Woodstock 50 Lineup - My Thoughts
The 1960s were some of the strangest times in history. There were assassinations of political leaders and social activists, the Civil Rights Movement hit its peak, and the Vietnam War was in full swing by the end of the decade. However, despite all the turbulence, there were still some good things that came out of the decade. One of the things that the 60s were most famous for was the music that came from it. The Beatles, The Rollings Stones, Santana, and so many other bands that would go on to leave timeless legacies emerged through the turmoil. These bands and the music that they made gave people with many different backgrounds at least one common ground that they could all come together on. Perhaps the best testament of the power of the music of the era came in August of 1969 in Bethel, New York. With the combined efforts of Michael Lang, Artie Kornfeld, Joel Rosenman, and John Roberts, Woodstock - 3 Days of Peace and Music was organized and produced. It would be witnessed by nearly half a million people from all over. Amenities and resources would be spread thin. The weather would be bad. Bands would be playing really late into the night and very early in the morning because of the weather and technical issues. And it would become arguably the most famous music event in history. Not because of the setbacks, but because of the love, the friendliness, the fun, and of course the music.
The legacy that Woodstock has left is still felt to this day. Multiple festivals celebrating significant anniversaries of it have been held, the most (in)famous one most likely being Woodstock '99, which was marred by fights, fires, rape, and even 3 deaths connected to the festival. However, that legacy proved not to be a hinderance in today's world, when Michael Lang announced in late 2018 that he was organizing a 50th anniversary festival. The festival is appropriately titled, Woodstock 50. Originally, there were to be two anniversary festivals - one put on by Live Nation at Bethel Woods Center for the Arts - an amphitheater, museum, and arts education programming conservatory built at the site of the original festival - and the one put on by Lang. Eventually, Bethel Woods dropped their plans for a full festival in favor of a summer long celebration, leaving Lang's event the one true festival, which will be held in Watkins Glen, NY on August 16-18, exactly 50 years after the original Woodstock. With 50 years having passed since the original festival, obviously music has changed a lot. Countless new artists have emerged, as well as new genres. So the thing everyone was wondering when it was announced that Woodstock 50 was in the works was what the lineup was going to look like. Well, we got the answer to that question this week.
I have thought about there being a 50th anniversary festival for Woodstock before, but never really gave much thought as to what would go into it or who would be asked to play, let alone who would agree to play. However, when this was announced, I got to thinking about it a little more. My overall consensus ended up being that it would have to be more than just any other music festival like Coachella or Firefly. I have to say that when the lineup came out, it didn't really live up to my expectations.
The Good:
To be fair, I want to talk about what I do like about the lineup. Something that doesn't seem to happen too often in music festival lineups is a mix of modern acts and older acts (when I say "older acts", I refer to acts whose main demographic is mostly people who are middle-aged or older). A lot of the huge music festivals that are put on today are geared toward people of younger generations, and feature artists that people of those generations listen to. The main two younger generations right now are the Millennials and Gen Z, who listen to bands like Panic! At The Disco, Ed Sheeran, Beyonce, and so on. That's not to say that mainstream annual festivals can't have older acts. Heck, both Elton John and Billy Joel have both performed at Bonnaroo within the past few years. However, this lineup has a good variety of older acts and newer acts. Let's face it, you don't really get much bigger of a generation gap than between John Fogerty and Miley Cyrus.
Something else that I really like about this lineup is that there is a wide range of genres that are being featured. There are mainstream pop acts like Cage The Elephant and Halsey, Blues Rock acts such as Gary Clark Jr. and The Black Keys, Country acts like Sturgill Simpson and Margo Price, and rappers like Jay-Z and Vince Staples. Along side them are many other artists that span a variety of different genres.
The thing that I think I like most about the lineup is the fact that they brought artists onto the bill that played the original festival in '69. These artists include John Fogerty, Santana, Dead & Company (Bob Weir, Bill Kreutzmann, and Mickey Hart performed with the Grateful Dead), David Crosby, John Sebastian, Country Joe McDonald, Melanie, Canned Heat, and Hot Tuna. Hopefully, Dead & Co.'s performance won't be like the disaster of a performance the Grateful Dead's was at the original festival lol. Once the festival is done, it'll be really interesting to hear how these artists' experiences here compare and contrast to their experiences at Woodstock.
