Woodstock vs. Isle of Wight
Willie
why Dylan didn't appear at Woodstock. Then I remembered that he was at
the Isle of Wight, a week or so later, instead. I vaguely remember a
Rolling Stone article saying he was disenchanted with hippiedom, and
in fact, a lineup listing of the Woodstock acts says, in listing him
among those who declined invitation:
"Bob Dylan (Turned it down because of his disgust of the hippies
hanging around his house)"
I wonder how true this was, given that the Isle of Wight was pretty
much a hippie gathering.
Might it have also been that he was nervous about playing before that
many people (though expected attendance was far lower than the
eventual audience, and Isle of Wight was a giant audience)?
I remember reading that when he heard Sgt. Pepper, his reaction was
that he'd been left behind, and his eventual response was John Wesley
Harding and then Nashville Skyline, another direction altogether.
Maybe he didn't feel his new material would play well with Jimi and
The Who and all in the lineup.
I see that a complete six-CD set is coming out with the entire
Woodstock show. I hadn't know that the Incredible String Band played.
I still listen to and love their "The 5000 Spirits or the Layers of
the Onion" album (he wrote, moving completely off topic).
marcus
>
> I remember reading that when he heard Sgt. Pepper, his reaction was
> that he'd been left behind, and his eventual response was John Wesley
> Harding and then Nashville Skyline, another direction altogether.
>
The way I heard it was that upon hearing the first few songs of "Sgt.
Pepper", he said to someone with him, "Turn that shit off", or words
to that effect.
He was still in his post-motorcycle accident days then. The Beatles,
reinventing themselves, may have hit too close to home at that point.
RJ
> What with the 40th anniversaries imminent, I was trying to remember
> why Dylan didn't appear at Woodstock. Then
None of the big acts were there.... Beatles, Stones, Doors, Clapton,
Elvis Dylan, etc.
Don't know why such a big deal is made about Dylan and not the others.
Dr_dudley
Thanks for the thought-provoking post, which is of course unanswerable
except by surmise unless bob hisself decides to weigh in.
On Aug 9, 3:48 pm, Willie <williamgwilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What with the 40th anniversaries imminent, I was trying to remember
> why Dylan didn't appear at Woodstock. Then I remembered that he was at
> the Isle of Wight, a week or so later, instead. I vaguely remember a
> Rolling Stone article saying he was disenchanted with hippiedom, and
> in fact, a lineup listing of the Woodstock acts says, in listing him
> among those who declined invitation:
>
> Might it have also been that he was nervous about playing before that
> many people (though expected attendance was far lower than the
> eventual audience, and Isle of Wight was a giant audience)?
>
I'm sure this has been written up in any number of Bob books; i don't
have one at hand. Anybody?
The only evidence i have is Levon's "This Wheel's on Fire" where he
states the obvious. Bob's fee for IoW was 80,000$US. That's 1969
dollars; i don't know the british pound equivalent, but it was
probably a lot of money then. Maybe the Aquarian Music and Arts
Festival's promoters didn't pony up enough to lure him out of semi-
retirement.
Even today, i'd work for an hour at that rate.
> I remember reading that when he heard Sgt. Pepper, his reaction was
> that he'd been left behind, and his eventual response was John Wesley
> Harding and then Nashville Skyline, another direction altogether.
> Maybe he didn't feel his new material would play well with Jimi and
> The Who and all in the lineup.
>
To clarify chronologically, Sgt. Pepper's release was 01jun67 (per
Wiki); per Krogsgaard, the first recording sessions for JWH were
17oct67 (5 takes of "Drifter's Escape" and more).
So certainly bob knew SPLHCB before he entered the studio; when
exactly and under what circumstance the oft-referenced "Turn that shit
off" happened may be available to others (Scaduto?) but not me.
That said, i doubt that bob felt he'd been left behind. Clearly he was
charting his own course (see the complete sessions available as boots
on "The Genuine Basement Tapes" if nowhere else). And if anything, his
aim was to leave everyone else behind, not the other way around.
That said furthur, if he was disgusted, disturbed, or distressed by
the psychedelia of the day, he failed in his displeasure. Drop a
couple hundred mikes of acid, and drop the stylus on "John Wesley
Harding". Hallucination-atory nonpareil. Good luck turning the vinyl
over.
> I see that a complete six-CD set is coming out with the entire
> Woodstock show. I hadn't know that the Incredible String Band played.
> I still listen to and love their "The 5000 Spirits or the Layers of
> the Onion" album (he wrote, moving completely off topic).
Moving with you, i'll just say that i prefer the ISB recording with "A
Very Cellular Song".
And to suggest that if you go to Youtube and search for "incredible
string band woodstock" you'll find some videos that claim to be from
that event, and even if not are wondrous.
Funny, i seem to recall a clip where the "chick" (Licorice?) had no
teeth and her dress was more clearly, uh, diaphanous.
HTH,
dudley
___
postScript:
i always liked Mike better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOyiDIUhbAE
}
I smile and shake my head and say my little ship is sinking,
But I kind of like the sea that I'm on, and I don't mind if I do
drown.
{
badlands420
> That said furthur, if he was disgusted, disturbed, or distressed by
> the psychedelia of the day, he failed in his displeasure. Drop a
> couple hundred mikes of acid, and drop the stylus on "John Wesley
> Harding". Hallucination-atory nonpareil. Good luck turning the vinyl
> over.
First of all, if you drop enough acid, you can listen to a Frank Sinatra
record and get a psychedelic experience out of it.
Second of all, if Dylan was disenchanted with hippiedom, there's no reason
his songwriting had to reflect that or focus on it. I frankly don't see what
one has to do with the other. George Harrison went to Haight-Ashbury and
wound up totally disgusted with the hypocrisy and pointlessness of the
hippie movement, but it certainly didn't alter the course of his
songwriting. I suspect Dylan probably arrived at similar conclusions about
the whole flower power thing.
Janice
> Willie <williamgwilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What with the 40th anniversaries imminent, I was trying to remember
> > why Dylan didn't appear at Woodstock. Then
> . . .
> None of the big acts were there.... Beatles, Stones, Doors, Clapton,
> Elvis Dylan, etc.
>
> Don't know why such a big deal is made about Dylan and not the others.
An interesting point, but one that is probably more well understood by
the folks of the time...
