in there. Eventually, basic human needs that society works to provide become necessary even to those in the counterculture. The 'city' that woodstock became was the result of poor forsight and not compromising with society. It worked, but it wasn't built to last.

Posted by aretz008 at 10:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week’s film Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music was a very interesting and powerful documentary. A music festival and concert turned into something much larger and more popular than what was planned. Half a million young people peacefully came together for three days and listened to music. For them, the music was much more than just music. It spoke to them. It had much deeper thoughts and ideas that everyone there agreed on. Woodstock happened during a year full of tragedies and violence. There were the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, race riots, the beatings at the Democratic convention, and the continuing Vietnam War (lecture). At this point in time, the youth of the nation had a much different way of thinking than their parents and elders. The youth population was all about peace and communication. And for them, Woodstock provided the perfect opportunity for just that. In the movie Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music there was a quote about “people coming together, communicating, and helping each other out.� Mind you some of the help was the announcer informing the massive crowd of 500,000 people of the bad acid circulating, but there was nothing but peace. In our reading “Remembering the Dangers of Rock and Roll: Toward A Historical Narrative of the Rock Festival� Schowalter mentions “The theme of a spell-bound audience – rather that spell-binding musical performances.� This goes to show that it was not all just about the music, it was again about people being there together in peace making a statement to the world. The youth population wanted change. They were even more anti Vietnam War than the rest of the country. There were many peaceful protests across the country. In a sense, Woodstock could be categorized under this. Woodstock was huge, and it an appropriate impact. From the movie referring the festival, “The thing was big, too big for the world.�

Posted by mcgui149 at 10:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Woodstock was a huge festivity that caught the eye of the world and an event that has been remembered for decades. It has become a historic event that is near and dear to the hearts of many people. Woodstock dud supply many radical notions of sexuality, society, and music. However, in the midst of this “radicalism�, perhaps what Woodstock really displayed was normalcy amongst the country’s population. The loose clothing wore by young people, the sexual experimentation, the new-age music, these were all things that were considered radical, but maybe in reality this was just a normal period in the history of the country and a new age of citizens. Every generation has a “radical music� phase. Woodstock was a prime example of a generation’s new musical style acceptance. Also, every generation rebels in some way from their parents and the lifestyles of the previous generation. The radical clothing, and views of the government are an example of how young people tried to define themselves and break away from their parents hold. So, when really looking at the events of Woodstock we see that when comparing the actions of Woodstock to the events of that time period it was a very radical occurrence. However, when comparing the “Woodstock Movement� to all the other movements throughout history, past and present, maybe it was more normal than anything.

Posted by zabor005 at 10:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The first word that came to mind when I saw the large crowd at woodstock was triage. If there is an incident, how are all of these people going to get medical attention and kept safe. Woodstock is one the riskiest events, and one of the biggest cultural icons. These people can be considered brilliant in thier stupidity. Having so many people packed into such a small space creates a powder keg for disease and riots. Self-herding themselves like caddle could have created the lack of violence. This makes most of them sense very little danger in being together. During the film some of the people were seen crying and upset at not being able to leave. Unless the film showed a biased point of view, this event seemed to have been a huge success and very few people were inconvenienced besides the townspeople. One thing that I thought was great is how the military saw the opportunity to provide medical assistance and show that the military can be good. This is a great way to influence the younger generations there and provide some care at the same time. The people gathered at this event were greatly open to influence and could have been easily swayed by the government if they came in and "saved" them if an incident did arise.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 10:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Mick Jagger stated that Jimi Hendrix’s version of the Star Spangled Banner was the finest piece of political rock and roll of the 1960’s. I agree with this statement but I don’t believe it was the finest piece of political rock and roll by design. In this blog I will argue that it became one of the finest pieces of political rock and roll by chance. It’s often noted that, “timing is everything�. With regard to Jimi Hendrix’s performance of the Star Spangled Banner, that couldn’t be truer. During the first week of class, it was mentioned during the lecture portion that Jimi personally stated he did not intend for the rendition of the national anthem to be a political statement. He simply thought it was “beautiful�. Jimi’s interpretation of the song was entirely different than the way the rest of the world interpreted it. Woodstock drew a distinct demographic. In specific, it drew people of the same age range as did the Vietnam draft. The “kids� attending Woodstock ’69 were more than aware of the death and destruction that was occurring in Vietnam. Their peers were overseas fighting a war they didn’t believe in and dying for a cause that didn’t exist. When Hendrix played a rendition of the national anthem that he considered beautiful, the members of the audience experienced something entirely different. To them, the screaming tones and chaotic nature of the performance perfectly represented the United States of America dumping insane amounts of napalm, mowing people down with machine guns, and launching rockets in Vietnam. To associate such graphic and violent images into the nation’s anthem was a slap in America’s face. Members of the audience saw it as a particularly apt musical analogy. An analogy that represented the government’s insane motives and ridiculous actions; The “kids� at Woodstock felt the politicians of the time were destroying what America stood for and Jimi’s rendition of the national anthem couldn’t have represented their viewpoint more succinctly. And it’s because of this reasoning that, in my opinion, Jimi’s rendition of the Star Spangled Banner was the finest piece of political rock and roll of the 1960’s.

Posted by John Erck at 10:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The first three words that come to mind whenever one mentions Woodstock are sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll. What propelled Woodstock from just a music festival to an iconic cultural event isn’t its size or impressive line-up of musicians, but rather the fact that it represented a social experiment, the likes of which the world had never witnessed before. Woodstock was the antithesis to the largely unpopular Nixon regime, a celebration liberation, expression, and free-thinking. The dramatically different viewpoint of the youth was frowned upon by many adults and helped widen the generation gap, as David Walley writes “America’s largest generation was growing up in an age-segregated universe…bound together by their own prolonged adolescence.� (43) Yet, I found it interesting that many of the adult townspeople had glowing comments about the festival-goers, one even calling them “lovely children.� I was especially surprised with Max Yusgar comments about the festival, as one would expect he would be angry at the destruction of his farmland. Many of the youth that attended Woodstock are now adults now working in the same commercialized society they stood against, so one might be tempted to write off Woodstock as a failure in achieving the utopian society it promised. One thing is for certain, and that is that Woodstock was a cultural litmus that illuminated and captured an iconic moment in American history.

Posted by ande4849 at 10:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Something that really stood out for me in the Woodstock movie were the interviewed adults perceptions of the concert-goers, and just the youth of the time in general. Besides the owner of the farm which the concert was held on (Max Yasgur) and a few other adults who realized what the concert was really all about (peace and music), the adults in the movie viewed the kids as good for nothing, destructive, drug-overdosing delinquents who had overtaken their peaceful town and created massive traffic problems; everything the kids did seemed to hamper the adults bland lives. As if anything this exciting had EVER happened in their town; they should have been grateful instead of hateful (haha). Anyway, although I agree that some things that the kids did (I imagine that many of the townspeople found droppings on their lawn which weren't from their dogs) could have been viewed as disrespectful, they still didn't see the bigger picture and the message that the concert was trying to send. The fact that over 500,000 people could come together in one space and maintain the level of peace that they did is pretty incredible. The concert was also a much needed break from the turmoil of the "real world" at the time. Numerous influential leaders had recently been assassinated (MLK, JFK, Robert Kennedy), and the Vietnam war was causing social unrest. The concert was an escape from all of that. Still the youth were misunderstood and were labeled based on their drug using habits and lifestyles. The adults failed to realize the bigger message, had the done so they may have even been able to experience some peace themselves.

Posted by ruppx051 at 10:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Personally, I have mixed views on the Woodstock festival. On the one hand, I do respect that it was a great movement of a counterculture that stood for peace instead of war and all things beautiful in the world – love, equality, happiness, etc. However, on the other hand, especially after having watched the documentary, it seems on the borderline of insanity. On page 46 of the “Blame It On the Sixties� article, Walley mentions that the drugs in the movement were seen as “an aid to attaining and integrating knowledge, one way to build experience…�. I do not share his sentiment. The mass involvement of drugs in this movement only taints it in my view. It gave them something to be blamed for. It would have been better without the drugs, sex and other questionable behavior. This discussion was even shown in the movie. One man was arguing how awesome it was that so many kids could come together and be peaceful. While the other man was bringing up that they were all high and it was a disgrace. Such behaviors gave the movement a weakness or downfall, if you will. It was a legitimate claim that the media, parents, and all those opposed could throw in their faces at any time. On page 86 of Schowater’s “Remembering the Dangers of Rock n’ Roll� paper, he mentions how Tipper Gore pointed these issues out and said they were leading to the (moral) “decay� that started to develop in the sixties. I think they would have made more of an impact with those who held different viewpoints had they been “blameless�, meaning had a clean slate with no obvious illegal blunders to look upon.

I know this point may seem silly to some, but another thing I don’t understand is the lack of police presence. There were all types of major violations of the law going on however the only time that the authorities were shown was when they were bringing in supplies and medical help. They were helping the cause and allowing it to go on uninterrupted. That is fine and dandy, more power to them. My issue is that at that time and even still today, if it were any other race of people, it would have been shut down before the end of day one. This event happened at a time period where even if 20 black people gathered for a march or a protest, they were surrounded and beaten by police, etc. Now, how is it that 500,000 young people, primarily white (not to say that other races weren’t represented), can hold a 3 day event with all sorts of public drug use, nudity, sex, etc without any problem? It seems unfair in that respect, however it was beneficial to the participants of Woodstock.

The reactions of the adults in the film did surprise me. I figured there would be parents and old people all upset about those “young whippersnappers� swarming the town. However it did bring in revenue, but also left the town in shambles after it was over. I was glad to see adults standing up for the young people and focusing in on the good rather than the bad of the situation. I was especially stunned by the reaction of Max Yasgur, the owner of the farm. Though I am sure they did pay to use his farm, he could have been upset about the ruin that was going to be left afterwards or all the unanticipated problems that were happening at the time. Nonetheless, he speaks to the crowd in happiness, encouraging what they were doing. Of course, as with the couple fixing the car, some people were less happy about than others, but overall the sentiment of most didn’t seem to be one of anger.

Posted by Jasmine Omorogbe at 10:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When reading the blog questions in preparation for watching Woodstock: Three Days of Peace and Music, I already had a preconceived notion as to how the townspeople would react to the Woodstock Festival and those who attended it. I was expecting most of the townspeople to feel they were being invaded by a swarm of dirty hippies (which they were)…I just expected them to feel less than favorable about this. I was quite surprised, therefore, to hear the nearly overwhelmingly positive response from the locals. Almost everyone interviewed had nice things to say about the concertgoers, calling them “lovely children� and stating that they were polite and friendly. The locals were also very accommodating, banding together as a community and contributing food to feed the attendees. Even one old couple, who despite being a bit cantankerous, was willing to let the kids have some water and use the phone (had it actually worked). The concert was also great for the local economy, as the influx of people attending provided unfathomable new business opportunities.

