My generation---the YouTube generation, the Facebook generation, the Obama generation (however, you want to characterize it) ---isn't struggling. We aren't overwhelmingly up against a society and culture who refuses to accept us for who we are.
There are some exceptions. Gays and lesbians and those skeptical of the role of religion, patriotism, and politics plays in society could give some significance to the festival.
Unlike the Woodstock generation, with so many outlets of expression, with technology giving an entire generation a voice, and with the recent "campaign for change" that Obama embarked on and won with the help of young people, the overwhelming opinion among my generation is a belief that our generation can be accepted for who we are.
This means any festival with young people at the helm---even if organized by articulate, intelligent, artistic, culturally and politically savvy minds---would most likely find those in attendance just don't quite get the point of having a cultural event devoid of politics which can give culture a chance to stand on its own and make a political statement just by simply being about the festival itself.
Lack of imagination would lead many in my generation to wonder what the point was and why it would matter.
Maybe the music would be enough to get hundreds of thousands from my generation excited. But what music would they travel to hear? Who would the musical acts be? What would the criteria for selection be?
Let's say we apply the same criteria the Woodstock organizers had for Woodstock in 1969. Blues, classic rock and roll, acid rock, pop, and folk acts would be invited with the idea in mind that "kids of the counterculture" cannot be "pigeonholed in their musical tastes."
Keeping in mind the fact that few of the acts that played Woodstock were experiencing huge success and keeping in mind the fact that we don't want to invite anybody with so much stardom that they eclipse the importance of the festival itself (Woodstock organizers didn't want to invite the Beatles or Stones for this reason), the bands and artists invited would have to be recently formed bands or bands with a good concert following.
Today, the festival would have to incorporate soul, rap, and hip-hop too. (Woodstock meets Wattstax?)
I would like to develop a bill that represents who I think should play music at the "next Woodstock." I'm thinking of Todd Snider, James McMurtry, Regina Spektor, White Denim, Mos Def, Blitzen Trapper, Dent May & His Magnificent Ukulele, Angelique Kidjo, Raphael Saadiq, and other indie/folk/rap acts.
I would include a few acts that were as well known as Jimi Hendrix or The Who was in 1969, but I am not sure who those acts would be.
I could continue to pick apart the idiosyncrasies of Woodstock for another hour and figure out how to replicate it. But, see, isn't that the problem? Isn't that why Woodstock '94 and '99 may were maybe good for the music but lacked the cultural or political significance of the Woodstock '69?
All this thinking about what a festival like Woodstock would be if done today just makes me think of how much my generation does not have culture. The "counterculture" ---those who reject the current music of the day --- choose to listen to the kind of music that was played at Woodstock.
We listen to the pioneers of rock music. We love Hendrix, the Dead, Led Zeppelin, the Doors, the Who, the Beatles, the Stones, and we support the commercialization of this culture by buying T-shirts and other merchandise with band pictures and logos and symbols of peace, love and rock n' roll on them.
How disappointing is it that we lived under a criminal Bush Administration which had utter disregard for peace and love and nobody in Generation Y produced an anthem comparable to Country Joe's "I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die" or a rendition of America's national anthem like Jimi Hendrix's "Star Spangled Banner," which plugged into all the emotional turmoil of the time to create something which rebuked war and inequity in society?
We also terribly misunderstand the role LSD and marijuana played in the creation of music & art during the Sixties. Our conception of drugs has been trivialized and ruined by films that turn drugs into a joke and by music lyrics that cheapen the use of drugs. We do not buy into the idea of using it to open our minds, enhance our spirit, and move from between our conscience and subconscience.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