This was a festival of Peace & Love (&RocknRoll), and the underlying
theme was an intense anti-war, anti-VietNam, anti-establishment
movement. Overlaying all of that was an intention by 10's of
thousands of hippie flower children to prove their point to the
Establishment that they were not a threat, that they were a peace-
loving generation who no longer wanted to sacrifice their brothers and
lovers to the military machine --- the voting age was still 21, so
those boys being drafted weren't even eligible to vote.
The spoken and unspoken agreement among the hundreds of thousands that
attended was that above all there would be no violence and no
aggressive behavior that would antagonize the police or the local
residents. And they pulled it off -- they succeeded in spades.
As to the Beatles & the Doors:
According to WikiAnswers, " The Woodstock promoters contacted John
Lennon about The Beatles performing. Lennon was agreeable but the rest
of the band wasn't. Lennon offered the Plastic Ono Band as a
replacement but the promoters said no. The Doors at first agreed and
then cancelled. The cited explanation was that Jim Morrison did not
like performing in outdoor environments... It is also said that Jim
Morrison was in a paranoid state and he was fearful of someone taking
a shot at him. " [The American establishment, especially the police,
hated Morrison and there were warrants out for his arrest]
Here's a great interview with Morrison & Manzarek in 1969 -- there's
mention of the connectedness of the audiences and of the function of
rock artists as religious figures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoVJ-55ZloE
Eric Clapton was in a musical transition in 1969, altho' he did attend
the September 1969 peace festival at Toronto's Rock n Roll Revival
along with John and the Yoko Ono Band.
The Rolling Stones were pretty much the antithesis of the Woodstock
ambience with their dark and aggressive style... this was proved later
with the violence at the Altamont concert in December of 1969, which
has been called "Rock n Roll's Worst Day."
Not all rock stars were hippies trying to make a political point, and
this includes the Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, and certainly Elvis
Presley. Elvis, with his sequins and his cape and his Las Vegas ways,
just wasn't a Woodstock candidate. Colonel Parker would have called
out the National Guard.
I don't think Bob was ever a hippie, even tho' the hippie Boomers, the
protestors, and the activists of the age all saw him as their
surrogate brother-in-arms. I think probably Bob preferred to identify
with the Beatniks, who preceded the hippies and the Summer of Love,
and who were a far more cynical, bitter, and dark group of
philosophical antagonists fighting the suffocating influences of the
50's.
I can absolutely imagine Bob dismissing the idea of appearing at
Woodstock, and I know that it felt like an abandonment to the people
at Woodstock... but they always forgave Bob's quirky ways.
I can also imagine that Bob, and Eric, the Stones, and the Doors, and
even Elvis regret having missed The Event of their musical lifetime.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
badlands420
The spoken and unspoken agreement among the hundreds of thousands that
attended was that above all there would be no violence and no
aggressive behavior that would antagonize the police or the local
residents. And they pulled it off -- they succeeded in spades.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, what an incredible load of bullshit. How would you
describe tens of thousands of people breaking down fences and barricades
because they didn't want to be bothered with paying the price of admission?
All rose-colored retrospection aside, destroying someone else's property is
both violent and aggressive, in addition to being a criminal act.
marcus
> The spoken and unspoken agreement among the hundreds of thousands that
> attended was that above all there would be no violence and no
> aggressive behavior that would antagonize the police or the local
> residents. And they pulled it off -- they succeeded in spades.
>
>
> With all due respect, what an incredible load of bullshit. How would you
> describe tens of thousands of people breaking down fences and barricades
> because they didn't want to be bothered with paying the price of admission?
> All rose-colored retrospection aside, destroying someone else's property is
> both violent and aggressive, in addition to being a criminal act.
That is all you've managed to glean from what happened at
Woodstock...that some folks jumped over the fences? What am
amazingly narrow view.
Two months later the New York Mets won the World Series. Does the
fact that some of the fans jumped out of the stands, ran around the
field, and caused some damage take away from the Mets' accomplisment
in your view?
badlands420
"badlands420" <mike...@uranus.net> wrote in message
news:cWIfm.112325$3m2....@newsfe06.iad...
Not to mention the hundreds of tons of garbage left behind by the ostensibly
earth-conscious hippies in attendance. Far from being a testament to their
ethos, Woodstock was a confirmation of its rank hypocrisy. Given the
opportunity, people will act like disgusting inconsiderate pigs, no matter
how many flowers and peace signs they paint on their cars.
Dr_dudley
> > That said furthur, if he was disgusted, disturbed, or distressed by
> > the psychedelia of the day, he failed in his displeasure. Drop a
> > couple hundred mikes of acid, and drop the stylus on "John Wesley
> > Harding". Hallucination-atory nonpareil. Good luck turning the vinyl
> > over.
>
> First of all, if you drop enough acid, you can listen to a Frank Sinatra
> record and get a psychedelic experience out of it.
>
Well of course yer right. In terms of set & setting, all that's really
required is the psychotropic substance.
After which, Sinatra or Torme; or no music at all. Still, an Ingmar
Bergman film is likely better suited to a "trip" than an episode of
"Flipper".
Or a setting in a children's cemetary, or woodlands setting. Pick 'em.
That said, JWH is more to the psyche than any Francis Albert. Maybe
getting lost in the court of the crimson king, if that's to your
taste.
Of course, there are those funny faces in the tree on the album cover.
That said furthur, there was something about hearing bob say "Waiting
on you" from that bootleg... Yea! Heavy...
> Second of all, if Dylan was disenchanted with hippiedom, there's no reason
> his songwriting had to reflect that or focus on it. I frankly don't see what
> one has to do with the other. George Harrison went to Haight-Ashbury and
> wound up totally disgusted with the hypocrisy and pointlessness of the
> hippie movement, but it certainly didn't alter the course of his
> songwriting. I suspect Dylan probably arrived at similar conclusions about
> the whole flower power thing.
Of course you're right.
I'm not sure anyone's suggesting that bob's direction was in reaction
to "flower power" hippiedom.
Most likely he went his way.
Thanks,
rdd
marcus
> To clarify chronologically, Sgt. Pepper's release was 01jun67 (per
> Wiki); per Krogsgaard, the first recording sessions for JWH were
> 17oct67 (5 takes of "Drifter's Escape" and more).
>
> So certainly bob knew SPLHCB before he entered the studio; when
> exactly and under what circumstance the oft-referenced "Turn that shit
> off" happened may be available to others (Scaduto?) but not me.
>
between June and October....it reached millions of people within the
first couple of weeks.