There were only a few dissenting townspeople opposed to the festival and those attending. Some, like the old couple previously mentioned, were upset because the traffic disallowed the truck, used to collect the milk from the farm, from getting through. Another man was disgusted because he felt it wrong that young people were out smoking pot and sleeping in the fields.

After seeing the mountains of garbage strewn across the fields, I was quite surprised the Max Yasgur, the farmer who owned the land in which the concert was held, had such a laissez-faire attitude about the whole thing. The stereotypical farmer is generally quite politically and morally conservative, so it was rather novel to hear Yasgur talk about how “you people have proven something to the world…that a bunch of kids can get together and have three days of fun and music, and only three days of fun and music.� He was proud of the peaceful nature of the concert and supportive of the young people who made it happen.

Posted by palaz012 at 10:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The documentary, Woodstock, showed how big and important it was for the US history and how this affected people in the world. Although there were lots of people doing drugs and walking around naked during the concert and most of the people in the town didn't support this movement, some were really helpful and they tried to believe in the actions of these "young people". This concert was designed so that the people were able to listen to the music, but most importantly, listening to the lyrics, which they expressed their feelings towards the world peace - no war. It was a quite a sight to see half of million people at the concert and it showed that if people in the world cooperated, it would have been possible for people in the world to become more friendly and create a very strong bond between countries. In my opinion, it was nice to see the younger generation stand up for themselves to bring the world peace and make it into a happier place and all they tried to do at the concert was to have fun and express their feelings. Overall, the concert had a huge affect in the history of the US and people can say that this could have been one of the most important event that have occurred in the last few decades.

Posted by katay007 at 9:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Woodstock was a concert that was designed for only one purpose. This purpose was to gain world peace. This went against the way of the times. America was going to war against Vietnam and it was the youth generation that was rebelling against the war and Woodstock was a result of this rebellion. Woodstock is viewed as a very important time in history. As Remembering the Dangers of Rock and Roll: Toward a Historical Narrative of the Rock Festival reading puts it, ‘The Woodstock music festival and its half a million attendees has traditionally been viewed as a portrait of Aquarius—a manifestation of cosmic consciousness more profound than the same year’s moon landing and even viewed by some as “the second coming of Christ.�’ It was amazing fact that 500 000 people were at the concert and there were many thousands more stuck on the freeway trying to get to the concert and the outcry for peace.
Woodstock was of a time those parents (older generation) and their children (youthful generation) had very different ideas. This was shown in many ways during the film and the readings. One girl is interviewed saying that her parents were against her going to Woodstock due to it being dangerous and against their beliefs; however; she went to support her views against the war and world peace. In the article, “Blame it on the Sixties�, Landon Y. Jones is quoted saying, “America’s largest generation was growing up in an age-segregated universe, cut off from outside society and … bound together by their own prolonged adolescence� (43). As Jones points out here, the younger generation struggled to communicate with the older generations and Woodstock was the best way to get their message of peace across.

Posted by culve018 at 9:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film for this week, Woodstock - 3 Days of Peace and Music, depicted a great scene of what a young generation can do to achieve in what they believe. The film shows much of the culture at Woodstock. An on sight view of the people in the crowd, their feelings, appearance, beliefs and actions were all shown as if the viewer were present with them. The gathering was to celebrate music, peace and love and the idea that the culmination of the three can stop wars and change the world. This is one of the important components I believe the movie lacks. The representation of peace through music was secondary to the crowd and the people involved and affected by the concert. The Vietnam War was a primary contributor to this massive peace assembly and I feel that the film ignores that larger perspective and focuses rather on the culture of the crowd and the mood of the hippies. In the film, Vietnam seems like something that is just coexisting with this historic event rather than an affecting agent. The term “3 days of peace and music� is a better description for this film but for the event, “an anti-war festival� seems to capture the full essence of what was happening at Woodstock. Quite obviously, I wasn’t there. I have no better idea of what the mood and the scent in the air actually was than what I have seen in films like these. But from what I have read and heard people say, Woodstock had a purpose. In the film, the purpose seemed to be lost among the nice “drug usin, sex havin� individuals involved. But with 500,000+ in attendance, I am lead to believe that with so many people, not everyone there had identical objectives. I am sure some were there to stop the war, some to just live in a music, love and peace saturated environment. One thing worth noting however is the common belief in such stated ideals. Everyone just seemed to get along and as Landon Y. Jones states in the article Blame It On the Sixties, “America’s largest generation was… bound together by their own prolonged adolescence.�

Posted by luli0004 at 9:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The documentary film about Woodstock depicts the uprising of the social and political repression of America during the 1960’s. While it is not the chief representation of the 60’s revolution, it greatly reinforces the struggle against a government “driven by power and greed and in which such virtues as honesty, fairness, and compassion had little meaning� (Gerstle, 340).
The combination of open and accepted nudity, poor-acid announcements, and the overall encouragement of peace and community highlight some of the ways they presented their radical push for change. People from all over the country united in one place to strongly spread their message of peace and love; this was one way of proving to the nation that peace and happiness can be obtained, despite the massive amounts of people and the conflicts they ran into (such as the rain, the lack of food and water).
One of the most significant aspects that came out of Woodstock was Jimi Hendrix’s interpretation of “The Star-Spangled Banner.� Mick Jagger was correct in stating that, “it is the finest piece of political rock and roll of the 1960’s� (Arrigo). Through this single song, he was able to portray the nation’s shared fear and uncertainty provoked by the war in Vietnam and American imperialism. To many, it accurately depicted the tyrannical actions of the government around U.S. policy domestically and abroad, and it greatly represented their “reexamination of those marginalized and crushed by Team America� (Walley, 49). His performance was able to unify the primary message about America of nearly everyone involved in the 60’s movement.

Posted by riva0067 at 9:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By: Elizabeth Bassett

It was stated that rock music is the “incarnation of resistance, revolution, debauchery, sexuality, dissent, violence, mayhem, anarchism, and more.� As the Woodstock Music Festival has been noted as one of the largest gatherings for rock music of its time and possibly of all time, it brings to mind whether or not these descriptions actually apply. Throughout the scenes of the movie Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music, it is evident that many of these elements of the stereotypical hippie apply, while many were absent or unseen.
Encompassing the entire festival and ideals of its attendees, peace was the overriding theme throughout the three days of Woodstock. Rock songs played and sung at the festival spoke out against the Vietnam war and the need for a safe, peaceful world. This dream for peace led to resistance against the political opinions of the time as the government continued to send troops to Vietnam. Resistance against the government and majority also encompassed many elements of anarchism in its belief of freedom and cooperation among individuals. Dissent was also outrightly visible as many festival attendees disagreed with authority figures of the time. This was exhibited in the interview with a girl on the documentary when she spoke of her parents’ disapproval of her choice to live within a new family community of males and females and then attend Woodstock. Together, the elements of resistance and anarchism catapulted a revolutionized mindset. Instead of following after their parents, teenagers and young adults pushed against the highly structured norms of the 1950’s of corsets and the picture of the perfect, proper housewife. Instead, girls wore loose-fitting, revealing, and mismatched clothing as revealed in the documentary. Some men of the 60’s opted for a carefree lifestyle with multiple partners and no source of steady income instead of settling down and supporting a wife and family. Rock music was a revolution in itself as it led to new thought processes and spoke to the hearts of its listeners. The strong rhythms and drum beats spurred people forward and provided a way for individuals to bring messages of peace to others.
Other elements addressed in the quote above that were also visible in the movie were debauchery and sexuality. Nudity was often visible throughout the film as well as sexual promiscuity. Drugs and alcohol were also commonplace items in the movie that are often related to the term debauchery. This in mind, it may seem that they are related to rock music, but cause and effect of this type may be difficult to distinguish.
Although I enjoyed the entire film, the most memorable scene for me was at the end. The owner of the field where the festival was held stood in front of the 500,000 attendees and flashed the crowd the peace sign. He spoke of how half a million young people could come together in rather rough conditions with poor sanitation and an insufficient food supply, and yet no violence occurred. This was unheard of as many groups of that size would result in quarrels or fights. Looking at the Woodstock Music Festival as an example, I believe that rock music is not the incarnation of violence and mayhem, but rather a protest against these practices.

Posted by basse044 at 9:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Schowalter's analysis of the documentary film "Woodstock" revealed a startling lack of the political, especially with regards to the Vietnam war. Woodstock is remembered as the being a musical anti-war festival of sorts, and there is some evidence of this in the film, mostly coming from the musical performers. However, Schowalter notes how the music seemed to take a back seat to the audience itself. Much of the screen time was devoted to large shots of the audience and townspeople. While technically more than half of the film featured music, the split-screen technique made it clear that the documentarians were more interested in the concert-goers rather than the music itself. The film often seemed to make attempts to show the military in a positive light, noting how the armed forces came to the aid of the Woodstock goers. This, coupled with the humorous conspiracy theories about the "man" seeding the clouds to ruin the festival with rain puts aside any notion of the military as an evil entity or Vietnam as an evil war. Instead, in the film the war was portrayed as an event that just happened to have occurred simultaneously to Woodstock, rather than an event that any major impact in terms of its development.

Perhaps it is through the eyes of the apolitical film itself that many of the townspeople came to understand what was happening. I was surprised by how many of the older people seemed not to mind the concert, and in fact seemed to find the attendees polite and "good." While it would be foolish to assume that these people had no understand of the social and political ideas that the average Woodstock concert-goer was likely to have, it would seem that having gotten to know a few of the "young people" better served to abolish any pre-concieved stereotypes the locals may have had.

Posted by Melissa Green at 9:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As a result of a decade packed with never ending ciaos, the generation of the 1960’s produced a new form of movement unique to the context of protests and demonstrations prior to their time. In the reading entitled “Blame it on the Sixties,� David Wally states, “Though more people than ever demonstrated against the war and its ranks swelled into Chicago’s aftermath, the mood of the demonstrations had shifted.� This shift is evident in the flow of protest songs and emphasis on peace. The youth of this time had replaced the explosion of violence with more peaceful tactics and demonstration. Woodstock of 1969 was more than just a rock festival, but also in many ways a form of demonstration of a confused generation with high hopes for change.

The film Woodstock- 3 Days of Peace and Music by Michael Wadleigh, is a prime example of the complexity of this event that goes deeper than just the music. Although Woodstock revolved around popular musicians of the time, the film portrays an equally important side of the event: the thousands of individuals from all over the country that came together during these three prominent days in history. The film provides us with what these people were there for, what they had in common, and generally what they were all about.