The Bad:
Like I said before, the lineup for Woodstock 50 didn't live up to what I thought it should. A lot of the comments that I've seen on social media have said that the lineup is for the most part complete crap. I don't completely agree with that. In the way that I don't agree with it, there are some great acts on this lineup. In the way that I do agree with it, it's in a different way than what most people seem to be getting at with their comments. It seems that people I've seen saying that the lineup is bad mean most of the acts don't belong on the bill because they aren't good. I disagree with that. In all honesty, I've never even heard of a good number of the bands on this lineup, so I can't judge them. I don't think that some of them should be on the bill because of the fact that they are much lesser known, and haven't had a noticeable impact on the music world. I say "some", because the original Woodstock had a considerable amount of acts who were much lesser known. In fact, the bigger names didn't even start agreeing to play until they heard that Creedence Clearwater Revival had agreed to play. This brings me to my major problem with the lineup - it doesn't live up to the legacy that Woodstock left.
There are two ways that I think the lineup should honor the original festival. The first is to recreate, to the best of their ability, the essence of what the original festival's lineup was like. This does not include the atmosphere, energy and vibes of Woodstock, because - A.) The festival did not go the way that it was planned, and - B.) Trying to recreate those kinds of things is impossible. I am strictly talking about the lineup. Woodstock's lineup consisted of a considerable number of acts that at the time were not all that well known. Of course, it also had acts that were very well known, like CCR. This good blend of well-known and not-so-well-known/unknown artists was one of the things that helped make Woodstock what it was. The purpose of the original festival was to raise money to build a recording studio. They got whoever they could to play the festival, and things worked out the way they did. Woodstock 50's purpose is to commemorate Woodstock. My issue is that the lineup seems to be leaning a little too much toward the not-so-well-known artists. I don't know if they did this to try to give these bands exposure, if they're looking to try to draw that many more people in, or if they're just trying to fill poster space. But any way, I don't think that it properly emulates what Woodstock's lineup was like.
My second, and bigger issue with The Woodstock 50 lineup is that it doesn't have the amount of impactful bands that I think it should. Woodstock took some relatively lesser-known, if not unknown artists, and helped to boost their name. A shining example of this is Santana, who hadn't even released an album yet at the time of their performance. It also took well known artists, and made them even bigger. Jimi Hendrix was already a huge name, and his career highlighting performance at Woodstock is legendary, with the crowning moment of it undoubtably being his rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner". These two artists, as well as several others who performed, both popular and not so popular at the time, left lasting impressions on the world of music that are still felt today. Even though some of the impressions made were made after Woodstock, there's no doubt that playing there helped those artists go on to make them. Some were also being made before and during the festival. The Woodstock 50 lineup, the way I see it, lacks a sufficient amount of acts that have had significant influence on the music world. While I don't have a problem with bands that haven't done this being on the bill, I feel that there are too many of them.
I think the trick to a good lineup for Woodstock 50 is getting the right balance between the two things I talked about: a good mix between well-known and not-so-well-known acts to honor the style of lineup of the original Woodstock, while still maintaining a sufficient number of artists who have had a significant impact on the music world to honor the legacy it left. There is definitely some correlation between the name and impact, even though there are exceptions. For example, Imagine Dragons is a big name, but I would argue that they haven't had a significant impact on the music world at all. On the other hand, Rival Sons are a smaller name, but they are one of the bigger names out there that are keeping the spirit of classic Rock n' Roll alive, which is getting harder and harder to come by. The problem is that there is an imbalance - too many lesser/unknown artists, and not enough impactful artists. I think this could be fixed if some of the lesser/unknown artists were replaced with bigger name artists who have had some kind of measurable impact on the music world. Heck, even replacing some of the bigger name artists who haven't made an impact with bigger name artists who have.