I'm not sure if Dylan actually made the "turn that shit off" remark or
not, but he didn't live in a vacuum, and knew what was going musically
before he re-entered the studio
badlands420
That is all you've managed to glean from what happened at
Woodstock...that some folks jumped over the fences? What am
amazingly narrow view.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called reality. I don't have any sentimental attachment to Woodstock,
and I don't own a pair of rose-colored glasses. If you or anyone else
chooses to view that event as an affirmation of everything that's great and
wonderful about humanity, that's your business, but you'll have to forgive
me if I choose to take a view that's based on what actually happened there.
If Woodstock was the pinnacle of hippiedom, it's easy to see why it died out
so quickly.
marcus
Take a visit to BethelWoods, and see if you come back with the same
attitude.
Janice
> It's called reality. I don't have any sentimental attachment to Woodstock,
> and I don't own a pair of rose-colored glasses. If you or anyone else
> chooses to view that event as an affirmation of everything that's great and
> wonderful about humanity, that's your business, but you'll have to forgive
> me if I choose to take a view that's based on what actually happened there.
Omigosh, you were there?!?
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
crazytimes
> The only evidence i have is Levon's "This Wheel's on Fire" where he
> states the obvious. Bob's fee for IoW was 80,000$US. That's 1969
> dollars; i don't know the british pound equivalent, but it was
> probably a lot of money then. Maybe the Aquarian Music and Arts
> Festival's promoters didn't pony up enough to lure him out of semi-
> retirement.
My guess is Bob didn't appreciate the freaks who were visiting
Woodstock even before the Woodstock festival (people looking for his
house, finding his house, etc.), and so Bob and the Band skipping off
to the Isle of Wight was a way to get away from this backyard scene
that had suddenly become the focal point for all hippies pointed East,
and he'd get paid to make his drifter's escape...
> To clarify chronologically, Sgt. Pepper's release was 01jun67 (per
> Wiki); per Krogsgaard, the first recording sessions for JWH were
> 17oct67 (5 takes of "Drifter's Escape" and more).
>
> So certainly bob knew SPLHCB before he entered the studio; when
> exactly and under what circumstance the oft-referenced "Turn that shit
> off" happened may be available to others (Scaduto?) but not me.
I've always wondered what the summer 1966 US tour for Bob would have
been like, had he not had his motorcycle wreck, and what songs he
would have written during it and recorded later that year... Maybe
they'd have been more psychedelic in spirit compared to JWH, maybe
not...
crazytimes
> I can also imagine that Bob, and Eric, the Stones, and the Doors, and
> even Elvis regret having missed The Event of their musical lifetime.
Monterey would have been the one I would have wanted to go to... The
Woodstock crush doesn't look too appetizing to me from the film...
badlands420
> I've always wondered what the summer 1966 US tour for Bob would have
> been like, had he not had his motorcycle wreck, and what songs he
> would have written during it and recorded later that year... Maybe
> they'd have been more psychedelic in spirit compared to JWH, maybe
> not...
I don't think so. I think it was clear to Dylan that the most radical thing
he could do in 1967 was, well, nothing. A set of acoustic-based songs
recorded live with no studio embellishments whatsoever was, I think, the
perfect Dylanesque response to what everybody else was doing at that time.
Willie
Yeah, I remember the "Turn that shit off" part, too. But I thought the
reporter of this comment (which I think was said to have been made
from a hospital bed*) went on to say that Dylan felt he'd lost touch
with the musical vanguard during his convalescence. I could be
misremembering, since I doubt Dylan would have actually said this to
someone.
If anyone can locate the article (pretty sure it was in Rolling
Stone), I'd be grateful.
That said, I totally agree with Dr. Dudley's assessment of JWH as
psychedlic in its own way. (Remember how we all held the cover upside
down to find the Beatles in the tree bark--or something like that.) I
was disappointed at first with JWH, since I had also heard Dylan say,
before it came out, that he'd been working on a kind of "opera," and I
thought the album would be something like the Stravinsky/Richard
Strauss sonic blasts of their tone poems era.
I think JWH was his last masterpiece. Terrific songs afterward, but I
don't think any subsequent album measures up to the pre-Nashville
Skyline era.
* This seems chronologically improbable, since the motorcycle accident
was in June, '66, and Sgt. Pepper came out a year later.
badlands420
I think JWH was his last masterpiece. Terrific songs afterward, but I
don't think any subsequent album measures up to the pre-Nashville
Skyline era.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoken like a true victim of 60s nostalgia.
Willie
Give me a better *album* after that.
badlands420
> Give me a better *album* after that.
Blood on the Tracks
Love and Theft
Willie
Maybe it's nostalgia, but I haven't listened to either of those in
ages.
gemjack
Desire
Street Legal
Planet Waves
Something about JWH that I could never quite get into. Good songs.
Might have been the sound of the album.
-GJ
badlands420
> Something about JWH that I could never quite get into. Good songs.
> Might have been the sound of the album.
I'm with you there. The songs are mostly great, but the sound and production
value are beyond godawful, as are the mixes. That's the most
amateurish-sounding album Dylan's ever done.
Peter Stone Brown
To that I say, are you basing that statement based on compact disc or vinyl?
The production is actually great and the mixes on vinyl are perfect.
badlands420
> To that I say, are you basing that statement based on compact disc or
> vinyl?
> The production is actually great and the mixes on vinyl are perfect.
Never heard the vinyl. I stopped listening to LPs when I was about seven
years old.
marcus
"Victim of 60s nostalgia"?
I don't remember being victimized during the 60s, I just remember
being real happy while they were going on.
marcus
When was that?
whoswhoz
Too much bass and drums and not enough Bob. The cd is worse.
gemjack
<ps...@verizon.net> wrote:
I only know the CD release, but with few exceptions the whole album
sounds like a demo. Not that *that's* always a bad thing. His demo
of Caribbean Wind to me is far better than the up tempo official
release with all the flowery lyrics added.
-GJ
badlands420
> Never heard the vinyl. I stopped listening to LPs when I was about seven
> years old.
>When was that?
Yesterday.
badlands420
>I don't remember being victimized during the 60s, I just remember
>being real happy while they were going on.
I can't help it, it makes me uncomfortable to watch my parents put flowers
in their hair and dance around like idiots while displaying a shockingly low
tolerance to cheap weed.
Janice
> >> Something about JWH that I could never quite get into. Good songs.
> >> Might have been the sound of the album.
>
> > I'm with you there. The songs are mostly great, but the sound and
> > production value are beyond godawful, as are the mixes. That's the most
> > amateurish-sounding album Dylan's ever done.
