Woodstock 69 was a music festival for major rock headliners with a goal of making a pile of money & advertised using the zeitgeist of the time.
Woodstock 99 was a music festival for major rock headliners with a goal of making a pile of money & advertised using nostalgia for the previous one.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Under "In Comments"...
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
...
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
...
> Please don't post shallow dismissals...
* the strongest plausible interpretation is that I re-framed the part of the post I was responding to into the viewpoint of an event organizer before the outcome of said event was known. I think "being rude and shallowly dismissing it" is not the strongest plausible interpretation, but rather a shallow dismissal of my comment.
* I believe you are not assuming good faith in my statement.
* how is it snarky?
* how is it rude?
I have no idea how it could be plausibly have been interpreted as disrespectful to anyone merely reading the exchange - would you mind enlightening me on how I insulted you?
You're not wrong about the difference in vibes. And there were plenty of other music festivals in the 90s that did feature lineups more akin to the original Woodstock... But those festivals were pretty small in comparison, because the main thrust of popular music had changed so drastically in the decades since the original.
And attendance will ultimately limit the amount of money everyone can make--organizers, bands, vendors, drug dealers, etc. The money provides a strong motivation to cater to current popular tastes, because the festival has a bigger potential audience.
And given how well-attended the festival turned out to be, I think it's safe to say that they were right... If only a couple of thousand people had turned up, that would be a different story.
Pick one. You can’t have both. :P
btw I am a huge fan of both Korn (they are the best-sounding act I have ever heard live, Daft Punk included) - and the psychedelic rock that is far more appropriate for such a festival, like MGMT, the Flaming Lips, Zeppelin, etc.
I’m just saying even though they were popular ‘rock’ acts at the time, I’d argue actually that these bands fall closer to the ‘metal’ and ‘nu-metal’ genres.
Regardless, Fred Durst literally told people to destroy shit, and they did.
Exactly.
> Regardless, Fred Durst literally told people to destroy shit, and they did.
As one of the biggest rock bands in the world at the time should do. That's the point of a rock concert (especially a hard rock/metal show). Some level of chaos/destruction should be expected.
I don't really understand where this notion that everything needs to be bubble-wrapped came from (that's partially a lie, as it clearly comes from culture getting too obsessed with safety combined with the loss of nuance). A few years back I was in the mosh pit at a Nine Inch Nails show and bumped into a girl (during this song [1]) who was standing right in the front at the middle. She gave me a dirty look and all I could think to shout was "you're in the front row at a f*cking Nine Inch Nails concert."
No. That's what the back and the balcony (or your couch) are for.
I actually take offense to this position because it's so counter-intuitive to the spirit of the music. It's a METAL show not a Steely Dan performance. If you can't handle that, stay home.
People were getting trampled after falling down in the mosh pit, and there were several reports of gang rapes happening amidst the chaos. It's not really justifiable behaviour
You wouldn't go to Sea World and expect to not get splashed.
[1] Not this one, but same energy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-lxwlgyhhA