If this were any other music festival, I probably wouldn't have a problem with this lineup. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's actually not half bad. It's got a very diverse lineup with acts that would draw a big crowd to it, and it spans a wide variety of genres. In my opinion, it's definitely better than most of the lineups for major annual music festivals I've seen in recent years. However, given that this is the 50th anniversary of Woodstock, I think that it should have been approached much differently. I know that it's impossible to recreate Woodstock to be the way that the original was, but that doesn't mean the effort can't be put in to have it come as close as it can to achieving it. While I know that the people organizing Woodstock 50 are doing the best they can to get close, and I think they did better than a normal music festival, I still think that they could have come closer. That being said, I'm still looking forward to seeing how the festival goes. Let me know what y'all think in the comments! Thanks for reading!
The legacy that Woodstock has left is still felt to this day. Multiple festivals celebrating significant anniversaries of it have been held, the most (in)famous one most likely being Woodstock '99, which was marred by fights, fires, rape, and even 3 deaths connected to the festival. However, that legacy proved not to be a hinderance in today's world, when Michael Lang announced in late 2018 that he was organizing a 50th anniversary festival. The festival is appropriately titled, Woodstock 50. Originally, there were to be two anniversary festivals - one put on by Live Nation at Bethel Woods Center for the Arts - an amphitheater, museum, and arts education programming conservatory built at the site of the original festival - and the one put on by Lang. Eventually, Bethel Woods dropped their plans for a full festival in favor of a summer long celebration, leaving Lang's event the one true festival, which will be held in Watkins Glen, NY on August 16-18, exactly 50 years after the original Woodstock. With 50 years having passed since the original festival, obviously music has changed a lot. Countless new artists have emerged, as well as new genres. So the thing everyone was wondering when it was announced that Woodstock 50 was in the works was what the lineup was going to look like. Well, we got the answer to that question this week.
 |
| Photo Credit - Stereogum Link to page - https://www.stereogum.com/2036312/woodstock-50-lineup/news/ |
I have thought about there being a 50th anniversary festival for Woodstock before, but never really gave much thought as to what would go into it or who would be asked to play, let alone who would agree to play. However, when this was announced, I got to thinking about it a little more. My overall consensus ended up being that it would have to be more than just any other music festival like Coachella or Firefly. I have to say that when the lineup came out, it didn't really live up to my expectations.
The Good:
To be fair, I want to talk about what I do like about the lineup. Something that doesn't seem to happen too often in music festival lineups is a mix of modern acts and older acts (when I say "older acts", I refer to acts whose main demographic is mostly people who are middle-aged or older). A lot of the huge music festivals that are put on today are geared toward people of younger generations, and feature artists that people of those generations listen to. The main two younger generations right now are the Millennials and Gen Z, who listen to bands like Panic! At The Disco, Ed Sheeran, Beyonce, and so on. That's not to say that mainstream annual festivals can't have older acts. Heck, both Elton John and Billy Joel have both performed at Bonnaroo within the past few years. However, this lineup has a good variety of older acts and newer acts. Let's face it, you don't really get much bigger of a generation gap than between John Fogerty and Miley Cyrus.
Something else that I really like about this lineup is that there is a wide range of genres that are being featured. There are mainstream pop acts like Cage The Elephant and Halsey, Blues Rock acts such as Gary Clark Jr. and The Black Keys, Country acts like Sturgill Simpson and Margo Price, and rappers like Jay-Z and Vince Staples. Along side them are many other artists that span a variety of different genres.
The thing that I think I like most about the lineup is the fact that they brought artists onto the bill that played the original festival in '69. These artists include John Fogerty, Santana, Dead & Company (Bob Weir, Bill Kreutzmann, and Mickey Hart performed with the Grateful Dead), David Crosby, John Sebastian, Country Joe McDonald, Melanie, Canned Heat, and Hot Tuna. Hopefully, Dead & Co.'s performance won't be like the disaster of a performance the Grateful Dead's was at the original festival lol. Once the festival is done, it'll be really interesting to hear how these artists' experiences here compare and contrast to their experiences at Woodstock.