>
> To that I say, are you basing that statement based on compact disc or vinyl?
> The production is actually great and the mixes on vinyl are perfect.
I keep forgetting about this fine album. It is so understated, so
quiet and introspective, and has some of the finest lyrics he's ever
written, rich in barely disguised metaphors of natural and
supernatural love...
All Along the Watchtower is my favorite poem of his -- full of mystery
and metaphor, longing and dread. I Pity the Poor Immigrant is nearly
confessional and rife with compassion. Plus, there are a couple sweet
& straight-forward just-plain-love songs.
I'm not sure about dudley's acid reference, except perhaps for those
doors of perception that can get kicked open with all the resultant
interior discovery therein. Certainly this is a humbler, more
perceptive Bob, which may not sit well with some. It's sad to think
he once had this simpler, revelatory time with his wife and
children... only to lose it all.
Unfortunately I never owned the vinyl, and comments at bobdylan.com
agree that the CD is muddy and flat and a poor production of the
album. Looks like I will never have this album to listen to
throughout. Has it ever been re-mastered?
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, I awoke in anger,
So alone and terrified,
I put my fingers against the glass
And bowed my head and cried.
George Klotzbaugh
"Janice" <jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote in message
news:bd9b4441-b6d2-4d7d...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
It was remastered a few years ago as part of remastering of a number of the
LPs. I recall thinking that it sounded better but did not go back to check
before posting this.
JWH was the last Dylan album to be pressed in Glorious Mono. It sounds
really good. Lots of presence and all of the instruments and voice are
right up front, mixed perfectly. I would love to burn copies for all that
are interested but my stereo is on one side of the house and my PC on the
other. Sorry (I feel like my mother with 12:00 blinking on her VCR for all
eternity). Maybe someone else would like to step up.
Sundazed.com has repressed a lot of classic Dylan LPS in mono. Don't know
if they have done this one.
George Klotzbaugh
no resemblance to the reality.
Like most periods of romanticism, which bubble up every hundred years or so,
everything good about it gets co-opted in to the main stream, changing
everything for the better but becoming unrecognizable. The fringe that is
remembered, inaccurately, becomes a joke.
I don't know the era in which most of you grew up but I can say with
confidence... you should be so lucky.
One final thought... back then folks believed that things could change and
were actually worth changing, And a lot changed (although not enough). Can
later eras answer yes to any of those three? I doubt it.
So, go on you young whippersnappers dismissing the 60s with hip, arch,
disdain. It's the currency of today and the foreseeable future. You are
assured of fitting in and being cool.
Do your thing kids!
badlands420
> So, go on you young whippersnappers dismissing the 60s with hip, arch,
> disdain. It's the currency of today and the foreseeable future. You are
> assured of fitting in and being cool.
Don't get me wrong, whatever I say that's dismissive about the 60s does not
extend to music. If I could pick any 10-year period to live in based on the
quality of the music, it would be 1955-1965, hands down.
George Klotzbaugh
Don't get me wrong. I was not responding to you in particular.
And don't get me wrong.... what I said had nothing to do with music.
badlands420
> Don't get me wrong. I was not responding to you in particular.
>
> And don't get me wrong.... what I said had nothing to do with music.
Then perhaps you could clarify and/or expand upon your previous statement.
Specifically, why should I consider myself unlucky to have not existed
during the 60s?
crazytimes
Why that as opposed to 1956-1966?...
crazytimes
I've learned to accept and enjoy JWH for what it is... Before, I
considered it a let down compared to the two albums that came before
it... Took some guts on Dylan's part, though, to dispense with the
pop forumula - namely the keyboards from Kooper, and distinct electric
guitar lines...
George Klotzbaugh
At the risk of repeating myself:
"back then folks believed that things could change and
were actually worth changing, And a lot changed (although not enough).
Can later eras answer yes to any of those three? I doubt it."
"Like most periods of romanticism, which bubble up every hundred years or
so,
everything good about it gets co-opted in to the main stream, changing
everything for the better but becoming unrecognizable. The fringe that is
remembered, inaccurately, becomes a joke."
Gosh darn it. It looks like I repeated myself after all.
People felt like they could make a difference and, in fact, did so. It
wasn't the difference that was planned for or hoped for but it made the
world better. If you don't see it yo're not looking.
Today, how many young folks think that things can change? How many think
that they are worth changing ? Do they care either way?
If these ideas don't speak to you, then you should not consider youself
"unlucky to have not existed u the 60s" as you phrase it.
Anyway, if you are fortunate, you will live to see another bubbling up of
Romanticism. It will seem silly in its excessives, especially after the
fact. It will change the world: the worst that came before it and
unfortunaely some of the good that came before it as well.
And as the Baptist Church and Curtis Mayfield say "It won't come when you
want it, But it'll be right on time."
crazytimes
wrote:
> The cartoon caricture by which the 60s are remembered today bears virtually
> no resemblance to the reality.
>
> Like most periods of romanticism, which bubble up every hundred years or so,
> everything good about it gets co-opted in to the main stream, changing
> everything for the better but becoming unrecognizable. The fringe that is
> remembered, inaccurately, becomes a joke.
>
> I don't know the era in which most of you grew up but I can say with
> confidence... you should be so lucky.
Different times... I missed most of the 60s... But today I'm under
the impression that if someone was of age in the 50s or 60s (or before
then, 40s, whatever), then they were doing something interesting -
their life was interesting and real, even if it was merely working in
a general store in the middle of nowhere... Could it be said that
there is an authenticity to those times that went missing in the
decades following?... Am I romanticising the times before I was born,
or is that impression valid?...
melia
Janice, those words from JWH? or yours?
I can feel a soft movement in the last line,
the allowing, letting,
a curve, a resolution.
curve, resolution, return
a softness herein
quiet and introspective
melia
wrote:
> "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote in message
Well said. Might as well enjoy
marcus
The music was only part of what was great about the Sixties, which
were actually from about 1963-1973, not the actual decade itself.
marcus
wrote:
> "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote in message
Perhaps, we were spoiled by greatness.
frinjdwelr
"RJ" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:invalid-CB0EDB...@news.giganews.com...
> Willie <williamg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What with the 40th anniversaries imminent, I was trying to remember
>> why Dylan didn't appear at Woodstock. Then
>
> None of the big acts were there.... Beatles, Stones, Doors, Clapton,
> Elvis Dylan, etc.