Wadleigh’s unique interviews and uncensored portrayals of partakers in the film proves that while the music has obvious significance to Woodstock, the attitude of the people taking part and the opinions of outsiders at the time is equally justified in importance and contribution to the intensity of this event. As a result, one could argue that Woodstock is more than an event filled with music, sex, and drugs, but more importantly the demonstration of a concerned generation aiming for peace.

Posted by munoz047 at 9:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Once again I enjoyed the film that we watched. I think the film did a great job of capturing various aspects of the changing cultural norms. You can clearly see that the young people were using their freedom of speech, through music this was manifested. The music was political with much more than a happy sappy love song. Clearly, the young people were able to relate to music. Another change in the cultural norms, was the hairstyle. Many young males had long shaggy hair as oppose to clean cut hairstyle. This represents that they are trying to distinguish themselves from the uptight adults. As for women, there was a good number of them that were naked in the movie. Woman at the time are suppose to be well clothed and girly, but in the film women were tomboy-ish.

What struck me the most about the reaction of the townspeople is that they were supportive. They felt the need to care for these young people. For example, one of the adults’ townsmen felt the need to feed the young people. He expressed how nice they were and maybe older adults should need to learn how to love rather than be uptight.

Max Yasgur expressed what this experienced meant to him. He wanted to promote peace just like the young people who attended Woodstock. I believe that he felt that this was his contribution in making change in a time of war and battles. I wasn’t surprised because anyone who experienced Woodstock at the time probably felt the sincerity of promoting peace not only in the US, but through the whole world.

One of the common themes that young people in the film expressed was living life freely. Meaning that being content with living was enough to live a peaceful and serene life. It doesn’t surprise me that peace was very important to young people. They saw life as a gift and not even government should determine how to live your life. The fact the government was turning on them instead of helping them with an intent of a good cause, which was just to promote peace.

I believe that rock and roll was an outlet for people to express their emotions. In the context of that time, it was more political than entertainment. I think rock and roll now still does encompass political messages, but it seems more for entertainment purposes. So looking at the historical context and linking it to rock and roll music at that time would differentiate rock and roll of today.

I can see where Mick Jagger can make the connection with the greatest political rock and roll piece. I would have to agree. It really stood out in my mind the combination of rock and roll, style, and emotion that Jimi Hendrix put into the Star Spangled Banner. It was truly a inspiring given the historical and political movement of the time.

Posted by tuazo001 at 9:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After watching the edited version of the documentary Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music, the main concept I realized was the changing cultural norms of that time. The variation of all the people at Woodstock was very surprising. Everyone seemed to get on regardless of his or her race and beliefs. I was also amazed by the lack of prejudice at Woodstock. Woodstock was during the time when a lot of tragedies occurred, with the assassination of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy during this time in history. It was also during the time when a lot of protests were occurring for peace. Woodstock brought thousands of people together to promote love and peace throughout the world. Max Yasgur explained in the movie, “Woodstock showed the World a huge group of young people could come together for three days and no have any violence�. The most surprising part of the film was the different perceptions of what is right and wrong between parents and the young people. It was very obvious that the young generation had vastly different beliefs than their parents. The young people believed that the war was wrong. Parents believed that the war was ok, however they were becoming less opposed to the peace protests. The views on sex were changing with young people changing their views on sex and drugs. Sex was becoming more socially acceptable at younger ages before marriage. This was the opposite of their parent’s belief that sex was to be only between married couples. Obviously times were changing. Another important change to society was that people of different race could be at a concert together without any conflict. In the film it was obvious that there were major changes of various aspects of cultural norms. These were just a few that were highlighted in the film.

Posted by campb503 at 9:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thought the documentary, Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music was a great film illustrating what the first Woodstock was all about. When I think of Woodstock the first thing that comes to mind is sex, drugs and rock & roll. This was all proven to be true after seeing a large majority of music-goers using drugs openly, bathing in public, and sitting in the sun topless. All these things did indeed happen at Woodstock but what you also have to realize is that there were many people just like you and me in attendance. This documentary is a depiction of what really occurred during the first Woodstock, allowing people of all generations to see what actually happen during those three days.
The one thing that really stuck out to me is how Woodstock was almost used in the sense of an escape from the real world and being able to express their ideologies. In the article, “Blame it on the Sixties�, Landon Y. Jones is quoted stating, “America’s largest generation was growing up in an age-segregated universe, cut off from outside society and … bound together by their own prolonged adolescence� (p.43). The documentary does a great job of showing the cultural differences between young adults and parents. Also this quote expresses the communication barrier that there was between parents and young adults. It was shown in the documentary through and interview of a young couple that looked a Woodstock a great way of communicating their message.
During this time in our history the country was going through extremely rough times. Our country was just pulling themselves out of the Vietnam War, where many Americans lost their lives. It was a War that we could not win. Artist used their music and lyrics to get across their message about war and peace. An example from class was “Fortunate Son� by Creedance Clearwater Revival. Music was a way that helped everyone deal with what was going on out in the normal world.
Woodstock was more then just three days of Music it was a place for people from all walks of life to express their thoughts and feelings openly.

Posted by white968 at 9:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Woodstock was an event that no one realized how big it was actually going to be. Over 500,000 people attended this festival of peace and love. The basic belief was that rock music was all about sex, drugs, and other obscene things. This was the exact opposite of what Woodstock was about. Woodstock brought everyone together through their love of rock and roll to try to promote world peace and unity. One of the farmers referred to Woodstock as a "damn, shitty mess" but in reality it was quite the opposite. An example of this was when the farmer said that it was remarkable that kids could come together for "peace, love and music, and have nothing but peace, love, and music. All anyone wanted from this concert was to try to resolve all the problems that were going on in the world and they hoped to attain this through their rock songs that underlying meaning was to try to show everyone that peace is needed throughout the world. Anthony talked about in class how during the Vietnam War people could either sit back and be puppets, just letting the Govt. make decisions for them, or they could show some type of resistance. Woodstock was a time for people to get up and voice their opinions while doing so through their love of rock and roll. In the article, “Blame it on the Sixties�, Landon Y. Jones is quoted saying, “America’s largest generation was growing up in an age-segregated universe, cut off from outside society and … bound together by their own prolonged adolescence� (43). This is shown when a couple is interviewed and they talk about how they had a really hard time communicating to their parents because of their different beliefs on what rock and roll really meant to them. Woodstock was a great way for them to express their beliefs with thousands of other people that were thinking just like they were. Spontaneity and Experimentation was a huge part of the 60's and this was completely opposite of the social norms that were in place for all of the kids parents. The 60's and 70's were soon to be taken over by rock and roll which would in return start political riots and soon affect the entire countries beliefs on many different important political topics. I also enjoyed Jimmi Hendrix's version of the Star Spangled Banner because I felt like during this time of instability with what was going on at this concert, this was a very risky but soon to be amazing thing to do. "True, the surface manifestations- sex, drugs, and rock and roll, protest and miniskirts- are with us still and were noted by news media then, but there was far more going on that has been effectively ignored and/or misreported because it didn’t suit the needs of hot copy� (Walley, 43). I thought this was a good way to end my entry because this sums up what people thought of Woodstock. It was sought out to be some big drug, naked, rock and roll fest, when in reality it was really just to bring people together that had a passion for rock and roll and wanted to promote their beliefs on the worlds issues.

Posted by kapla137 at 9:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film Woodstock reflects various aspects of changing cultural norms because the festival and the music represented at the festival occured at the time of various political and societal revolutions. There was racial dischord at home in the United States at the same time that there was a war being fought in Vietnam. The media coverage during the period was not as selective with its contents during this time. It allowed many citizens to witness the inevitable results of war. The music being produced it reflective of American youths distrust ad questioning of a system that had allowed to many of their peers to be killed in a inconclusive war.

Posted by tapol001 at 8:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I thought the most interesting part of the documentary were the various viewpoints expressed by adults throughout. When this generation looks back at the sixties, its collective viewpoint is almost invariably that of college kids rebelling against the establishment. It seems to be that of the young New Left that Gerstle describes rising from the universities and taking on all the social issues of the time. This is only compounded by the fact that we grew up soaking in the nostalgic views of that generation, which Walley warns against. As a college student today living in a time which has some striking similarities, it is fascinating that this view of counterculture versus establishment leaves out so much of what the country thought. The country was not divided young versus old; it was just plain divided. The varied reactions of adult middle or working class white males in the film highly exemplified this. Two townspeople were interviewed in the documentary after the drive to collect food for the festival goers. One said that they were just drug users out in a field, and that the festival should never have been allowed to happen. The other, presumably coming from the exact same background and nationalistic views, thought that the kids were doing a good thing and should just be helped. The same dichotomy of opinion was expressed by those directly affected by the festival: the farmers. While one man with land near Woodstock thought it was a travesty that kids were living in the rough and destroying his fields. Max Yasgar, the man whose land the event was hosted upon, said the kids were doing a wonderful thing and showing the world how to live peacefully. So, this nostalgic belief that the sixties were a time where the battle lines were drawn between the up-and-coming new movement and the establishment really avoids the fact that most members of this establishment were themselves divided.

Posted by drey0022 at 8:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The most surprising thing in the video to me was how greatly the people at Woodstock varied. I envisioned the setting of Woodstock to be almost all drugs and sex, when in reality this is not what appears to have occurred. I think it was well described in the video by the laws of probability. If you put enough people in one place the probability is that things such as drugs and sex will occur is inevitable. Plus the fact that these are occurring, so visibly in some people increases the probability and temptation others who would not normally participate in these actions do.
It was very obvious that the young generation had vastly different beliefs than those of their parents. The young people had a unified front that the war was fundamentally wrong. While the parents while they were not entirely for the war were not extremely opposed to it either. Also the beliefs of the young people on sexual promiscuity were changing. To them sex was becoming as it is now, something socially acceptable to do before you are married. This was a huge change from the parent generation in which sex was between a husband and a wife.
One fascinating aspect of the video was how everyone got along, regardless of their differences. There were differences in race, beliefs, drug use, and dress. Despite these differences there was no prejudice against others. This was a hue improvement over the parent generation especially with regard to racism. In one generation the huge gap between colors was drastically reduced.
One thing that never occurred to me about the video was the economic repercussions of Woodstock. The huge amount of people coming to Woodstock was a great boost to the economy of the area, and yet was a huge change to their way of life. It depleted the food in the area as stores were not able to keep up with the demand and then could not re-supply due to the traffic jam leading into Woodstock. This same thing occurred with water, and then cars could not leave because the gas stations were out of gasoline.
This semester we have seen many examples of how people believed that rock music was the incarnation of resistance, revolution, debauchery, sexuality, dissent, violence mayhem, anarchism, and many other things. I believe Woodstock demonstrated outright that rock music represents a way of expressing revolution and sexuality, and yet totally disproved how it brought about violence, mayhem, and anarchism with how peaceful Woodstock was.