The Bad:
Like I said before, the lineup for Woodstock 50 didn't live up to what I thought it should. A lot of the comments that I've seen on social media have said that the lineup is for the most part complete crap. I don't completely agree with that. In the way that I don't agree with it, there are some great acts on this lineup. In the way that I do agree with it, it's in a different way than what most people seem to be getting at with their comments. It seems that people I've seen saying that the lineup is bad mean most of the acts don't belong on the bill because they aren't good. I disagree with that. In all honesty, I've never even heard of a good number of the bands on this lineup, so I can't judge them. I don't think that some of them should be on the bill because of the fact that they are much lesser known, and haven't had a noticeable impact on the music world. I say "some", because the original Woodstock had a considerable amount of acts who were much lesser known. In fact, the bigger names didn't even start agreeing to play until they heard that Creedence Clearwater Revival had agreed to play. This brings me to my major problem with the lineup - it doesn't live up to the legacy that Woodstock left.
There are two ways that I think the lineup should honor the original festival. The first is to recreate, to the best of their ability, the essence of what the original festival's lineup was like. This does not include the atmosphere, energy and vibes of Woodstock, because - A.) The festival did not go the way that it was planned, and - B.) Trying to recreate those kinds of things is impossible. I am strictly talking about the lineup. Woodstock's lineup consisted of a considerable number of acts that at the time were not all that well known. Of course, it also had acts that were very well known, like CCR. This good blend of well-known and not-so-well-known/unknown artists was one of the things that helped make Woodstock what it was. The purpose of the original festival was to raise money to build a recording studio. They got whoever they could to play the festival, and things worked out the way they did. Woodstock 50's purpose is to commemorate Woodstock. My issue is that the lineup seems to be leaning a little too much toward the not-so-well-known artists. I don't know if they did this to try to give these bands exposure, if they're looking to try to draw that many more people in, or if they're just trying to fill poster space. But any way, I don't think that it properly emulates what Woodstock's lineup was like.
My second, and bigger issue with The Woodstock 50 lineup is that it doesn't have the amount of impactful bands that I think it should. Woodstock took some relatively lesser-known, if not unknown artists, and helped to boost their name. A shining example of this is Santana, who hadn't even released an album yet at the time of their performance. It also took well known artists, and made them even bigger. Jimi Hendrix was already a huge name, and his career highlighting performance at Woodstock is legendary, with the crowning moment of it undoubtably being his rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner". These two artists, as well as several others who performed, both popular and not so popular at the time, left lasting impressions on the world of music that are still felt today. Even though some of the impressions made were made after Woodstock, there's no doubt that playing there helped those artists go on to make them. Some were also being made before and during the festival. The Woodstock 50 lineup, the way I see it, lacks a sufficient amount of acts that have had significant influence on the music world. While I don't have a problem with bands that haven't done this being on the bill, I feel that there are too many of them.
I think the trick to a good lineup for Woodstock 50 is getting the right balance between the two things I talked about: a good mix between well-known and not-so-well-known acts to honor the style of lineup of the original Woodstock, while still maintaining a sufficient number of artists who have had a significant impact on the music world to honor the legacy it left. There is definitely some correlation between the name and impact, even though there are exceptions. For example, Imagine Dragons is a big name, but I would argue that they haven't had a significant impact on the music world at all. On the other hand, Rival Sons are a smaller name, but they are one of the bigger names out there that are keeping the spirit of classic Rock n' Roll alive, which is getting harder and harder to come by. The problem is that there is an imbalance - too many lesser/unknown artists, and not enough impactful artists. I think this could be fixed if some of the lesser/unknown artists were replaced with bigger name artists who have had some kind of measurable impact on the music world. Heck, even replacing some of the bigger name artists who haven't made an impact with bigger name artists who have.
If this were any other music festival, I probably wouldn't have a problem with this lineup. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's actually not half bad. It's got a very diverse lineup with acts that would draw a big crowd to it, and it spans a wide variety of genres. In my opinion, it's definitely better than most of the lineups for major annual music festivals I've seen in recent years. However, given that this is the 50th anniversary of Woodstock, I think that it should have been approached much differently. I know that it's impossible to recreate Woodstock to be the way that the original was, but that doesn't mean the effort can't be put in to have it come as close as it can to achieving it. While I know that the people organizing Woodstock 50 are doing the best they can to get close, and I think they did better than a normal music festival, I still think that they could have come closer. That being said, I'm still looking forward to seeing how the festival goes. Let me know what y'all think in the comments! Thanks for reading!
Comments
Post a Comment