>
> Don't know why such a big deal is made about Dylan and not the others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the whole reason the festival was named Woodstock, - because it was
aimed at being located there, - was because Bob lived there. A big goal of
the organizers was to lure Bob back into public life.
Janice
wrote:
> "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote in message
> . . .
> > Don't get me wrong, whatever I say that's dismissive about the 60s does
> > not extend to music. If I could pick any 10-year period to live in based
> > on the quality of the music, it would be 1955-1965, hands down.
>
> And don't get me wrong.... what I said had nothing to do with music.
But the music absolutely reflected -- and sometimes determined -- the
life and thinking of the times. That fantastic music felt just like
what we were living. They were inseparable.
On Aug 10, 9:27 pm, crazytimes <crazytime...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Different times... I missed most of the 60s... But today I'm under
> the impression that if someone was of age in the 50s or 60s (or before
> then, 40s, whatever), then they were doing something interesting -
> their life was interesting and real, even if it was merely working in
> a general store in the middle of nowhere... Could it be said that
> there is an authenticity to those times that went missing in the
> decades following?... Am I romanticising the times before I was born,
> or is that impression valid?...
The 60's were an experiment with reality. We found out there was more
than one. It was an amazing epiphany, and it underwrote all our
efforts (and successes) for change.
Now, here and now, is a strange and artificial existence... everything
is a simulacrum. Nothing seems real anymore.
On Aug 10, 9:41 pm, melia <pasterna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Janice, those words from JWH? or yours?
I should be so blessed. No, those are the final lyrics to the song I
Dreamed I Saw St. Augustine from the JWH album:
I dreamed I saw St. Augustine,
Alive as you or me,
Tearing through these quarters
In the utmost misery,
With a blanket underneath his arm
And a coat of solid gold,
Searching for the very souls
Whom already have been sold.
"Arise, arise," he cried so loud,
In a voice without restraint,
"Come out, ye gifted kings and queens
And hear my sad complaint.
No martyr is among ye now
Whom you can call your own,
So go on your way accordingly
But know you're not alone."
I dreamed I saw St. Augustine,
Alive with fiery breath,
And I dreamed I was amongst the ones
That put him out to death.
Oh, I awoke in anger,
So alone and terrified,
I put my fingers against the glass
And bowed my head and cried.
On Aug 10, 9:55 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Perhaps, we were spoiled by greatness.
We ain't all dead yet :)
Don't write us off -- we have changed everything we touched from the
minute we were born (new "temporary" buildings at the elementary
schools for the population "boom" of war babies -- that are still
standing) through every phase of growth. We deconstruct every
obstacle we meet and then try to rebuild it in our own image. We do
this as a group. Now, we are looking at what the legacy will be when
we are gone, and maybe we will be able to deconstruct that campy
picture of us to reveal what's still real.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
frinjdwelr
"crazytimes" <crazyt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98423e32-62c5-40e9...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 10, 6:15 pm, "George Klotzbaugh" <cklotzba...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>> The cartoon caricture by which the 60s are remembered today bears
>> virtually
>> no resemblance to the reality.
>>
Truer words have not been spoken.
>> Like most periods of romanticism, which bubble up every hundred years or
>> so,
>> everything good about it gets co-opted in to the main stream, changing
>> everything for the better but becoming unrecognizable. The fringe that
>> is
>> remembered, inaccurately, becomes a joke.
>>
>> I don't know the era in which most of you grew up but I can say with
>> confidence... you should be so lucky.
>
Despite all the pain, I would not have traded it for any previous time.
> Different times... I missed most of the 60s... But today I'm under
> the impression that if someone was of age in the 50s or 60s (or before
> then, 40s, whatever), then they were doing something interesting -
> their life was interesting and real, even if it was merely working in
> a general store in the middle of nowhere... Could it be said that
> there is an authenticity to those times that went missing in the
> decades following?... Am I romanticising the times before I was born,
> or is that impression valid?...
I think it's partly valid. The belief in one's power to change the world
idea was also partly what it was about. Politics were so different then. The
music was a huge part of it. The economy was part of it. The assasinations
were a big factor. The strength of the amazing communal-ness of people of a
like sensibility was a giant part of it. The constant restless hungry
roving feeling that sent so many out all around the world was a big part.
The questioning everything and sense of endless possibilties was part. Yes,
also drugs with little sense yet of a downside was part, not to mention the
splitting open of sexual mores.
In short, it's very complex and there's no shortcut to understanding either
through romanticizing or cynical dismissal. As Bob said when asked if his
kids understood - since he himself could never appreciate what it was like
to live through an earlier time, how could anyone not living through the 60s
know how it was.
badlands420
> People felt like they could make a difference and, in fact, did so. It
> wasn't the difference that was planned for or hoped for but it made the
> world better. If you don't see it yo're not looking.
I don't even know what this means. Maybe if you supply some specifics
instead of nebulous generalizations, I can better understand.
> Today, how many young folks think that things can change? How many think
> that they are worth changing ? Do they care either way?
Again, nebulous generalizations.
> If these ideas don't speak to you, then you should not consider youself
> "unlucky to have not existed u the 60s" as you phrase it.
What ideas? You haven't actually said anything.
> Anyway, if you are fortunate, you will live to see another bubbling up of
> Romanticism. It will seem silly in its excessives, especially after the
> fact. It will change the world: the worst that came before it and
> unfortunaely some of the good that came before it as well.
Maybe it's time I asked a pointed question. How is the world a better place
today because of anything hippies did or said in the 1960s?
badlands420
> Why that as opposed to 1956-1966?...
Because I like 1955 better than 1966. Specifically the songs that came out
of Chess and Sun records that year.
badlands420
>The music was only part of what was great about the Sixties, which
>were actually from about 1963-1973, not the actual decade itself.
Good, then I was born the year after the 60s ended. That's a relief.
gemjack
I'm partial to 65-75 myself. Haven't we discussed this before?
-GJ
gemjack
<jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote:
>The Rolling Stones were pretty much the antithesis of the Woodstock
>ambience with their dark and aggressive style...
...them and the Doors. You gotta love em.
-GJ
melia
>
> I should be so blessed.
I have not yet understood the meaning of this expression, I should be
so blessed. You and/or someone else explains?
Merci beaucoup. Pardon my French.
Such a quietly moving rhythm here i perceive .
>Now, we are looking at what the legacy will be when
> we are gone, and maybe we will be able to deconstruct that campy
> picture of us to reveal what's still real.