Posted by andre368 at 7:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week we watched an edited version of the documentary Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music. During class we talked about all of the tragedies that had gone on during the time the Woodstock took place, which included things like the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, the continuation of the Vietnam War, etc. Also during this time there were a lot of gatherings of young people to protest the War among other things, which usually resulted in the police coming and breaking up the group by beating and sometimes killing people. Like what was said in the movie by Max Yasgur, Woodstock showed the world that a huge group of young people could come together for three days and not have any violence take place. This was a very important event in history, as the Remembering the Dangers of Rock and Roll: Toward a Historical Narrative of the Rock Festival reading puts it, ‘The Woodstock music festival and its half a million attendees has traditionally been viewed as a portrait of Aquarius—a manifestation of cosmic consciousness more profound than the same year’s moon landing and even viewed by some as “the second coming of Christ.�’
Huge parts of what was shown during the film were the performers. The camera would shoot the performers and then a glimpse of the audience would be shown. I thought this was really cool because it allowed the viewer to really see how the music “spoke� to the people. A major question that was asked during the festival was why they would travel so far to listen to this type of music that was seen as “devilish� and not accepted by the older generation of that time. Many of their answers consisted of how they could relate to the music and how it spoke to them in a way that their parents music never could. I just thought it was really neat how they showed this in the film by not only the audience’s answers to these questions but by the scenes showing the audience listening and singing along to the music and the expressions on all of their faces.

Posted by clay0115 at 7:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The phenomenon of the Woodstock Festival’s three days of peace and love served an important cultural and political purpose in 1969 and today. The concert allowed the youth of America to join together in song, harmony and tolerance. Those who were against the war, the socially constructed norms and the government of the time used Woodstock to make their voices heard. The people who attended the concert could express themselves in new ways than their parents had. They danced in new ways, they bathed and swam in the nude with groups of people, they openly shared and used drugs, they dressed in colorful, non-conformist ways and they listened to psychedelic and folk rock and roll. The concert-goers were unafraid to be what they were representing; they were peaceful, even in a mass of a half million people, and they openly accepted and loved those around them. The concert was a place for all of these different types of people to bring their values and ideologies and take others’ ideas and ethics home with them, as Walley states (p. 64).

While some of the townspeople did not approve of a drug and sex-filled concert where young and impressionable kids were present, others saw the festival audience as peaceful, well-behaved and politically involved. Max Yasgur, the farmer who owned the Woodstock site, was not upset with how the land was used. If the outcome would have upset him, he probably would not have agreed to let them use the land to begin with. This shows that not all adults saw the counterculture youth as degenerate troublemakers. The documentary shows many normal activities these adults did themselves taking place at the radical festival. Children were taken care of and played with by their parents. People were bathing and having picnics. The festival-goers were having a good time and socializing.

Musicians like Woody Guthrie, Jefferson Airplane and Richie Havens were what the “norms� would call deviant and guilty of politically undercutting society. Guthrie sang Mr. Customs Man, a song about drug trafficking. Jefferson Airplane sang White Rabbit, a song telling a drugged-up version of Alice in Wonderland. Havens sang Motherless Child and Freedom, both of which speak of troubles in society politically and culturally. Of course Jimi Hendrix’s version of The Star Spangled Banner had a political message as well. Hendrix’s version incorporated the idea of American government and superiority and its blunder of war and economical confidence. As discussed in class, the war in Vietnam was turned into an economic and political one.

Posted by Candice Dehnbostel at 7:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Living in the town of Bethel, New York and hearing of a “peace� festival soon to be invading in the summer of 1969 would be questionable. After watching scenes from Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music, the people residing in Bethel were very well respected by the concert-goers. The welcomed the “young people� as their invasion brought a boom in business to the local entrepreneurs. Knowing about the crisis of the short supply of water and food, the township seemed to be helpful as they aided to the concert-goers. The image of “hippies� overpopulating a town would only bring uproar of hate instead of the care that was given to them. The general sense of what rock music is about in the late 1960s and early 1970s is exemplified with Woodstock. It brought hundreds of thousands of people together to promote peace and love throughout the world. Young people from all over the country without a sense of what they want to do in their life, gather together because they know what their purpose is. Being understood and sharing common interests was revolutionized by this festival despite the weather and survival shortages. I agree with Mick Jagger’s comment on Jimi Hendrix. I believe when Jimi Hendrix put his fingers on that guitar and the first note was heard, everyone knew it was the Star Spangled Banner. This was a true political statement for everyone who may have been against Woodstock and its upbringings. I assume that Hendrix’s statement was bold and showed America that they are Americans. The article called Blame it on the Sixties stated, “If you have believed people have energy, then it was possible to exorcise the Pentagon of evil spirits and raise it off the ground, or eve stop the war with street theater.� No matter what they believe in or who they are against, they live the United States. Hendrix musically interprets and shows America the meaning of freedom of speech with peace, love, and understanding.

Posted by Anthony Zerka at 7:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the first lecture of the semester, Anthony presented some quotes about Jimi Hendrix’s playing of the Star Spangled Banner at the Woodstock music festival that I did not think twice about at the time. Although I cannot recall the exact words he shared with us, I did find in my notes a reflection that this seminal event is considered to be one of the greatest examples of the linkage between popular culture and politics – that it transcended a particular moment in time. At face value this interpretation is easy to side with and can be defended on many levels; however, when put into context with Michael Wadleigh’s documentary Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music and this week’s readings from David Walley, this appearance might not seem to carry the cultural importance it has been given.

In viewing the actual performance on screen, it came across as being anti-climactic. Yes, Hendrix was the closing act of the festival, but due to logistical problems he ended up on stage Monday morning playing to a mere fraction of the estimated 500,000+ concert goers that had been in attendance. Those that were still around were likely nursing severe hangovers (what three days of sex, drugs, and rock and roll would do to anybody) and were probably not open to any meaningful political statements at that point. This idea can be reinforced by the notions about the head culture, the drug culture and the commercially constructed counterculture expressed by Walley.

Every point has its counterpoint. In this particular case, reading Daniel Schowalter’s article this week helped put everything back into balance for me. By pointing out the editorial powers a documentary filmmaker has in creating or influencing popular interpretation reality, he is able to remind us of the dangers of passively accepting things at face value. When this is taken into consideration, it becomes obviously clear that the significance of Hendrix’s version of the Star Spangled Banner is rightfully so. Asserting claims of a hidden political message reverberating within the chords he was playing is right in line with every discussion we have had thus far – that we are morally obligated to actively participate in bringing about the cultural changes that we see needing repair.

Posted by skog0031 at 7:27 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The way Jimi Hendrix performed The Star Spangled Banner was exactly what people needed to hear in 1969 at Woodstock. It stated that America and it's traditions and values can still be the same, with a few alterations. The way Jimi Hendrix played the National Anthem gave me, and I'm sure many others, goosebumps. It's so great because it takes the National Anthem we all know and have grown used to, tweaked it just enough to keep it the same, but changed it to get a point across. Times are changing, it's ok. The way we, America, deals with others needs to change, and it's ok. We can change, to not declare war on everyone and everything, to negotiate rather than fight, to not automatically involve us in other countries feuds, and that's ok. The version Jimi Hendrix created was and still is controversial, and probably will be controversial forever. It's been claimed as the "finest piece of political rock n' roll of the 1960's" by Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones. I'm not sure I fully agree with this statement. I haven't had the opportunity to hear everything that came out of the 1960's, but I do agree that it would be one of the very finest pieces to come out of that decade. I think it started to make people think a little differently, to not turn a shoulder on anything "different" or changing.

Posted by woehl007 at 7:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When I think of Woodstock and what occurred there, the first image that comes to mind is that of "sex, drug, and rock & roll". This is reinforced by seeing video footage of artists and fans alike openly using drugs, bathing publicly in lakes and rivers, and walking around amongst a half a million people topless. These things did occur at Woodstock, but what you do not realize is that there were also many people in attendance that were just like you and me. The documentary, Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music, paints a picture about this festival that many of our generation may not have realized.

One example of this that caught me right away while watching the film was while interviewing the irrratable gentleman fixing his truck, a group of kids came up to ask if they could use his phone. This created an interesting element for me, that in a time where the country was in social and political upheaval, it still came back to the basic ideal that these were just unprepared kids that needed help. The naviety of all of those people to think that they now inhabited the worlds "second largest city" and yet could not survive on their own was comical. The very idea that they were fighting against, the American government, was providing military and medical assistance during an event that ultimately became a crisis. All of a sudden it was ok to applaud the American military for their efforts. Indirectly, though, this impression of the military and the role that it played at Woodstock supports the idea of the festival, that it is about preserving life, not to take it.

We heard in lecture that during the Vietnam war, the more troops that occupied Vietnam, the more the citizens of both countries disliked the U.S. government. I think this also relates to the potential for disaster that existed if the U.S. military had taken more of a policing role than an aide roll at Woodstock. Woodstock could have very easily gone from a crisis to a tragedy. How unfortunate that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did not exercise the same wisdom when making the decision to go to war.

Posted by char0018 at 6:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Sorry for the horribly uncreative blog title...

I'm really not sure if I would consider Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner to be the finest piece of political rock of the 1960's. Granted, I've barely been exposed to any 60's political rock at all. But from what I saw in the video, I think I'll go ahead and disagree with Mick Jagger. If I were to pick the song that I felt as the most influential in the video, I'd go with Country Joe McDonald and 'Feels Like I'm Fixin' To Die Rag'.

Part of me isn't even sure Hendrix's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner is meant to be a political statement. I could be making things up now, but I think I've heard that Hendrix has said he played that the way he did because he thought it sounded beautiful, not because he wanted to make a political statement. The song has since been taken by critics and the general public and turned into something that it may not have been meant to be in the first place. Also, no one in the audience knew what was coming. It was laid on them all of the sudden, and I'm sure there was confusion amongst them as to what it meant. Hendrix didn't say 'Okay, here's my song about the war,' he just sort of went into it. That's why I disagree with jason Zapator (quoted in Perone, pg. 60) when he says that it was the 'Truest rendition of that song I've ever heard', based on the fact that Hendrix was using 'sound effects' through guitar manipulation. Maybe I'm reaching here, but I would wager that the only true rendition of this song was the one that Francis Scott Key had going through his head as he could actually see Fort McHenry getting bombed.
On the other hand, Country Joe's song had already been proven to be a hit. He had the entire audience of '300,000 fuckers' all singing along. Also, his song clearly states it's reason for existence - What are we fighting for? Why should we fight in a war in a place where the public doesn't give a damn about? I choose that as the most influential song (at least in the movie) based on the clear effect it had on all the people in attendance. Plus, I find it more clever and sarcastic, and I'm a sucker for sarcasm.

