Woodstock Music and Art Fair Research Paper

The United States of America in the late 1960s was a land of conflicting values, generational misunderstanding, and great societal change. The Vietnam War, a war intended to slow the progression of communism in Vietnam, was becoming an increasingly unpopular undertaking, resulting in widespread civil disobedience towards the government. American citizens, rooted in Puritanical ideals, were also experiencing a new and powerful tide of tradition-breaking and liberal exploration. Women were fighting for equality to men; African-Americans were struggling for racial equality; the youth were freely living promiscuous sexual lives, the likes of which America had never seen; artists were using new and exciting contemporary media to express themselves; and, most importantly to many, fresh and groundbreaking noises were coming from the instruments and singers of the “hippy” generation. The Woodstock Festival, a three-day festival celebrating music and a new alternative lifestyle, epitomized the tremendous changes occurring on American soil.

The four men who planned The Woodstock Festival, John Roberts, Michael Lang, Joel Rosenman, and Artie Kornfeld, had to settle on having the concert on a dairy farmer’s land in Bethel, New York after two previous spots fell through (Bennett, 2007). The farm was owned by Max Yasgur, who rented the acreage to the organizers for $75,000; a large plot of land was necessary, for they expected 50,000 attendees (the Tiber, 2007). Post-event estimates find that actual attendance was several hundred thousand. Although tickets to the event were $18.00, thousands upon thousands of fans simply snuck in, paying nothing.

Once inside, attendees were witness to widespread debauchery unseen in America at the time. Hippies danced, dropped acid, smoked marijuana, laughed, played, smiled, and let go of inhibitions. It was surely a great release for the young people, whom society at the time often deemed lazy, unpatriotic, worthless, and a waste. At Woodstock, such people were able to connect with like-minded citizens who shared similar ideals and lifestyles.

These hippies were often referred to as “flower children,” although the term surely became more stereotypical than accurate. The term is rooted in a song called “San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair)” by Scott McKenzie that came out in 1967 (Dickey, 1998). The song was written to promote the Monterey Festival (which was supposed to be about love, music, and flowers), but its lasting impact was the moniker is attached to the young hippy generation.

During the fun and revels of the Woodstock festival, the hippies and flower children were treated to an incredible roster of talented and legendary musicians. The first day, August 15^th, opened with Richie Havens, an African-American folk singer who played his guitar aggressively and percussively. One of his songs in which a cadence of “freedom” is chanted became a symbolic moment of the festival. Another notable performance from the first day was that of Ravi Shankar, a world-renowned sitar player; his skill was also employed for the legendary Beatles during their recording career. Of the ten performers from the first day, the two most well-known would probably be Arlo Guthrie and Joan Baez; Guthrie was well known for his political folk tunes, as was Baez, although her music dealt with many other subjects other than the war and politics.

The band Quill opened the second day of the festival; their music was much more complex and technical than that of the previous day’s famous headliners, which is appropriate, for the day’s line-up would prove to be a staggering sampling of stellar musicianship. Noted guitarist Santana played, providing the audience with an early performance of a budding musical genius and legend. Sly & the Family Stone provided soulful funk music, while Creedence Clearwater Revival rocked the crowd with hits like “Bad Moon Rising.” The criminally underrated (by history, as well) Mountain provided a set of raucous power rock, while Jefferson Airplane’s psychedelic rock helped those in the crown tripping out to better enjoy their experience. The Who and Canned Heat also provided thundering rock sets for those hippies who liked their music with some punch.

Historically speaking, the most significant performance of the second day might have been that of the Grateful Dead. For decades following the festival, the Dead became the prominent band for those hippies who survived Janis’s and Jimi’s death and the end of the “flower” era. From the dancing bears, skeletons, and logos, following the Dead became a hobby of many modern hippies, thrusting Jerry Garcia to near messiah levels for hippy types.

The third day of the festival featured a less stunningly amazing roster of acts, but there were some key performances. Critical darlings The Band played a blisteringly powerful set, as did Joe Cocker. Crosby, Stills, and Nash played only their second performance with their newly acquired member Neil Young. While other significant acts played on the third day, the most noteworthy was the show closer, Jimi Hendrix.