Maitreya has this to say, his words speak directly :
" The problems of mankind are real but solvable. The solution lies
within your grasp. Take your brother's need as the measure for your
action and solve the problems of the world. There is no other course."
Namaste .
>
> ~`~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<
<
<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
badlands420
I have not yet understood the meaning of this expression, I should be
so blessed. You and/or someone else explains?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Something along the lines of "That's not true, but I wish it was."
marcus
> > Maybe it's time I asked a pointed question. How is the world a better place
> today because of anything hippies did or said in the 1960s?
This book answers your question.
The Greater Generation: In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy
by Leonard Steinhorn
Janice
> On Aug 10, 11:07 pm, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
> . . .
> > > Maybe it's time I asked a pointed question. How is the world a better place
> > today because of anything hippies did or said in the 1960s?
>
> This book answers your question.
>
> The Greater Generation: In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy
>
> by Leonard Steinhorn
Thanks for this pointer Marcus. Here's an extract from a Publisher's
Weekly review:
"And despite an apparent conservative turn in America, says Steinhorn,
boomer values have in fact permeated our society to the point where a
younger generation takes them for granted. This powerful book by
Steinhorn, a professor at American University's School of
Communications, reminds us that boomers continue to provide the
methods and the impetus that are moving many young people today to
challenge political arrogance, deceit and jingoism. "
(And all because everyone turned in their black & white TV's for the
new ones in living color...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STQE5wCkEjc
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are we gonna do Bob?
Well we're safe for now, thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
badlands420
>(And all because everyone turned in their black & white TV's for the
>new ones in living color...)
Shit, we didn't have a color TV in our house until about 1982.
Janice
>
But you knew that they existed, and probably had seen one before.
This wasn't about acquisition -- this was about a new paradigm of
perception... people actually believed their dreams were all in black
and white because that's what they saw on TV.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
badlands420
>people actually believed their dreams were all in black
>and white because that's what they saw on TV.
Sometimes my dreams are in sepia. Guess that means I'm terribly
old-fashioned.
crazytimes
> I think it's partly valid. The belief in one's power to change the world
> idea was also partly what it was about. Politics were so different then. The
> music was a huge part of it. The economy was part of it. The assasinations
> were a big factor. The strength of the amazing communal-ness of people of a
> like sensibility was a giant part of it. The constant restless hungry
> roving feeling that sent so many out all around the world was a big part.
> The questioning everything and sense of endless possibilties was part. Yes,
> also drugs with little sense yet of a downside was part, not to mention the
> splitting open of sexual mores.
I was thinking more in terms of what those generations had been
brought up on, and not necessarily the political movements they
fostered... A friend of mine in college who was older said that the
60s 'was not a good time for women or minorities'... She didn't quite
elaborate, but she probably meant that they were oppressed to some
degree... Is the whole Greatest Generation myth is true to a certain
extent?... After helping rescue the rest of the world in WWII (Russia
and China suffered the worst losses), afterward, America was, at least
for a while, absolved through time and distance and deed, of its own
past horror stories (Indian genocide, slavery, etc., even if Jim Crow
was still going on)... But maybe, just maybe, for a couple years
there (or at least a few weeks) in the late 40s, everything was okay
(like, if you weren't dirt poor, or maybe even if you were dirt
poor)... I dont' know... There was just something about the
generations that didn't grow up watching TV, punching computers, and
scanning barcodes; they still had their foot in the 19th century,
because many of them had been born then and by way of their
grandparents still being around... When I was a toddler, there were
still people alive who were around in the 1870s... When someone like
Bob was a toddler, there were people around who had smelled the 1840s
and had fought in the Civil War... People's lives reach back all the
way from when their oldest living grandparent was born (f that
grandparent/great-grand is still around when one is born)... To think
that the 20th century was over in a flash in the real scope of time;
it's constituted existence for, well, the last 100 years; anyone born
then will be referencing it for the rest of their lives... If that's
all one's ever known, I suppose it's natural... But it's not going to
be quite the same when the oldest living people are the ones who were
born in the late 1950s, early 60s... Maybe the real question is:
was there really ever a golden age during the last two centuries (or
thousand years, for that matter), and if there was one, when was
it?... Maybe the 70s weren't so bad after all... at least the late
70s...
marcus
For both of us.
You fit into a category of Americans born roughly between 1965-1975,
who diss the Sixties, and what it represents. It's a combination of
envy, tired of hearing older sibling or parents talk about the
Sixties, and a feeling of having missed out on those times that
dictates those individuals in their rebuke of the Sixties.
badlands420
>You fit into a category of Americans born roughly between 1965-1975,
>who diss the Sixties, and what it represents.
Fortunately, I don't fit into the category of Americans who say "diss" as
though it were an actual word. Or, for that matter, the category of
Americans who presume to announce to other people what their own thoughts
are. If this sort of stupefying arrogance is a byproduct of having lived
through the 60s, I'm sure glad I missed them.
>It's a combination of
envy,
Hilarious.
>tired of hearing older sibling or parents talk about the
Sixties,
Beyond hilarious.
>and a feeling of having missed out on those times
Stop it, you're gonna make me pee myself.
marcus
>
Or, for that matter, the category of
> Americans who presume to announce to other people what their own thoughts
> are.
This would seem not to be the case...as you responded with something
resembling thoughts.
FWIW, the assessment in my previous email was not made from arrogance,
but from experience. Before, you indicated when you were born, I had
all ready guessed the approximate time period based on discussions
with others online and in real time.
badlands420
>FWIW, the assessment in my previous email was not made from arrogance,
>but from experience. Before, you indicated when you were born, I had
>all ready guessed the approximate time period based on discussions
>with others online and in real time.
Yeah, that's a totally airtight logical framework. I think I'll try it out.
I used to know a guy named Marcus who liked to fuck sheep, therefore you
like to fuck sheep too.
Awesome!
gemjack
<crazyt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>America was, at least
>for a while, absolved through time and distance and deed, of its own
>past horror stories (Indian genocide, slavery, etc., even if Jim Crow
>was still going on)...
I drove down a road today called Jim Crow Rd.
-GJ
SunDog
> Maybe the real question is:
> was there really ever a golden age during the last two centuries (or
> thousand years, for that matter), and if there was one, when was
> it?...
I think there's always been people who remember a simpler, quieter
time and idealize it.
Others remember those same times as not so good.
And there's always been people who find those people boring.