Jeff Batts

Posted by batts002 at 6:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Woodstock was an important cultural event that effectively impacted Americans citizens far beyond concert goers that actually attended. Even though Woodstock was dirty, over crowded and “a damn shitty mess� as one farmer explained concerning Woodstock, their cause was above all of that. During the Vietnam War American citizens had a choice to either be puppets like Anthony talked about in class and just go with the actions of the US government or they could show some type of resistance. That what makes Woodstock so significant and historically important that people were not going to sit back and watch, they were going to get their voice heard through a peaceful free concert. In the article, “Blame it on the Sixties�, Landon Y. Jones is quoted saying, “America’s largest generation was growing up in an age-segregated universe, cut off from outside society and … bound together by their own prolonged adolescence� (43). The Woodstock film did an effective job of showing some cultural differences between young adult and their elder/parents. During an interview with a young couple at Woodstock they talked about how they could not communicate with their parents. This quote from Landon Y. Jones clear shows that the younger generation had a communication barrier with their elders so they felt that Woodstock was an effective way to communicate their message. Jimi Hendrix version of the Star Spangled Banner during Woodstock I thought was very risky as well as creative which I give him credit for.

Posted by towar003 at 6:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This film was in my opinion the best we've seen so far, even if it was edited down. It did a great job of showing everyone the overall idea that Woodstock was and what it meant to people. I did see a few things that were very surprising though, such as the conflicting responses of the adults. The Parents of the town seemed so angry that their kids were out in the field wasting their lives and time smoking and drinking; while the business people that were affected directly by Woodstock were all happy to see so many people and so much increase in revenue. Of course they were going to be happy to see more money but they enjoyed the idea that there were so many people out there and there were all enjoying themselves. The owner of the farm was the most unexpected. I had thought he was going to make at least some kind of remark about not leaving his land in a state of ruin but instead he openly endorsed what they were doing. The lack of violence and the overall calm of 500000 people also surprised me, but it probably happened like that because of all the drugs going around. The year of 69 had so many devastating things happen it that this was almost needed as a catharsis for the younger populace. They may have not understood as much the politics of what was happening but they were still impacted by it through the older generation.

Posted by leex2727 at 6:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As I began watching the documentary, my first thoughts about the 3-day concert was disgusting, outrageous, and over the top. I would never want to live that kind of lifestyle. But as I continued to watch, I realized that the people who organized the event put a lot of time and effort into the production. It was not an event to make profit, rather it was a thoughtful get-together targeted toward one thing: peace.
I think a lot of the documentary is based on the lifestyle of young people during this time period. Although much of the behavior is extreme and radical, a lot of it can be considered normal of that age group. For example, the Woodstock-goers were carefree and curious. They wanted to experiment with drugs and alcohol, and they wanted to fulfill their sexual curiosities. This is normal of young people still today. I think this is just a case of extreme experimentation. I am not surprised by the radical behavior that took place at Woodstock because it consisted almost the entire counter culture of the United States. All of these people gathered here for the same reason; they wanted to feel love and peace throughout, and many did this through the use of marijuana and LSD. Although this counter culture probably didn’t act this way in everyday life, the passion elicited from the music was intensified through the use of drugs. And in this case, the more the merrier.
Since music is such a major form of communication, it makes sense that an event such as Woodstock would be a form of protest during the time period. However, I think that Woodstock, and the events that took place there, give rock music somewhat of a negative connotation. The idea of ‘sex, drugs, and rock and roll’ really rings true for Woodstock. I think that Woodstock was a great initiative with positive ideas, but the party that it became was a poor representation of rock music. If I were to only associate rock music with the Woodstock festival, I would definitely think of it as negative and destructive. The people present at Woodstock, as shown in the documentary, definitely represent the stereotype of rock music- the idea of young, careless people using drugs and acting out.
So, I think that Woodstock had a positive message to send to the United States, but it may have been a bit too extreme. I feel that it was a great experience full of passion and insights for those in attendance, but the United States as a whole saw it as an outrageous and shameful gathering of the young counter culture, a sorry excuse to act out.

Posted by Courtney Marlow at 5:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Michael Wadleigh’s documentary, “Woodstock- 3 Days of Peace and Music,� is a brilliant film capturing a cultural movement towards peace. Throughout the film, differences between youth and their parents during the sixties were quite noticeable, with discrepancies on love, sexuality, politics, relationships, and the overall principle of society. Woodstock, a festival that named a generation, showed people (500,000 people in the concert area with thousands more gathered on the road because they couldn’t get any closer) how cooperation and tolerance could potentially lead to peace, however peace between youth and their parents didn’t come easily. In the article, “Blame it on the Sixties�, Landon Y. Jones is quoted saying, “America’s largest generation was growing up in an age-segregated universe, cut off from outside society and … bound together by their own prolonged adolescence� (43). The youth of the sixties seemed to take on an attitude of spontaneity and experimentation, both of which seemed quite difficult for parents to embrace. A culture once defined by social form was now being taken over by music, leading to political protests, riots against segregation and racism, and a variety of other heated issues.

Posted by eisl0005 at 5:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I don't know that the film gave the Woodstock experience its due justice. Maybe its because we only saw a portion of the film, but the festival didn't seem as immense as it had to have been. I remember hearing about the rain and the mud and the movie seemed to gloss over this. I can't imagine that was very much fun, even when stoned out of your mind. Also, how much would you have been able to hear of the music if you one of the people way in the back of the venue? The overhead helicopter shots made it seem like they were way away from the stage. I can't imagine the sound being very good, especially back in the '60s. I guess the experience of just being there had to outway all the negatives. I am sure it has also gained in its appeal over time, to its now epic proportions.

I thought the towns people were a bit surprising in their attitudes regarding the festival. Most seemed to take the kids with a grain of salt. The store owner went out of his way to say all the kids had been great, and one man went out of his way to argue in defense of the kids and the festival. Even the old couple at their house were a bit cranky, but overall seemed ok with what was going on in their community. There was one guy who argued in the town about the event, but he seemed to be in the minority of those on screen. Behind the scene's this could have been much different. The community appeared to be an older demographic, so I am guessing that most found the festival to be a nuissence.

The farmer seemed to enjoy the festivities and be all for the event. His fields were pummelled, but I am guessing the festival went on later in the season (I think it was August or September), so his crops were already harvested. He also probably made a good chunk of money to rent out his property. It appeared the festival attendees were well behaved, which probably added to his enjoyment of things. He also seemed to be a bit of a hero to those that attended, which probably didn't hurt either.

The Jimi Hendrix portion left me a little underwhelmed. I have heard bits of the recording in the past and thought it was pretty cool, but I don't think I ever heard the whole version. The parts were he played the anthem was pretty amazing, I didn't think the filler was as good. I'm hardly a musician, so I am probably missing something, but I thought it dragged on a bit. For all its hype, and from the parts I had remembered hearing in the past, I thought the full version was a bit disappointing. I don't know how much of a political statement it made. I think anyone can find meaning in someone's art. Everyone interprets art differently. Did I find it political? No, but I guess I don't see why someone else would take it as a major political statement.

Posted by bela0003 at 4:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I really enjoyed this documentary on Woodstock. I have never learned anything on Woodstock and even though I did have a overall understand of what it was, it was so interesting to see what actual people, who were there, thought of Woodstock and how it affected them. The diverse attitude of Woodstock was definitely apparent though the different people interviewed on the film. A person in the beginning of the film felt indifferent about Woodstock. They respected them and thought they were very nice young people, who brought in tons of business, but said it was very hectic having so many of them there. An old man comments on his view in the movie of Woodstock as “a shitty mess� and how he had his fields were a “disgraceful mess because it was all cut up�. Another man comments on Woodstock saying that the people were “all high on pot� and that “15 year old kids shouldn’t be sleeping in the field, this never should have happened.� These people, along with many others in the film, just don’t seem to understand that there was so much more to Woodstock than just the looks on the outer surface. “True, the surface manifestations- sex, drugs, and rock and roll, protest and miniskirts- are with us still and were noted by news media then, but there was far more going on that has been effectively ignored and/or misreported because it didn’t suit the needs of hot copy� (Walley, 43). Woodstock was a place for “peace and love�. It was a place where people with the same viewpoint on the war can come together in one place. Many people just couldn't grasp the idea that music brings people together. The viewpoints of these people didn’t surprise me because that’s how the majority of grownups feel these days about “young kids’ � music and the way they choose to express themselves. This was the way people felt back then and even today there is a confusion of why people chose to act the way they do. A confusion of why young people express themselves the way they do will always perplex others from an older generation. It's just how the world works. Not to sound so cliché, but this diversity makes the world go round. People are always going to express themselves differently and that's just how it's going to be.

Posted by ruff0046 at 4:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

1968 was a very confusing, dramatic year for most of America. Within the span of a few months, the Tet Offensive and Walter Cronkite announced that the US, against popular belief, was not winning the war, Lyndon B. Johnson announced he would not be running for presidency again, MLK and Robert Kennedy were assasinated, and police riots were killing protestors. Moreover with the effectiveness of mass media, all of this was being documented so there was no way to ignore the fact that the country was in the middle of a political and cultural upheavel with no clue where to go next and who to rely on.

So what did the people do? Many people protested and rallied, but many didn't. And it seems that those who didn't were the ones who decided to travel a variety of distances to spend three days camping out in Bethel, New York for a music festival popularly known as Woodstock. It wasn't even really about the music as one festival attendee mentions in Woodstock: "people who are nowhere going somewhere... is music all that important? I don't think so... People are very lost, I think". Daniel F. Showalter argues that the documentary was effective as a "depolitization" of the crowds at Woodstock and unemphasizes the actual music portion of the experience. He claims that the camera's focus on the crowds rather than the musicians and the lack of actual political content (or unenthusiastic response to attempts at political rallying) shows that the festival was about more than the protest music it is famous for.

Essentially the attendees weren't looking to gather together to rally against the war or to listen to music. They were lost at a time when the government had let them down, when all the things they believed in were being destroyed or revealed as fallible. They were looking for company and escape from the real world and a captivating escape they found. As Showalter says, "there isn't anything very profound or countercultural about Woodstock and its attendees-- only a spellbound mass of people who cannot even claim oppositional politics as their raison d'etre".

