Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave
i didn't say the music was bad, the question was 'was music better back then?' and just about every hippie / boomer i run into who was 'with it' back in the 60s definitely thinks it was, and i think they're letting nostalgia confuse things.
|
It was cut above every haphazard attempt to revise Woodstock, without a goddamn doubt.
Quote:
it's not that the music is better or worse but that the perspective of youth is different.
i don't pretend that woodstock '99 was anything besides crap, woodstock '94 was only marginally better. look at what they were, thinly veiled facades to cover up a mad commercial cash grab hiding behind an idealistic banner. THAT is the legacy of woodstock (and the hippie movement in my eyes) - hypocrisy.
|
I seriously can't stand people with your attitude, it always has to be about capitalism or another, that it somehow diminishes the quality of music or the importance of a musical movement. Chuck Berry is an old guy playing the same old songs he did 60 years ago for a bunch of senior citizens at casino's and ****. Why don't you rant about that?
I don't think anti-capitalism was all that the hippie movement was about. I don't see how it's hypocrisy so much as the natural order of things, or people changing their outlook on things as they get older.
You can't really say anything about woodstock that doesn't also apply to every other generation, it's just human nature to become part of the system, no matter how much you ralied against it in youth, isn't that the story of every generation? This is especially true in the music business.
Woodstock wasn't advertised as some rally against capitalism or anything like that, I don't think anyone ever claimed that it was such a thing, it was a big money maker, everyone knows that. It was about great music, community, getting high and doing a lot of f*cking and that was it, and goddamn if it didn't achieve everything it set out to do.