SunDog
badlands420
I think there's always been people who remember a simpler, quieter
time and idealize it.
Others remember those same times as not so good.
And there's always been people who find those people boring.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not really the 60s in particular, I just find rose-colored nostalgia to
be an annoying and tiresome exercise. The desire to idealize the "good ol'
days," whenever they might have been, is something that escapes me entirely.
melia
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:50:17 -0700 (PDT), crazytimes
>
> >America was, at least
> >for a while, absolved through time and distance and deed, of its own
> >past horror stories (Indian genocide, slavery, etc., even if Jim Crow
> >was still going on)...
>
> I drove down a road today called Jim Crow Rd.
> -GJ
and.... ?
gemjack
Took a left at the end. You should've been there.
-GJ
marcus
>> I used to know a guy named Marcus who liked to fuck sheep, therefore you
> like to fuck sheep too.
I'll bet that's still funny to you every time you re-read it.
You are a bit of an anomaly, usually the hardcore group of Americans,
who resent the transformation of society in the Sixties, were born in
the mid-to-late 1960s.
badlands420
> I'll bet that's still funny to you every time you re-read it.
I'm only reading it for the second time because you quoted it, and yes, it's
still funny.
>You are a bit of an anomaly, usually the hardcore group of Americans,
>who resent the transformation of society in the Sixties, were born in
>the mid-to-late 1960s.
So tell me, which erectile dysfunction pill is best for sheep fucking?
badlands420
> Me, I'm just wondering what the hubbub about the '60s "transformation"
> was,
The 60s generation made it socially acceptable to be an unemployed drug
addict, as long as you flashed a lot of peace signs and said bad things
about "the man."
marcus
>
>
> So tell me, which erectile dysfunction pill is best for sheep fucking?
Ewe should know.
melia
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:53:22 -0700, "badlands420"
>
> <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
>
> >> So, go on you young whippersnappers dismissing the 60s with hip, arch,
> >> disdain. It's the currency of today and the foreseeable future. You are
> >> assured of fitting in and being cool.
>
> >Don't get me wrong, whatever I say that's dismissive about the 60s does not
> >extend to music. If I could pick any 10-year period to live in based on the
> >quality of the music, it would be 1955-1965, hands down.
>
> I'm partial to 65-75 myself. Haven't we discussed this before?
> -GJ
So much happened to me during those years. Changes, changes, changes..
Yet I don't remember discussing this before, on this board.
It's okay.
melia
> I have not yet understood the meaning of this expression, I should be
> so blessed. You and/or someone else explains?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Something along the lines of "That's not true, but I wish it was."
Something strange about this sentence. Can't quite put my finger on
what it is.
It's okay.
melia
Thus m says:
"Choose well what you wish to remember and remember what you desire to
establish (on earth).
Janice
> On Aug 11, 1:09 am, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
>
> > > I have not yet understood the meaning of this expression, I should be
> > > so blessed. You and/or someone else explains?
>
> > Something along the lines of "That's not true, but I wish it was."
> Something strange about this sentence. Can't quite put my finger on
> what it is.
Well, badlands was close. I used the phrase more in the sense of
"What a wonderful thing it would be if I had a gift for words
comparable to Dylan's (but of course I do not)."
And Namaste to you, Melia. . . might need some of that for this
thread, soon.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phil Ochs
> You fit into a category of Americans born roughly between 1965-1975,
> who diss the Sixties, and what it represents. It's a combination of
> envy, tired of hearing older sibling or parents talk about the
> Sixties, and a feeling of having missed out on those times that
> dictates those individuals in their rebuke of the Sixties.
Very well put. A ton of propaganda during the Reagan/Bush years of kids
born in these years feed a lot of this misinformation. History will show
just how important the "60's"era was. It will also expose the Reagan/
Bush era for the damage they caused.
badlands420
> Very well put. A ton of propaganda during the Reagan/Bush years of kids
> born in these years feed a lot of this misinformation.
1. What propaganda?
2. Why just the Reagan/Bush years?
susan monsky
> On Aug 11, 11:06 am, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 11:07 pm, "badlands420" <mikeh...@uranus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Maybe it's time I asked a pointed question. How is the world a better place
> > > today because of anything hippies did or said in the 1960s?
>
> > This book answers your question.
>
> > The Greater Generation: In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy
>
> > by Leonard Steinhorn
>
> In education, the sixties were the beginning of more open admissions
> achieved by lowering entrance requirements on tests and grade
> averages. Identity politics had its start. Concepts like justice
> were called 'bourgeois', used by the 'oppressor class' to rule the
> majority. Some important post-modern types claimed that the term had
> no intrinsic, relevant meaning. Junk laid waste to huge parts of
> black America. The downtowns of many great cities burned in riots,
> never to return. We got involved in a 15-year war in Indochina from
> which we still haven't fully recovered. We started to become a
> service, information-driven economy at the expense of manufacturing.
> This led to future unemployment, depressed wages and more wealth
> concentrated in fewer hands. Corporate America co-opted feminism to
> create a large and cheap labor pool. Divorce and teenage pregnancy
> skyrocketed. Teenage alcohol and drug use exploded, with many fatal
> overdoses. Musical theatre ended for all intents and purposes.
> Orwell's 1984 dystopia was a reality for millions and millions of
> people worldwide and millions were sentenced to Gulags. Two Kennedys
> (one a president) and ML King were murdered. Two times we almost had
> thermonuclear war. Jazz devolved into confusion--I mean, fusion--and
> lost a big part of its audience. There was a massive proliferation of
> pornography. But there was a lot of good rock music.
Yeah, the 60's were pretty far out. But I wish I had been a part of
the BaBongo Pygmy culture in what's now the Central African Republic
in, say, the 14th century, smoking the good leaf in our mongulu huts,
then foraying out looking for elephants to jab. Oh, the celebratory
dances had upon return to the village!
gemjack
<sfmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah, the 60's were pretty far out. But I wish I had been a part of
>the BaBongo Pygmy culture in what's now the Central African Republic
>in, say, the 14th century, smoking the good leaf in our mongulu huts,
>then foraying out looking for elephants to jab. Oh, the celebratory
>dances had upon return to the village!
I was just about to say that.
-GJ
vernon_...@hotmail.com
Jabbing elephants is never right. But I'm loving your post, Susan.
Mr Jinx
Willie
Whoops, I posted the Pygmy envy bit not realizing my wife (Susan), not
I, was signed in.