Immensely talented, unique, and captivating, Hendrix unleashed his snarling yet soulful tunes on his audience, providing a fantastic show for them, just a year before his untimely death. The most memorable performance of his set, and probably all of Woodstock, was his feedback-drenched rendition of “The Star-Bangled Banner” on his guitar. It has gone on to gain instant classic and American treasure status in the years following its performance. According to a Gallup poll released in 1989, Jimi Hendrix was the name most synonymous with The Woodstock Festival, with Janis Joplin coming in second (Woodstock, 1989).

In addition to the fascinating collection of artists and musicians on display at the festival, drug selection and consumption were off the charts. An interesting article from The New York Times, August 17, 1969, summed it up effectively. “Grass was not the only thing used ere. There was also… LSD, popularly called acid… amphetamines like Dexedrine, popularly called ‘speed,’ and assorted other drugs that are ‘dropped’ or ‘toked’ or sniffed or swallowed” (Bethel Pilgrims, 1969). The drug use was so excessive that attendees could become stoned simply due to the contact buzz from the thick haze in the air.

Another unfortunate, but probably fun occurrence at the festival was the rain, which caused a muddy mess. Many of the attendees played in the mud and threw it around, while others were indifferent to it. Howard Loberfield, who attended the concert when he was only fifteen, noted of the mud that, “…here were 500,000… who was being so nice and so happy and just listening to the music and sitting in the mud” (Sclafani, 2009).

More than anything else, though, Woodstock provided a perfect opportunity for the youth of the late 1960’s an opportunity to celebrate what was uniquely theirs: a generational movement. So many varying messages were sent at the festival. Racial equality was evidenced in the great variance of acts, from white men to black women, from an Indian man with a sitar to hedonistic hippies with psychedelic sounds: everyone was there together, without violence or anger. There was a message of love, indeed. Additionally, there was a clear anti-War message, one that was heard by the government and the traditionalists supporting the War. There was a message of sexual rebellion and freedom being sent from children to their parents. There was a need to explore one’s mind and all of the possibilities of the unknown. In essence, it was a time of newness and uncharted waters. Noted historian and writer Bill Osgerby felt that Woodstock was, “instrumental in the formation of group identities which helped sustain a commitment to ‘alternative lifestyles’” (1998).

The political aspects of Woodstock were just as undeniable in 1969 as they are today. The vast majority of attendees would have been considered liberal, as would those people who today consider themselves “hippies.” That being said, Woodstock offered a place where it was o.k. to be liberal, as the term often has a negative connotation. Original Woodstock organizer Michael Lang noted forty years after the festival that, “Woodstock came at a dark moment in America: an unpopular war, an unresponsive government, human-rights issues. Things were starting to edge toward violence. And along came Woodstock, this moment of hope. That’s how I see the Obama inauguration” (George-Warren, 2009). While it is somewhat strange to compare a presidential election to a three-day music festival, the comparison does merit worth. The Obama inauguration follows eight terrible years for liberals (six, if one discounts the 2006 Senate & House recapture by Democrats) and America was/ is mired in not one but two different wars. Without a doubt, though, the election of America’s first black president does offer a sense of hope in the same way that did the festival.

The Woodstock Festival was such a colossal event that its significance cannot be overstated. While there were some worrying and frightening issues, such as one young man being run over by a tractor and water/ food shortages (Schelle, 2009), the festival was an overwhelming success. It has become the stuff of legend. National television networks are running stories of couples who met at Woodstock who are still together today. People in their late fifties/ early sixties can form new friendships when meeting someone who “was there.” Like the terrorist attacks of September 11^th, 2001, President Kennedy’s assassination, the Emancipation Proclamation being signed, the first Thanksgiving with the Native Americans, and even Barack Obama’s inauguration – each generation has something with which its members can identify and share with other members. Woodstock is that memory for the youth of 1969.

Reference List

1. Bennett, Andy (2007). Remembering Woodstock. Ashgate.
2. Bethel Pilgrims Smoke Grass and LSD to Groove. (1969). New York Times
3. Browne, David (2009). Forty Years After, Woodstock’s Creator Tells Untold Tales. Rolling Stone, 1082, 42.
4. Dickey, Tom (1998). Flower Children. Presbyterian Record. Memories of Woodstock. Society, [27(1)], 2.
5. Osgerby, Bill (1998). Youth in Britain Since 1945. Oxford: Blackwell.
6. Schelle, Crystal (2009). Woodstock 1969: Mud, music, and merriment. Herald-Mail.
7. Sclafani, Tony (2009). Debunking Woodstock. MSNBC.
8. Tiber, E, & Monte, T (2007). Taking Woodstock. Square One.