Posted by bergm150 at 4:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Jimi Hendrix played his set at Woodstock on the last day of the festival. Unfortunately, much of the enormous crowd left before he played, leaving him with a relatively small audience compared to the grand scale of the festival. No act at Woodstock in 1969 has achieved the legendary status that Hendrix's did. I know that when I think of Woodstock, I think of lots of drugs, public sex, mud (I know, I know...that was the one from 1994), and Jimi Hendrix.

1969 was the year that the United States ended its full-scale involvement in the Vietnam War, Vietnamization began, and the USA started the healing process from all the wounds the war inflicted upon the country. Woodstock was billed as "3 Days of Peace & Music", and for the most part, it was just that. Jimi Hendrix's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner has been dubbed the "finest piece of political rock n' roll of the 1960's" by Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones. I fully agree with that statement. It was a beautiful performance of our National Anthem, played in the way Jimi, who was a paratrooper in the US Army, felt it needed to be played to reflect the social climate of the US at that time. His use of heavy distortion, sustain and feedback on his guitar provided the audience with a very angry version of the song that they had never even dreamed of. The wailing bends of the high notes between the "traditional" riffs of the Star Spangled Banner can be interpreted as the screams and cries of our country, or our soldiers in Vietnam, and of the people of both North and South Vietnam. Jimi used his whammy bar to create "dive bombs", which actually sounded like both the roar of a jet and a bomb falling from the sky. He intertwined all of these sound and effects in the medium of the National Anthem of the USA, symbolizing the pain, suffering, and anger that was felt by the people of our country, but also largely caused by our country. What is amazing is that he managed to send this message out to the audience without any spoken words. Hendrix's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner will remain legendary and controversial for as long as people still are able to hear, and will continue to be open for interpretation.

Posted by smit1989 at 2:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The one thing that stood out most for me about the Woodstock documentary was the amount of people present at the event. First of all, the way the event somehow overcame the risk of fighting, rape, murder, overdose, people getting sick, STDs, and all the people who could get arrested for various offenses was amazing. Not say that some of these things may have happened in specific instances, but the concert as a whole was just as advertised--3 Days of Peace and Music. I felt the documentary's straight presentation was a little dry, but what I did find interesting was the exploration of the organization (or lack thereof) of the concert by those behind it, as well as the individual accounts of young kids who took to be interviewed. The clichéd, '60s stoned-out-of-their-mind persona was not so much seen and a lot of the kids had some at least decent and interesting things to say. The music was predictably good, especially the late night performances when nothing could be seen but blackness from the stage. But backtracking to the mass of people, I simply cannot imagine having to tell people to "move away from the towers" and other such things. The danger of someone somewhere getting hurt was just so high considering the amount of people and the drugs and many other factors involved, but for the most part they seemed to make it through. Kudos to those guys behind it for handling the unraveling of the concert with what more or less was grace. Jimi Hendrix's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner was particularly powerful seeing the scattered, tattered crowd and just the second-tier trashiness of it all. It was a moment held by those who stayed and endured and waited through the elements. It was a payoff for them, and a deserved one at that. In the end, Woodstock really was a cornerstone of a cultural event, on a scale that America had never experienced before. I have no idea if I would've gone or not if I was alive and of the age at the time, but I know I might regret not going in retrospect. All in all, the video, while occasionally boring, was nonetheless eye-opening to the grandiose cultural event that was Woodstock--3 Days of Peace and Music.

Posted by Darth Nep0wix at 2:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The flim Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music there are several examples of drastic change in cultural norms. A few are shown through drugs, language, and nudity. Love and sexuality is expressed differently throughout the film. It was apparent that it was ok to have more than one sexual partner and to love more than one person. I found it interesting that the townspeople were not too upset that their property was being ruined by the festival. Even though they disagreed with the festival they were more concerned about the young people. They were worried if the young people were getting enough food. They were also very willing to let the young people use their bathrooms.

I was very surprised at how Mr. Yasgur handled the fact that the festival ruined his property, he was supportive and not upset. What he had to say did surprise me mostly because he is from an entirely different generation so i did not think he would be able to fully understand what and why these kids were doing what they were doing. However, much to my surprise he did understand and he was not upset, especially about his farm. This is all very surprising to me, I would think he would be very mad about his farm as well not understand what the kids were trying to accomplish the with festival.

I think there are social difference between the generations of the festival-goers and the townspeople because they are two different eras. They grew up in different times when the world was a different place. I think most people can understand that there are many differences, however, I think there are some similarities as well. That being, they all care for one another no matter what.

Posted by pelt0071 at 2:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film covered several perspectives on the event of Woodstock in the film Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music. The Urban youth who came into see the festival, the disoriented suburb locals, the owner of the farm, and the government involvement were all documented and represented everyone’s stance very clearly. The change and evolution in the music really seems to be grasping the population at an unprecedented place. Despite the fact that people needed tickets, fences were pushed down and people travelled from the other side of the country and endured long hours of traffic jams just to come for this event. Rather than coming for a specific artist, the interviews with the audience members gave a sense of laid back, lethargic feel (perhaps it was the marijuana…) and the festival was overall, about the appreciation of music and people coming together. There really was no planning ahead (as in gas, food, lodging, etc) but more about living “in the moment� and being spontaneous. The adults who were mainly the locals seemed to be effected negatively about it, not being used to the amount of people in their town, and the trespassing on their property. The only adult who seemed to be appreciating this event and opportunity was the owner of the farm, Max Yasgur. Infact he seemed glad to contribute to this festival his land and be a part of it, despite the unpredicted amount of people that arrived. I think as an man growing old in a the suburbs, being able to participate in such an event with so many people was an exciting experience. Not a lot of people get to say they “hosted Woodstock�. But I guess it is obvious that the adults wouldn’t appreciate the events as the youths did, since the music has changed a lot since the adults were teenagers, the social mentality is much different back then compare to now. Back then the emphasis were on education, planning ahead, family, etc but the younger generation seemed to grow tired of that and has a more laid back attitude and craving for spontaneity and “live in the moment� motto. The attitude of experimentation and open mindedness is another strong difference as the youth embraced foreign culture and religion and adopted it. The festival also seem to show their less strict attitude on issue of sex and gender, as suppose to the segregation and racial tension that was going on with the rest of the state.

Posted by lungx009 at 12:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From a documentary that was edited from 120 miles of tape, this 228-minute film directed by Michael Wadleigh proved to set the scene of Woodstock, a 1969 film festival held near Bethel, New York. In a time where the country was at war, people were out celebrating what was known as “Rock and Roll.� The movie’s depiction is mostly a tribute to a numerous amount of bands that set the stage for music. Many people felt at the time this music had potential chronicles of hazardous affects (Bloom 73). Its construed lyrics were sad to penetrate teens everywhere and even cause them to perform tort acts. What is considered normal for youth is music, it is a time for them to find out whom they are, to understand how the world works. Music doesn’t kill people, people kill people. Another radical issue that youth decided upon was their choice of clothing. Articles or no articles at all people dressed very differently for the concert. Fashion is not only an art its something society regards to a high stature. What we wear not only expresses things about us it sometimes can even tell a story. At Woodstock, the story the clothes construed was Hippy life. A life full of relaxation, drugs and music, this hippy life was something many people could associate with during a time war was on the political agenda.

This documentary not only depicts Woodstock as a radical concert but one that is full of drugs. When lines like “Don’t worry about the brown acid� introduce concerts and “acid is not bad, it’s just a different trip,� the ideas of drugs being present are very likely. I am not going to argue the fact that drugs had a great deal to do with Woodstock, but drugs were not the main aspect of youths struggle to get to the concert. With an outstanding 450,000 people, music was the reason people came. This documentary shows the greatness that music was at the time and will forever be “Rock and Roll.�

Posted by remy0004 at 12:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When I was younger, I had heard about “Woodstock,� but I never knew anything about what it represented. I was not aware that it was a music festival based during the time of the Vietnam War that was a symbol of peace and music. This film, Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music, was an incredibly eye-opening documentary. It seemed incredible to me that 500,000 individuals could come together in one place to celebrate peace, in an effort to end the war. My thoughts about Woodstock before watching this documentary were that it was one big party for a bunch of doped-up hippies. However, this documentary showed me just how articulate and insightful some of these young adults were. There was one gentleman being interviewed who was explaining that his parents were immigrants to the U.S. and that they had dropped everything in their native country to come to America to give their son a better life. He continued to explain that his parents could not understand why their son was not utilizing America’s opportunities to its maximum benefit. This young gentleman was incredibly articulate and just calmly explained that he was not the same as his parents; he was his own individual.

At the end of the class period, Jimi Hendrix played an incredible version of The Star Spangled Banner. This was the first time I had ever heard this and the very first thought that came to my mind was that he was completely perverting the United States’ National Anthem. He played crazy chords, some of which sounded out-of-tune, and was whamming every single note. This held a great deal of symbolism in that it was extremely fitting; it almost perfectly reflected the United States government at the time – completely perverted. The government had troops in Vietnam, killing thousands of innocent lives, which American citizens did not agree with. Jimi Hendrix’s version of the United States’ National Anthem reflected the way in which the government was dealing with the war in Vietnam during that time – in a completely perverted (non-humane) manner.

-Hasti Fashandi

Posted by fash0016 at 12:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Woodstock was amazing at the time because no one expected it to be Woodstock. Like shown in the film there were tens of thousands of people there and they were not expecting this many. I think the fact that it had much more response then it was originally thought to have is the reason that it is still talked about today. These people came from everywhere to watch some of the best rock bands in history. Then Woodstock 2 was a disappointment because the response was not near as great.
Looking at the people in this film,. this truly looks like a time when people are not quite as concerned with what others are thinking about them, and being stoned probably helped there lack of concern. These people gladly walked around naked, took a shower in the river with thousands of others and when they were dressed, it seemed to have an ethnic undertone to it. A lot of the out fits seemed to be loose fitting and have tassels hanging off of them, not to mention the patterns and fabrics that were used. The audience that was at Woodstock also seemed to have a variety of races and ages. These people that attended came from multiple backgrounds and there were people that attended with their grade-school aged children. They seem to have no fear exposing their children to this kind of audience and drug use, which I do not think their parents generation would have ever even joked about. What is acceptable to these people is something that was not, and is no longer acceptable in society. It did not help the situation that there was a little boy who died at Woodstock for a drug overdose.
The grip on todays society is much stronger, and I do not think their could ever be another Woodstock, with that kind of following, that kind of response, or that strong of a protest sensation.

