Woodstock 1969: Three Days Of Peace And Music

Tiffany Kelly
Instructor Delaney
College Writing II MW 12:00
1 April 2013
Woodstock
Woodstock of 1969 was also known as Three Days of Peace and Music. Woodstock was a three-day music festival held in Bethel, New York, on a 600-acre farm. The three-day outdoor music festival extended in both physical size and historical magnitude. An estimated half a million hippies gathered on the 600-acre dairy farm. Woodstock of 1969 showed peace, love and music with surprisingly no violence at all. Some of the performers were Santana, the Grateful Dead, Janis Joplin, Sly and The Family Stone, The Band, and Jimi Hendrix. What made Woodstock historically significant was not the concert, but the event itself. Organizers never anticipated such a huge turnout.
So many people showed up that they couldn’t control the crowd and the festival ended up being a free. Due to so many people arriving, there were food and water shortages, which could make the people angry and violent. Since there wasn’t a single act of violence, it showed that peace and love was the perfect model for the sixties. The history of Woodstock was told the way it was because people of the Hippie Era mostly tell it. Not a single act of violence was shown so it was seen as a positive symbol of an entire generation. Since there were drugs everywhere it shapes how the people who attended the festival told the history. Current sources present Woodstock as not only positive but also negative. This is because it’s a different time period and events like the Vietnam War, aren’t going on anymore.
The sixties were an important era for the hippies, and Woodstock was a great way to end the decade. Hippies value peace and love and are anti-violence. Hippies who experienced the festival were mainly responsible for the retelling of Woodstock. The hippies and everyone else knew the festival for sex, drugs, and music. The Vietnam War was going on at the same time of the hippie era. This could also shape how the hippies saw the festival and how they retold it. Everyone, including people who weren’t at the festival wanted peace for the U.S. and they saw this as a sign of change. The Vietnam War ended about six years after Woodstock. Carlos Santana, whose band Soul Sacrifice performed at Woodstock, was interviewed after the festival. He explained his LSD trip during his performance. At the beginning of the interview, he states, “I remember that I was under the influence of LSD, then it all came back to me like, damn, why did I take LSD before I went on” (Carlos). This shows that the performers were taking LSD before they performed. Carlos stated that it changed the performance for the better; he believed it changed the experience for the performers and the audience. He explained his guitar as an “electric snake that wouldn’t stand still, that’s why I’m making face to try to make the snake stand still, so I could play it” (Carlos). Since the band was high on LSD Carlos states in the interview that the performance the crowd received was very electric. This helps shape how the history of Woodstock was told. The performers told the story different than people who just attended because they had a different view and feel of the festival. In the hippie’s eyes, it was the LSD that made the performances magical. Santana only described Woodstock of 1969 as positive. A New York Times article published in 1979, interviews Carol Green. Green was 22 years old, had dropped out of college and was unemployed at the time of Woodstock 1969. Green stated that she “wanted to learn what real life was all about” (par. 1). Green and her friend decided to go upstate to help set up for the festival. When they arrived at the site, she became the cook; she described it as the ideal counterculture job. She described the job and festival as, “very American, striking out and building something from scratch. Politics were secondary. Music and being together were most important. The idea was that if you did something like that, the feeling would spread” (par. 4). This explains that none of the hippies had a worry in the world during Woodstock; the music and being together were most important at the time. Green also states, “Dope dealing was the major occupation” (par. 2). Also quoted in the article is Lynda Obst who attended Woodstock. Lynda stated, “I saw dealers dispensing drugs, people collapsed on the ground. It was so thick with people you couldn’t move without stepping on someone” (par. 11). This not only shows that the performers were using drugs but so was the audience. Drugs had more of an impact on Woodstock than most people would think. It was a place where hippies sold and bought drugs that brought them closer. When Green stated earlier that dealing was the major occupation at the festival this also shows the reader how much drugs had an impact at Woodstock. Since both Carol Green and Lynda Obst attended Woodstock and were hippies they mainly discuss the drugs and the impact. On Woodstock’s forty-year anniversary Michael Lang was interviewed. Lang was one of the many organizers of the three-day music festival. Lang talked more about the beginning and end of the Festival. Since there was always violence at any other major shows that summer, they were afraid that it would happen at Woodstock. Lang was determined to not let that be the case at this one. They welcomed everyone at Woodstock. Since so many people showed up early, they decided to promote a free concert for everyone. This resulted in half a million people showing up for the festival. Lang talks about his favorite opening because that’s when he knew that the speakers worked to the Jimi Hendrix closing with the “Star Spangled Banner”. Just like Lang, Mike Shafer who attended Woodstock also talked about Jimi Hendrix being his favorite. He stated that, “He lead up to my expectations and was everything the people thought he would be. Waking up to him singing the star spangled banner was the best. He was an incredible guitarist” (Shafer). Lang also states that the highlight of the festival for him was Sly the Family Stone, “The energy he created with the audience, the back and forth, it’s about what they audience gives back to the performer. I’ve never seen anything like that in my life” (Lang). Lang doesn’t mention anything about the LSD unlike Santana. Lang focuses more on the description of Woodstock and his favorite parts about it. He does this because he wasn’t high on LSD so he didn’t experience what the performers did. He had to focus on making sure the event went well. In his interview Michael Lang also focuses more on the positive side of Woodstock. He states that bands were mad that they had to perform. The Who, “Did an unbelievable set and it changed their career” (Lang). Even know the band was upset to be performing at Woodstock, it changed their career for the better. Woodstock changed their lives in a positive way. “When you experience something like that you can’t keep it as your comparative thing for anything else, so I certainly don’t compare other festivals to it a sociologically phenomenon so you have to look at it that way” (Lang). This shows that Lang sees Woodstock as the best festival and that no other one will compare to it.