I saw a PBS show on pygmies maybe fifteen years ago where it showed
them smoke up, then hunt down an elephant, and one of the daring among
them runs under and spears it. They then follow it for days until its
agonized death, whereupon a runner takes the ear or tail back to
village where a great whooping and dancing commotion ensues. Pretty
grim, but I guess folks get hungry.
But I was thinking, yes, there were wild times in the 60's--my friends
and I rigged up a schoolbus with bunk beds, cabinets, and a potbelly
stove and crossed Canada from Vermont to an amazing beach scene on the
west side of Vancouver Island, eventually returning east hooked up to
the 60-bus Steven Gaskin caravan--now The Farm. This was '69/'70, and
in Canada there were so many kids on the road that we usually had 20
in the bus when we'd roll into a city and drop them at the hostels
that Canada had set up.
Anyway, I imagine there were far wilder times and places. Check out
Cormac McCarthy's account of northen Mexico in "Blood Meridian" (well,
that's fiction). How about those outlandish scenes when John Adams
visits the French court in the "John Adams" TV series (Marilyn Manson,
eat your heart out). I suppose experiencing an actual Revolution would
be exciting. Not much hope of us, old or young, expereincing that.
- Willie
> Mr Jinx- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just Walkin'
Shame too. The spontaneous awakening our nation's young during the
sixties to civil rights and war related issues and its rejection of
McCarthy-era values (thanks, in part, to Bob) was so scary to our
nation's rulers, they concocted a plan - MKULTRA - to screw it up and
use its cultural affectations to drive a wedge between the generations
using Buntner, NC and Vacaville, CA behavior mod experiments like Tim
Leary and the like to lead the kids away from their folks. "Turn on,
tune in and drop out," I remember hearing him say on the readily-
granted national platform called The Tonight Show. Afterwards, it was
easy to define the generation for itself, and perpetuate this
"definition" through propaganda techniques that would make Edward
Bernays blush.
Does anyone really think the hippie bozos shown on Dragnet (or even
Laugh In) were really the way it was back then?
Watch out: It's gonna' happen again, soon as the kids wake up to the
muck and mire around us, you wait and see!
tif
> Whoops, I posted the Pygmy envy bit not realizing my wife (Susan), not
> I, was signed in.
>
> I saw a PBS show on pygmies maybe fifteen years ago where it showed
> them smoke up, then hunt down an elephant, and one of the daring among
> them runs under and spears it. They then follow it for days until its
> agonized death, whereupon a runner takes the ear or tail back to
> village where a great whooping and dancing commotion ensues. Pretty
> grim, but I guess folks get hungry.
>
> But I was thinking, yes, there were wild times in the 60's--my friends
> and I rigged up a schoolbus with bunk beds, cabinets, and a potbelly
> stove and crossed Canada from Vermont to an amazing beach scene on the
> west side of Vancouver Island, eventually returning east hooked up to
> the 60-bus Steven Gaskin caravan--now The Farm. This was '69/'70, and
> in Canada there were so many kids on the road that we usually had 20
> in the bus when we'd roll into a city and drop them at the hostels
> that Canada had set up.
>
> Anyway, I imagine there were far wilder times and places. Check out
> Cormac McCarthy's account of northen Mexico in "Blood Meridian" (well,
> that's fiction). How about those outlandish scenes when John Adams
> visits the French court in the "John Adams" TV series (Marilyn Manson,
> eat your heart out). I suppose experiencing an actual Revolution would
> be exciting. Not much hope of us, old or young, expereincing that.
>
> - Willie
Not a revolution but plenty of change. There are opportunities
revealing themselves to those who have eyes to see and are courageous
enough to transform.
Excitement is, well exciting. Serenity too, in its own special way.
marcus
I Didn't Go To Woodstock, But I Was There
"If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliche that must have been
left behind in the Sixties, that's their problem. Love and peace are
eternal."
John Lennon
Forty years ago, a miracle happened on a farm. The Sixties Generation
came together in a unified cosmic gathering on a pasture in Bethel
NY. I wasn't one of them, but I was there in spirit.
It was mostly about music, but it wasn't just about the music. A
generation, coming of age, tried to wake up their parents and
grandparents from a zombie-like conformity. The young showing the old
how to live, how to feel, how to be...not to settle for what was
"expected" of them.
I'm sure you've heard a description of the Woodstock event as one in
which hundreds of thousands of young people came together in peace,
harmony, and non-violence. And that is true...that's exactly what did
happen. However, that summary is usually spun by the mainstream media
"conventional wisdom" as an example of the naivete, and demise of the
Sixties Generation...but that's not what happened. Instead, that
Woodstock spirit left an imprint in the hearts and minds of those who
attended, and in some cases, in those who weren't there...something
they carried with them into the lives they would lead in the coming
decades.
That's what happened to me. I wasn't able to go to Woodstock, but its
contagious happiness and glory found a willing 19 year old in
1969...so much to the point that I feel like I was there. It's a
feeling that is always at the core of my being, even when things seem
terrible...polar opposites from the Woodstock Nation...I can summon
this good faith of peace, love and understanding...and it's
there...like a beacon in the night...perpetually guiding me.
The cynics and naysayers think that the ideals of Woodstock
disappeared the day the festival was over. How wrong they are. Many
of those affected by the harmony generated in those three days used
that energy in new ideas, innovations...to think globally and act
locally, influencing society no matter where in the USA they lived.
And that really was the whole emphasis behind the Woodstock
legacy...each person is an individual, but everyone is part of a
larger idea for the greater good.
The good news is that those who carry the Woodstock spirit are still
very much alive, a group of aging people unlike any other older
generation to come before it. They are still thriving, contributing
to their communities, and becoming mentors to those born years after
the bands left the stage at Yasgur's Farm.
Marcus
If you remember the Sixties...you WERE there. ;-)
Just Walkin'
>
The best thing about Woodstock was the sense of community it had
instilled in all who were open to it.
The worst thing is that it was turned against us.
badlands420
>The cynics and naysayers think that the ideals of Woodstock
>disappeared the day the festival was over. How wrong they are.
Right, because everywhere I go I still see people wallowing around in their
own feces and treating nature like their own personal garbage can. Woodstock
rules.
Janice
Hotdamn :) Good on ya.
Here is a YouTube posted by dudley not so long ago which I think
captures the sense of what you are saying ... I think it bears
repeating. The kid in the middle is Tao Rodriguez Seeger, Pete's
son. Pete turns 90 this year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSF89swJ9IU
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~