Posted by lile0005 at 10:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

First of all... I wish I could have been there to see my favorite music performed live FOR FREE!!! in a once in a lifetime opportunity.
It was amazing: Carlos Santana, Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Crosby stills Nash and Young(Not in documentary)_
Blood, Sweat & Tears!! Ten Years After w/Alvin Lee !! Creedence Clearwater Revival Janis Joplin! and JIMI HENDRIX!! Such legends all in one place.

I really think that Woodstock was a hugely important cultural event that extended beyond even those concert goers that actually attended. I've watched many "Behind the Music" shows and repeatedly I hear bands from that era regret not going to Woodstock. I think that part of the signifigance is that unlike the Monterey Pop festival, Berkeley, or The Filmore concerts(San Francisco), or even the later
"Isle of Wight"(United Kingdom) The Woodstock festival was on the East coast of the United States.
All American performance. And it was close enough to some big cities and college towns to draw from. Yet there was a whole bunch of space available in upstate New York. The east coast hadn't seen anything any major psychedelic rock/ folk concerts to that date.

I've heard it said that Woodstock revived the east coast music scene in that era. But most importantly Woodstock became the
once in a lifetime pilgrimage to the heart of rock and roll. It was so influential to many writers and artists. Like Abbie Hoffmans:"Woodstock Generation" he talks about in many of his books. And it also inspired Joni Mitchel to write the song "Woodstock"
(later performed by CSNY.
"We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion-year-old carbon... and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden..."
I believe that was this line says is that for some people in the new left with a non-religious view of creation I.E. "Billion year old carbon from dust in the center of a star"
---that Woodstock was in a way their "paradise lost".

The majority of the townspeople are supportive of all of the young people, letting them use
their phone on occasion. It was really nice to see all of the people really getting along so
well. There some there that saw all of these "young people" as a menace to their town. But others
say things the other way. Some of the Townsfolk see the hippies as a bunch of really nice people. The owner of the farm: Max Yasgar seemed impressed with the quality of the visitors as well. Woodstock in a way could be seen as a lasting public relations episode between the new left and the American public. Here we have a bunch of people put intoa situation with shortages of all kinds and people generally got along. I think it's amazing when you really think about it you have a population of over 200,000 and there were only two deaths. It went to show that these new generation of "free love" and community could genuinely be some really nice people and there is nothing really to fear. One thing that really surprised me is that when they say that Woodstock was 3 days long it was. Music went from mid-day 12:15pm to 6: A.m. on one night. That's just nuts. If I listened to the whole set my ears would be ringing and my brains would be completely pummeled into slush by the noise concussion wave and bleeding out my ears like that bank guard in the movie Heat. That's a music overdose for me. I guess that's why a lot of people left by the time that Hendrix got up on stage.

The last night Jimi Hendrix finished at like 6:20 A.M. and few people stuck around to see him finish. IT was a shame though. His medley of "The Star Spangled Banner" was a historic event. Personally don't think that his interpretation of our national anthem was an "anti-American" message, Jimi Hendrix was not anti-american. He was
"anti war" though as can be realized through his epic song: Machine Gun. I believe Hendrix's own take on his version of the national anthem as being quote: "Beautiful". I wouldn't read anymore into that. Lets just leave that alone.

Posted by gonza275 at 11:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I was honestly a little disappointed with this film. I think I had it built up in my head, so I was let down. I also didn’t think that it showed the relationship between the audience and the bands. Back in those days music was a huge way of connecting to each other and I don’t think it was shown in the documentary. I thought it could have done a better job of showing how the audience reacted to the music; I think that is what Woodstock was really about.
One good thing they did was to go behind the scenes to get an inside look at what had to be done in order to prepare for this. I also liked how they talked to the farmer. I was really surprised what his reaction was. I thought that being an older person he would be pissed at how many people came and how his land got ruined. But he was happy, and thought that the kids were well behaved and promoted peace.
I thought it was funny how one guy was talking about how that the kids were all smoking pot and how awful it was and then another man said that maybe we all should smoke if it brings peace. I know there is a huge difference between the opinions of kids and adults at that time but the film showed the kids calling home because their mom wanted to make sure they were alright. So when it comes down to it they were just normal kids and the adults were just being parents. So even though it was showed to be such a huge gap between adults and kids there really isn’t as big as a gap as it seems. Even today kids feel like their parents don’t understand them. It will forever be parents not understand their kids and the kids rebelling. This is not a new concept; I just think that generation had a lot to rebel about (war, etc.) so it was noticed and thats why the difference between kids and adults was so huge.

Posted by robak003 at 11:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When I used to hear about Woodstock I would imagine a bunch of hippy teenagers smoking weed and getting crazy. I always thought it was just a ridiculous, mass-chaos event that was made famous because of the number of people who showed up and how out of control it got; however, I never considered the significance of this event as an anti-war movement. I guess this just shows my historical ignorance, and I was glad to learn more about what was behind Woodstock.

Anthony brought up a great point in the lecture on Wednesday. He asked us to imagine that our campus was like Vietnam, and that there were people invading who didn’t know our language, culture, history, etc. He said to consider how we would react – would you exhibit resistance or be a “puppet.� Although he was referring to the Vietnamese people, I think this also applies to American citizens at the time of the war. They were victimized in the sense that there was a draft, and all of these unwilling people were sent to Vietnam to die for something that didn’t directly involve the United States. So Americans had a choice at this time – they could be puppets and just allow the injustice to happen, or they could show resistance. That was the purpose and the significance of Woodstock. These people weren’t just going to sit back and let the war happen without peacefully having their voice heard. It may have been a dirty, over-crowded, over-drugged crowd, but their cause was above all of that.

I think the most moving part of Woodstock was Hendrix’s performance of the Star Spangled Banner. As Perone talks about in Music and the Anti-War Movement, Jimi’s version put the lyrics in a more literal context with sound effects resembling rockets and bombs, and warping the melody of our nation’s anthem. Using only his guitar and no words he managed to prove a point that people are still talking about today. It wasn’t a mockery, but it was a way of making people think of exactly what our country was standing for.

Posted by osbo0100 at 4:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As a pure country music lover, I have never heard the star bangle banner by Jimi Hendrix until now. I thought that it was a great rendition of this patriotic song and he is a musical genius. If you re-listen to his version on YouTube and sing the lyrics as he plays you will find that he starts to banter off on to his own scale during the phrase “and the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air.� This was played in 1969 during the time of the Vietnam War. We found that during this war, months before Woodstock in August began, that there were numerous usages of bombs. These bombs were stepping stones in the war as Nixon would think, because it would only force the Peace talks to move.
Hendrix demonstrated his feelings on the bombs that were bursting in air. He changed the position in which the infamous Star Spangled Banner is played. During these lyrics were not the only time he would veer off course. It was also during the lyrics to where our flag was still present through the war efforts. He presents a point that no matter how many bombs are dropped or guns are fired we will always be a dominant country and always will be seen. It’s a fact and Mick Jagger was right it was the finest piece of political rock and roll of the 60’s.

Posted by carr0445 at 3:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music depicts the drastic change in cultural norms through the drug use, nudity, language, and general collective attitude. They viewed love, sexuality, and relationships as a free thing that should not be limited to just one other person, which was shown by the couple who were interviewed on their way to the festival. Obviously, they disagreed with the politics of the time and thought they were corrupt, which we glimpse as the two guys rant about the government helicopters or planes seeding the clouds to make it rain.

A few interesting things I saw in the towns people was there willingness to help even though they totally disagreed with the festival and were upset about having their private property destroyed. We see this in the couple who were working on the truck and then let some kids use their toilet. We also see this in the man who is talking about how they need to feed the kids because it is the right thing to do. Another thing that surprised me was how good the police were about the whole thing, such as the officer who stood up for the kids when the man who was pissed off brought up that all the kids were on dope.

Mr. Yasgur was surprisingly supportive of the whole festival, even though it ruined his property. He surprised me with what he said because he was from a very different generation and the simple fact that he could understand what these young people were trying to accomplish with this festival is amazing. Besides that, if someone ruined my farm I’d be pissed.

When compared both generations show compassion for human life and the well being of all other people. However, each has very different ideas about sexuality, love, politics, language, drugs, and music.

Amidst the radical ideas, normalcy did emerge in laughing, crying, calling parents, and even trying to stay dry through the rain.

I would say the generalizations of rock music show through in some ways, but not in others. It is resistance, revolution, and sexuality because they are resisting a violent war and a corrupt government. However, to say that it is debauchery, violence, and mayhem is far from the truth. The festival was about peace, the exact opposite of violence and mayhem. They were trying to show that a large group of people could get together and have fun peacefully, which they did a good job of.

I entirely agree with Mick Jagger’s assessment of Hendrix’s version of the Star Spangled Banner because he took a song everyone knew and made you really hear the lyrics, even though they weren’t sung, and backed it with a killer distortion of the tune in only a way Hendrix could. He made you feel the lyrics and understand them just by playing the song on his guitar, it was literally amazing.

Posted by nels5175 at 1:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I really enjoyed the documentary on one of the most historic music festivals of all time. The film showed how real the event was; watching it made me feel that I was there having this great experience along with the audience.
The people who were interviewed in the film showed who they truly were and spoke what they felt during such a controversial era. The people were doing drugs, walking around naked and just being themselves. I was not too surprised by the townspeople's reactions to the crowds. The majority of the people did not like what was going on and did not agree with the actions and beliefs of the 'young people'. I was surprised to see how helpful some of the other townspeople were. Some of them were extremely helpful in getting the crowds food, water, telephones and other such things.
Max Yasgur was the farmer who allowed the concert to be held on his property. When he spoke at the festival, he was more than happy to allow all of those people to dirty up his land. I was surprised how excited he was about letting this event happen on his property.
The people at Woodstock all seemed so happy to be there. It was a place for them to listen to music and be themselves while supporting a peacful cause. It was not just about the music, it was about the message that the lyrics embodied. They were there to promote peace, not war.

Posted by hanl0083 at 10:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The movie Woodstock: three days of peace and music, shows how this new generation was embarrassing new ideas about love, sex, relationships, politics, and society. They were a lot more open about what they were doing and liberally did things that were considered “bad� such as having open relationships with multiple people and defying the government. Though, what was even more interesting than how the Woodstock youth were acting was how the townspeople around them reacted to them.

I found it very interesting how most of the adults in Bethel were so willing to help the young people and to help them have their music concert with no worries. They took the responsibility from them and just let them do their thing. I think that part of this might be because they had to have such conservative lives that they were living spontaneously through the new generation. It might also be just a built in sense of responsibility towards like, a maternal instinct of kinds, to protect and watch over the lost and fragile youth.