In today’s times, Bethel Museum talks about Woodstock of 1969 and its actions.
They describe the festival as “One of the most celebrated music festivals in history” (Bethel). Just like Lang in his interview, Bethel Museum talks about the positives of Woodstock. In their article, they describe the performances as legendary and unforgettable, which is why it was the symbol for that entire generation. This article also describes Woodstock as both positive and negative. The article also discusses that, “Others found it nothing but a messy, dirty, disorganized debacle” (BETHEL). This is the one of the few articles found that talk about a negative aspect of the festival. The article is current and the writers have had time to reflect on the event. These writers did not experience the hippie era so they aren’t going to explain it the same way. This is why the article mainly discusses the cons of Woodstock because over the years people started to realize that it had some negative effects. Michael Sheehy, author of “Woodstock: How the Media Missed the Historic Angle of the Breaking Story” states in his article that, “Many Americans of older generations—as well as many journalist—did not immediately recognize the passage of that transcendental moment and its impact on young people” (Sheehy). This shows that not everyone saw the positive impact Woodstock had on
people. The book, From Slavery to the Sixties: The Roots ad Cultural Foundation of Rock Music by Frank Vazzano, Jr. briefly talks about Woodstock. The book was published in 2010 so the information and when the story of Woodstock was told are up to date. When Vazzano explains the event, he does focus on the positives until the end, where he brings up the next hippie gathering Altamont. At Altamont they try to reenact Woodstock and promote it as “Woodstock West.” Unfortunately, Altamont was nothing like Woodstock. People were killed and multiple riots broke out resulting in bands refusing to perform. “The hippie way was the right way . . . a model for a perfect society… that dream would be all but shattered four months later at another hippie gathering” (Vazzano 109). The next paragraph goes into talking about Altamont and its negative effects on the hippie movement. This is one of the few pieces found that talks about the festival that way. “The hippie era ended on a dire note on December 6, 1969, at the Altamont Speedway in Northern California” (Vazzano 109). Vazzano seemed to understand the importance of Woodstock and was involved with the hippie era. This is why he talks about Woodstock positively and makes Altamont out to be a disappointment. Altamont was a disappointment to that era because it ended the hippie era. Since this source is up to date that is why it talks about Altamont ending the hippie era. During 1969 and a few years after, everyone was still in shock of how well Woodstock came out and they didn’t want to make the hippies look bad by saying “Woodstock West” is what ended the hippie era just a few months after Woodstock. Vazzano doesn’t necessarily talk about what impact LSD had on the festivals. He does however explain how LSD was founded and the people who promoted it before he even brings up Woodstock. Vazzano explains that, “The drugs most associated with the era were marijuana and LSD, or ‘acid’”… “LSD is a powerful chemical hallucinogen that affects all five senses, drastically altering ones perception of the world” (Vazzano 93). He does this so the reader understands what LSD or “acid” is and what it can do if one takes it. Vazzano also informs the readers what bands were big into acid and how it affected their music in a positive way. This way the reader knows what bands were performing while on acid and clues the them on what to expect when he describes Woodstock. As you might be able to tell, the history of Woodstock is mostly told the same throughout all of the sources.
The time period in which the history of Woodstock was told alters how it was told. As it was told closer to the hippie era, the 1960s to the early 1970s it focused mainly on the positive outcomes it had for the hippie counterculture. They did this because the Vietnam War was still going on and they wanted to promote peace and this gave them the perfect example of peace. The history of Woodstock told closer to today’s time focuses on the same things but also points out that it wasn’t perfect. Of course nothing is perfect, Woodstock was messy, disorganized and people started talking about the negative effects of all the drug use. A couple of the sources do point out some of the very few cons that happened at Woodstock.
Of course, all of the people who retold the history saw Woodstock as a symbol for the entire hippie generation. The hippies represented peace and love during the time of war. They were able to all get together and celebrate different artists. Hippies were the ones to mainly talk about Woodstock after it happened because it was seen as a symbol of their generation. Later on others explained Woodstock and brought out some of the few cons. Those sources challenge that interpretation because they don’t understand the positive impact Woodstock had on thousands of
people.

Works Cited
"After Woodstock the Impact of the Counterculture." Decade of Change for 60 's Youth Altered Living Styles but Not Some Attitudes. The New York Times 13 Aug. 1979. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.
"Carlos Santana at Woodstock 1969 - Soul Sacrifice." Interview. YouTube. YouTube 22 Aug. 2009. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.
Shafer, Mike. Telephone Interview. 19 April 2013.
Sheehy, Michael. "Woodstock: How the Media Missed the Historic Angle of the Breaking Story." (n.d.): n. pag. America: History and Life. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.
Vazzano, Frank. From Slavery to the Sixties: The Roots and Cultural Foundation of Rock Music. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Pub., 2010. Print.
"Woodstock: 40 Years on." Interview by Andy Pietrasik and Christian Bennett. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.
"Woodstock Festival History." Woodstock Festival History. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.