Michael Lang, the organizer of the original Woodstock Festival and the last two attempts to recreate it, has said he has many things planned for 2009"" - a year that will mark the festival's 40th anniversary. It would be wonderful to have a true ""new Woodstock"" to commemorate it, but if Lang goes through with his plans, we can probably expect an overcommercialized mess devoid of the original Woodstock spirit.
Why? Look at the record. Instead of peacefully sliding around in the mud like at the original, fans at Woodstock '94 (tickets: $135) pelted the bands with it. And Woodstock '99 (tickets: $150, but also available on pay-per-view) was an apocalyptic nightmare. If you tried to write the most heavy-handed story possible about society's descent from the idealistic '60s, could you have come up with anything more tragic than the new Woodstock - held at an abandoned Air Force base atop a Superfund hazardous waste site - plunging into a full-scale riot?
MTV's Kurt Loder said Woodstock '99 was ""like a concentration camp."" Peace, love and music, indeed.
Is there any chance for Woodstock's salvation? Can our generation produce an event that actually continues the '60s' hopefulness, instead of symbolically testifying to its downfall? Here is a humble, four-pointed suggestion of how it just might be able to work.
It should be free.
If you pay $150 for something, you expect a lot. You probably expect, for instance, enough toilet facilities to go around, and food and water that doesn't cost an insane amount. It's to Lang's discredit that these things were not to be found at Woodstock '99, but even if they were, charging that much will turn even the slightest imperfection into anger.
Many people don't realize the original Woodstock began as a moneymaking venture; its $18 ticket price equates to more than $100 today. But most attendees paid nothing as the event grew, undoubtedly adding to the spirit of openness. Free festivals, like this year's Ozzfest, are not unheard of, but something on Woodstock's level would probably require some serious bankrolling. The best shot might be to bring Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen on board. Allen has enough cash to keep the Experience Music Project museum, which houses a ton of Woodstock memorabilia and loses money every year, open.
It should be in the exact same spot as the original.
The old Air Force base in '99 was a singularly stupid choice, but Woodstock '94 hurt itself by being somewhere unrelated to the original site, as well. To hold it on the same hallowed ground would significantly increase the aura and connection to the original. Fortunately, the land on which Max Yasgur's farm stood is in much the same condition as it was in 1969; it remains undeveloped, and the stage area has been preserved. It was placed on the market last month, so whoever is going to be paying for/organizing this should get on that immediately.
It should be as musically similar to the original as possible.
Almost 40 years later, a surprising number of artists who were at the original Woodstock are still performing. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Joan Baez, Santana, etc. - they should all be invited to come back, as should the continuing remnants of the ones who aren't still together, like a solo John Fogerty, and the Dead (the Grateful Dead without Jerry Garcia). As for modern acts, the organizers should focus on getting today's stylistic heirs - jam bands, folk rock, add some socially conscious hip hop to the mix. Rage Against the Machine or Metallica concerts are awesome, but it's hard to sell them as promoting ""peace and love"" (as Woodstock '94 and '99 tried to do).
It shouldn't set the bar too high.
The original Woodstock was a cultural touchstone, but it's important to remember that it exists today as more of a myth than a real historical event. The evils of Woodstock '99 are (deservedly) well-remembered, but no one seems to remember that Woodstock '69 included overflowing toilets, heroin overdoses and Pete Townshend getting very un-peaceful by clubbing Abbie Hoffman in the head with a guitar. Promote Woodstock 2009 as ""Three more days of peace, love and music""? Sure. Hype it up as the country's figurative return to '60s idealism? In the moment, it will never live up to that kind of billing. But if things are done right, maybe 40 years from now, we'll look back and see it was actually right.
