Woodstock 50th Anniversary

Quote: AZDuffman

There is a Trivial Pursuit question about some act, Hendrix I think, screaming the NYS State Thruway is closed. Even today I cannot imagine that area handling 1/10 the traffic.

Arlo Guthrie. It's on the album

Quote: Mosca

Arlo Guthrie. It's on the album

Cool. When I heard the question I knew Woodstock as a bird.

Question. As we know, most of the bands at Woodstock are today huge names. I don't need to bother naming examples. However, they were paid relatively little by today's standards. I believe Jimmy Hendrix was paid the most at $18,000. My question is, was the low pay because:

1. Rock bands just didn't get rich back then, by today's standards.
2. The names were not so well known in 1969.
3. Their main motivation was royalties on record sales.
4. Their main motivation was the love of music.

Another question is did everyone know that Woodstock would be as huge as it was when tickets were for sale? Seems to me that if you hold a music festival on a farm with poor public road access, you're not expecting an enormous crowd.

I was four at the time, so have no first hand experience.

p.s. I hear it's a thing to lie and say you were at Woodstock. Would anyone believe me if I said I was there, as a four-year-old?

Quote: Wizard

p.s. I hear it's a thing to lie and say you were at Woodstock. Would anyone believe me if I said I was there, as a four-year-old?

If we knew your parents were old hippies, sure.

Quote: Wizard

Question. As we know, most of the bands at Woodstock are today huge names. I don't need to bother naming examples. However, they were paid relatively little by today's standards. I believe Jimmy Hendrix was paid the most at $18,000. My question is, was the low pay because:

1. Rock bands just didn't get rich back then, by today's standards.
2. The names were not so well known in 1969.
3. Their main motivation was royalties on record sales.
4. Their main motivation was the love of music.

Another question is did everyone know that Woodstock would be as huge as it was when tickets were for sale? Seems to me that if you hold a music festival on a farm with poor public road access, you're not expecting an enormous crowd.

I was four at the time, so have no first hand experience.

p.s. I hear it's a thing to lie and say you were at Woodstock. Would anyone believe me if I said I was there, as a four-year-old?

Second part first, lots more people did show up than expected. I saw once that they stopped even taking tickets the crowds were so large. IMHO, most of the crowd came from eastern PA and northeast. I doubt many traveled more than 400 miles for it. Remember, it was just a music festival. Marketing dollars would not be spent cross country, not when downstate NY would fill it up. They moved it to its actual location and notified the public by ads in the NY area papers. Again IMHO, 85% of the people there were from Westchester to Long Island.

To the first part, I think it was that entertainers were just not as well paid and had to more "work for a living." Celebs were not as celeb. Ever hear of how even in the mid-60s a person could be playing BJ next to Sinatra? So they had to do this kind of gig.

It also did build their brand. Record companies may have pushed some into it.

Quote: Wizard

Question. As we know, most of the bands at Woodstock are today huge names. I don't need to bother naming examples. However, they were paid relatively little by today's standards. I believe Jimmy Hendrix was paid the most at $18,000. My question is, was the low pay because:

1. Rock bands just didn't get rich back then, by today's standards.
2. The names were not so well known in 1969.
3. Their main motivation was royalties on record sales.
4. Their main motivation was the love of music.

Another question is did everyone know that Woodstock would be as huge as it was when tickets were for sale? Seems to me that if you hold a music festival on a farm with poor public road access, you're not expecting an enormous crowd.

I was four at the time, so have no first hand experience.

p.s. I hear it's a thing to lie and say you were at Woodstock. Would anyone believe me if I said I was there, as a four-year-old?

My mom took my sisters to see Bob Dylan in 1963. They were 9 and 11. Not quite four, but pretty young.

Quote: AZDuffman

Second part first, lots more people did show up than expected. I saw once that they stopped even taking tickets the crowds were so large. IMHO, most of the crowd came from eastern PA and northeast. I doubt many traveled more than 400 miles for it. Remember, it was just a music festival. Marketing dollars would not be spent cross country, not when downstate NY would fill it up. They moved it to its actual location and notified the public by ads in the NY area papers. Again IMHO, 85% of the people there were from Westchester to Long Island.

To the first part, I think it was that entertainers were just not as well paid and had to more "work for a living." Celebs were not as celeb. Ever hear of how even in the mid-60s a person could be playing BJ next to Sinatra? So they had to do this kind of gig.

It also did build their brand. Record companies may have pushed some into it.

That's right no ticket necessary. My brother has his original three day ticket still perforated in mint condition. Six bucks a day eighteen for the weekend. My cheapo sister only bought Friday so she saved twelve bucks, but no memorabilia.

Quote: pew

That's right no ticket necessary. My brother has his original three day ticket still perforated in mint condition. Six bucks a day eighteen for the weekend. My cheapo sister only bought Friday so she saved twelve bucks, but no memorabilia.

eBay it now! This is probably the peak price. As boomers age the market will crash same as older collector cars cannot find owners.

Quote: pew

That's right no ticket necessary. My brother has his original three day ticket still perforated in mint condition. Six bucks a day eighteen for the weekend. My cheapo sister only bought Friday so she saved twelve bucks, but no memorabilia.

Had to laugh at someone selling pristine 69 tickets, advertising them as one of the few original Woodstock items not covered in mud.

Woodstock was mostly word of
mouth, it was a phenom. And
yes, the performers were very
well known, that's why they
went to such lengths for
it to be recorded professionally
for an album. Ever hear the
record? It was a very expensive
production and it turned out
great.

This still gives me gooseumps.