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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The documentary portrayed a huge cultural and generational gap between the “square” townspeople of Bethel, New York and the “hippies” who poured in from all over the country to see the event. What surprised me what that the hippies’ presence was welcomed. The impression was that the economy in and around Woodstock and Bethel was struggling and that people cheered on the hippies in order to make a buck. So maybe the local townspeople didn’t buy into the idea of peace, love and acid, but they tolerated their existence because they were “such nice young people.” There is no doubt that the reason many of them were so nice is
1. Their traditional upbringing in a more conservative American than we know it today
2. They were on drugs. A man even comments in the film that maybe the world would be a better place if everyone was on ‘dope’. I loved that he used the word dope. No one I know uses that word anymore for any drug.
There is no doubt that Woodstock was an event of historic cultural importance. After watching the documentary I was, the movie changed my impression of the time. I thought Woodstock was three days of sex, drugs, rock music, debauchery and indulgence. After watching the film and going through the readings, the musical festival was far from it. Supplies were low, too many people showed up, the military even had to step in because, from what the movie said, it had been declared a national disaster. Yet through all this turmoil and bad planning, half a million people remained calm, and riot free in a big open field in New York.

Posted by byro0028 at 11:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 09:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | 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 09:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)