Well, this one is over before it even started.
Woodstock 50 - the concert that was supposed to both commemorate the original Woodstock, as well as be the new Woodstock Festival for the present generation, has been canceled by it's sponsors.
This one was supposed to take place in Watkins Glen, New York, on August 16th-18th. It was supposed to more or less be an answer to the nonsense that is dominating headlines today, much like the original Woodstock turned out to be the showcase of the counterculture movement of the sixties, with the backdrops of headlines being dominated by the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, seemingly worldwide revolutions, political assassinations, massive protests, and increased experimentation in music and art.
These days, of course, the headlines seem even weirder. Who could have imagined just how weird everything would be in 2019?
But there will be no Woodstock to try and help define these strange times.
Truth be told, though, I am not sure that they should really try to duplicate Woodstock, anyway. It would not be the first time that they attempted to do it, after all. In 1994, they attempted it for the 25th anniversary, there were criticisms that it was all about money, as only tokens would serve as currency, with people locked into the grounds and forced to pay exorbitant prices for concessions and such. Then, they tried it yet again for the 30th anniversary, with this one being held at the former Griffiss Air Force Base. This, too, was transparently about money, and it was overshadowed by violence.
Neither of those so-called "Woodstock" festivals could really hold a candle to the original, either in terms of creative genius, nor in terms of representing a positive spirit and a glowing example of an alternative to the grim realities of the world. In fact, both in their own way, those "Woodstock" festivals were closer to being a reminded of some of the darker and more depressing realities of the modern world.
Billboard published a statement from Amplifi Live, a Dentsu Aegis division, that read in part:
"Despite our tremendous investment of time, effort and commitment, we don't believe the production of the festival can be executed as an event worthy of the Woodstock Brand name while also ensuring the health and safety of the artists, partners and attendees. ... As a result and after careful consideration, Dentsu Aegis Network's Amplifi Live, a partner of Woodstock 50, has decided to cancel the festival. As difficult as it is, we believe this is the most prudent decision for all parties involved."
Hate to say it, because the original Woodstock took place well before I was born. Frankly, I would have loved to have been present during this concert, and initially, I was excited enough at the prospect of another Woodstock in 1994 that I entertained the idea of attending it.
Yet, my suspicions at the time, confirmed by the actual event, was that this would not at all be comparable nor as memorable as the first, and the "real," Woodstock.
Frankly, Woodstock was a one-time thing. They tried it before, in 1994 and in 1999, and both fell well short of everything that the real Woodstock was and has continued to represent, even decades later.
Now, they tried yet again, and once again, predictably, this one fell short. Perhaps if the spirit of the thing transcended these mediocre times that we are living in, it might have had a chance to be memorable, although probably not quite on the level of the original one. Yet, this one fell so short of the mark as to not even get off the ground, and was canceled months before it even actually happened.
Probably time to admit that the first one was just incredibly special, and will not likely be replicated. It was not really repeated on a memorable level either in 1994 or 1999, and it will not be repeated in the official 50th anniversary now in 2019.
There really was only one Woodstock, after all:
Woodstock Organizers Cancel 50th Anniversary Festival
Woodstock 50 Canceled By Its Investors by Anastasia Tsioulcas, April 29, 2019:
I too have mixed feelings about this. There was a time when I dreamed of attending such a reunion. But you're right – the things that made the original Woodstock special are things that don't lend themselves to duplication. From what I gather (based on archival interviews, documentaries, etc.), the most optimistic pre-festival estimates regarding attendance paled by comparison to how many people actually turned up. And the response on the part of the organizers was unthinkable by today's standards: "Screw it, let's just let people in for free." None of this "Outside food not allowed, and if you leave the premises, you can't reenter them, so either you buy our obscenely overpriced food or you go hungry" shit. Plus, I don't think the organizers, promoters, bands or attendees were thinking "This will go down in history as an iconic event that symbolizes a generation." I suspect some of the bands that declined to be on the bill would have reconsidered had they had any inkling that it would be as important as it was.
ReplyDeleteI seem to recall an article from sometime last year listing a tentative line-up, and it was short on artists I would want to see (i.e. people who performed at the original festival, and more contemporary artists I'm actually into), and long on rap/hip-hop acts and teeny-boppers. I would have passed had it come to fruition. This generation could desperately use a catalytic event that inspires people and at least tries to get them to question their complacency. I can't imagine what that would look like, but I don't think it's going to come in the form of a music festival, if it happens at all.
Yeah, I have mixed emotions on it, as well. While I would have loved to go to something similar to Woodstock, it seems that each attempt to actually do another Woodstock inevitably wind up feeling wrong, and are a shadow of the actual Woodstock in terms of meaning, feeling, and creative brilliance. The original concert serves as a brilliant example of the best that the counterculture, if you will, could produce. That was not the case in 1994, which is hardly remembered at all, and where the costs were simply too much. It kept me from going, particularly the token thing. Then, the 1999 concert had some decent moments musically, but is probably best remembered for the violence that broke out, which again, is the complete opposite of the spirit and symbolism of the original concert of 1969.
ReplyDeleteMy own suspicion is that they should probably leave the "Woodstock" brad well enough alone. They likely will not have another one to even remotely compare to it. This was the third try to repeat it with the Woodstock name attached, and this is also the third strike. Let it go. To my mind's eye, I think that a new festival might be a good idea. Maybe it was not the same thing, but the Lollapalooza Festival (which was a traveling festival, going from city to city) of the early nineties - particularly in 1992 - became kind of the defining rock festival of my time. I wish that I had gone to it. Like Woodstock, it featured somewhat big artists who exploded into huge fame afterwards because of the on the stage brilliance, and also like Woodstock, it helped to define a new counterculture, if you will. Maybe they could do something kind of like that. But simply putting the Woodstock name on anything clearly does not work, and my guess is that the standards and expectations would be too high, as they were in the nineties for those two "Woodstock" concerts.
ReplyDelete