Not everyone in the town though shared the love of the Woodstock “children�. Some of the farmers were very upset about the drug use that was going on and the fact that they were trespassing on their property and ruining their livelihood. They look on the young generation with distain because they believe that young people should be more responsible, and it might also have to do with respect issues.

Max Yasgur’s view on the whole situation was probably the most shocking thing in the whole movie. He seemed to genuinely care about the kids there and really admired what they were doing. He was amazed that even though the place was deemed a disaster area and there were all these complications going on, that they were able to just go with the flow and have a peaceful time just hanging out. He really thought that they were making a difference being there and showing the world that peace works.

Posted by kenne404 at 6:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Woodstock generation certainly expressed dramatically different viewpoints than those of its parents. As Dylan said, “the time’s they are a changin,’� but even amidst a revolution, this was a pretty typical generation of American youth with the latest façade. It was just another generation of young people trying to find their place in society.
As one farmer explained “in plain English� after the chaos of the festival hampered his production, Woodstock was “a shitty mess� (Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music, 1970). While it might be tempting when young and ignorant to believe that all one needs to overcome adversity in life is to “just dig it and live with it,� reality is much harsher. “Just digging it� is not what got 500,000 irresponsible young people through those three days; it took the National Guard and townspeople with a sense of paternal obligation to keep the disaster that was Woodstock from ending in even more ruin and possible harm to the festival goers. “The kids are hungry; you gotta feed them,� says the citizen of the “kids� who would consider his conventional, boring, simple-minded way of life the problem with America. The simplicity of Woodstock goers’ statements and “solutions� reflect the fact that they were to some extent, just immature kids trying to find a place for themselves in the world, as we humans do at that age.
Upon hearing news of young people “getting into trouble,� my father always says, “They wouldn’t be doing that if they had to get up at five in the morning to milk cows!� While mostly a facetious rant, there is a lot of truth to that statement. If “kids these days� (and kids as early as the Woodstock era) still had to abide by the responsibilities and practicalities of life the way it once was, maybe they would have a better understanding of why order and establishment are sometimes necessary for success, if not survival.
I may be overly influenced by the documentary, which, as Schowalter (2003) writes, “defines festival goers as a passive mass� and “depoliticizes� them, but it seems that toward the end of the movement, the politics were lost and the “movement� became more of a superficial fad.
This is not to downplay the true intellectual and political merit of many activists of the counterculture and anti-war movement, but surely many of the 500,000 festival goers were uninformed and maybe didn’t concern themselves too much with the political issues of the times. It seems likely that “no one seemed to have any more time to read at the big party� (Walley, 2006).

Posted by mayxx145 at 3:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The film showed many ways in which the cultural norms were changing with the anti- war movement. Lets start with love. Whereas people's parents might have viewed love as something between a close knit group of people, like a family or marriage, the young people saw it differently. They had love for everyone, not just the people they were closest to. They had love for the soldiers in Vietnam, on both sides, they had love for their fellow Woodstockers, they had love for everyone. Their view on sexuality and relationships was changing too. In the movie, there was a man and woman who were roommates who participated in sexual acts with one another, who loved each other, however were not dating. To their parents I am sure that sounded absurd, but for them it was no big deal because they thought of sex differently. I really enjoyed the interviews with the townspeople because all but one of them just said how polite the young people were and how they fed them or how they helped them out. There was one man and his wife that didn't really appreciate the whole thing, but that's probably because they were in the middle of a government declared disaster area. Most of the adults just realized there was nothing they could do so they might as well embrace the people around them and go with it.
After seeing Jimi Hendrix's version of the "Star Spangled Banner" I understand why Mick Jagger thought it was the finest piece of political rock and roll of the 60's. When I saw him play it, when I listened to it, it gave me chill bumps. It was like he was making gun fire with his guitar. It sounded like bombs being dropped at some points. The song basically seemed like a big middle finger towards the US government. The song is supposed to represent freedom, however Washington was oppressing people all over the world. I can see why people would not like it though, and why he was booed at so many times for playing it. It was a little disrespectful, however i think it was a necessary thing to do. He joined Lennon, Dylan, Starr, Crosby, Stills and Nash as a front runner for music protesting the war in Vietnam.

Posted by stor0245 at 8:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

With all the atrocities that occurred in the year 1968, i.e. Tet Offensive, Lyndon B. Johnson not running for President, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, and the riot at the Democratic Convention, it is no wonder that a year later, Woodstock ("Three Days of Peace & Music") attracted approximately 500,000 people, far surpassing attendance expectations. As a result, Woodstock, located on a vast farm field, was a muddy, unsanitary mess with lack of food and dry shelter for fans. However, this did not break the spirits of the 500,000 crowed, hungry, and free spirited fans.

This could have been because most of the people at Woodstock were using drugs all day and did not have a care in the world. However, Patricia Kennealy, who attended Woodstock on businesses as editor of "Jazz and Pop Magazine," said that although she witnessed a great deal of beauty at Woodstock, the drugged up faces she witnessed hindered that beauty. She states, "[Faces] filled up with drugs they didn't know how to make proper use of and only took them because the scene made it easy." Kennealy goes on to say how she, being an elder, felt "media guilt" when looking at the "drugged up" kids. Others close to the Woodstock experience, such as some of the townspeople with children of their own, frowned upon the excessive drug use and freedom these kids had for three days.

In the end, we hear a speech from the farm owner that Woodstock was being held on. I expected him to take the stereotypical elder stance like those mentioned above however, that was not that case. He gets up in front of 500,000 people and states that these kids accomplished something; they are "the largest group of people ever assembled in one place and that they have proven something to the world." Thus weather one disagrees with the drugs, sex, and music that occurred at Woodstock, you have to give them credit because they did prove something to the world those three days...and they did it in a peaceful manner.

Posted by dollx040 at 10:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout the documentary of Woodstock there is a definite appearance of a changing attitude from the beginning of the film to the end for both concert attendees as well as the adults of the town. In the beginning of the documentary, the concert goers flocked to the site of the festival, and some adults in town were interviewed about this. They said that they thought the young people were “lovely�, but thought it could only lead to chaos with the amount of people that were in their town. A store owner explained that the festival was good for business, but it was very overwhelming having to worry about feeding everyone. These feelings did not seem outright against the music festival. However, later in the film, when an old couple of townspeople were interviewed about the concert they replied by saying it was “a shitty mess�. Concert goers also had attitude changes about Woodstock. The happy-go-lucky peaceful crowd that came to the concert in the beginning turned into a panic-stricken audience as rain fell on the concert spoiling the day’s music. Later on the documentary showed a young girl crying because she could not leave. There were so many people in attendance that they ran out of food, and military medical teams had to come in for assistance when the festival was declared a disaster area.

The documentary also showed some of the differences in culture between young people and the generation of their parents. A young couple was interviewed toward the beginning of the film, and both said that they could not really communicate with their parents. The girl mentioned that her mother was afraid of her going to hell because she decided to leave home at a young age. The boy said his father asked if he was going to a “communist training camp� when referring to him leaving for Woodstock. In the article, “Blame it on the Sixties�, Landon Y. Jones is quoted saying, “America’s largest generation was growing up in an age-segregated universe, cut off from outside society and … bound together by their own prolonged adolescence� (43). I think this sums up why there is such a cultural difference between the hippie generation and their parents.

Posted by kuni0018 at 9:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Woodstock was a cultural phenomenon that still lives on in the memory of America. Love, Sex, Music, Peace, radical ideals were all thrown together in the small town of Bethel. While watching the film a lot of acts were done that were out of social norm. One scene you see a man and a woman making love in a field, another you see man walking nude on the gravel roads, and countless scenes of people smoking illegal substances. Though with all these unique scenes the scenes that surprised me the most was the elderly townspeople. Surprisingly they were not really all that mad; they were actually more concerned about the� young people� getting enough to eat. One man stayed by the side of the road and tried to give out water to anybody who needed it. Almost every single person who was not a part of the Woodstock music festival all said that the “young people� were well behaved. It’s interesting because the majority of these people were probably the “young people’s� age back in the forties and fifties; a time of more conservative behavior. I believe the reason why they were so kind and worried about the children was that they too had kids of their own that were the same age. One ironic moment was when the film crew asked a group of elderly people why they cared so much about these “young people� when they had “young people� fighting an unpopular war in Vietnam and dying from bullets. The elderly people had no rebuttal making it even more ironic. I loved the part when Max Yasgur comes to the stand, and even though his farm has just been ruined and all his neighbors probably hate his guts, he states that he loves it that for three days young people can come together for fun and music and have nothing but fun and music. By far the reaction of the older people was probably the strangest thing that I noticed during the entire Woodstock documentary surprisingly.

Posted by dhill004 at 2:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I really liked this documentary. So often, we are left with the impression that Woodstock was just a concert with a bunch of acid-loving, join-rolling hippies. In reality Woodstock was an expression of new though in America at the time. All the dissent over the US occupation of Vietnam, the draft, and the tragedies of war brought together half a million of young Americans in the cause of peace. In response to the blog prompt regarding the characteristics of rock and roll as being incarnation of
Resistance, revolution, debauchery, sexuality, dissent, violence, mayhem, and anarchy, I would say that yes, Woodstock displayed these characteristics without the violence. Woodstock itself represented ‘anti-establishment’ in its lack of real structure as far as forcing the concert-goers to follow any protocol or even pay to get in. When the announcer kindly suggests that people not buy the bad acid, he mentions at the end that it’s completely up to them; that it was “your trip man.� Also, the lack of law and crowd enforcement was a defining characteristic of Woodstock as a rock concert. People simply cut down the fence to get in, and no one seemed to mind.
Sexuality, debauchery, and revolution were rampant at the concert ground. A handful of babies were born during Woodstock, however, I get the feeling that even more were conceived there as free-love was encouraged and un-repremanded. Debauchery and revolution were most apparent in the classification of the grounds as a “disaster area.� Traffic was stopped on the NY freeway, as over 500,000 young adults forced the rest of the world to look at them as they protested the war and supported peace and a new way of thinking possessed by the new generation…hash pipes and all. (thanks for the editing tips here Anthony!)
I found it very interesting that there were not more incidents of violence with such a massive amount of people. This is the area in which Woodstock differed greatly from the definition of rock and roll. We saw the kids all bonding together as they were stuck on the grounds without enough food, clothing, or weed of their own; they shared what they had, and enjoyed the music despite the disgusting surroundings. The community even supported the effort of shipping in supplies and medical aid from the army all supported, albeit indirectly, the promotion of American peace and freedom.

Posted by joh03704 at 12:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)