I was there in a semi-professional capacity. AT&T Labs had developed a multi-channel 3D microphone array and we hung it above the emerging artists' stage. I didn't stay overnight at the facility, so I only saw the degradation when I arrived in the morning. The second day we came in, all the commercial tents were soaked with urine and every trash can had been dumped out and piled up to form a massive all-day drum circle. We left before things got really bad, but it was obvious they were headed in an ugly direction (largely, I think, due to deliberate neglect and extractive behavior.)
On the bright side: the scientists at the Labs were very pleased with the microphone's performance, since (sitting in a room with six speakers) you could clearly hear the drum circle behind and outside the stage doors.
See also: the first track of Infrared Roses, which was recorded in a Grateful Dead parking lot before a show. Excellent audio/acoustics although unfortunately, it's "just stereo".
Microphones in all horizontal directions and two in the vertical, hung by a wire from the ceiling of a venue. We recorded the results using an Alesis ADAT 8-track multitrack (swapping VHS tapes was my very important job.) The "secret sauce" was some kind of binaural post-processing that allowed you to hear all three dimensions through a horizontal array of speakers, but I never got into those details.
The goal was ultimately to stream extremely high-quality concert audio to the home: people felt that stereo and even 5.1 was too restrictive. This was in the early days when everyone was trying to find killer apps for high-bandwidth broadband connections, so sure, why not.
ETA-- Another memorable experience in this project was playing the Woodstock tapes for Jimmy Buffett when he flew his seaplane in to check out the technology. We were very careful to point out that you could hear the drum circle :)
I worked concession at Woodstock 99 (and 94) for a non-profit. Woodstock’s management, to maximize their profits, required attendees to exchange their currency for wooden scrip which they’d use to purchase merchandise from vendors. The non-profits would get allocated food and beverages to sell. However they didn’t plan for there to be enough vendors or change boxes to meet the demand. Lines grew extremely long. And, riots would break out because people wouldn’t have enough water and food. To deal with the riots, the management would just shut down all of the vendors and take their change boxes. I would have this parched mob groping me for water, but had no means of exchange. Customers just started throwing $20s and $50s at us just for bottles of water. We didn’t know what to do, we were just kids. But it made sense to keep taking their money just so we wouldn’t get mobbed.
> Woodstock’s management, to maximize their profits, required attendees to exchange their currency for wooden scrip which they’d use to purchase merchandise from vendors.
Not in '99 they didn't. There were ATM machines everywhere, and famously, they were the first things to be set on fire and plundered.
If they had, seems like there would be more memorabilia of keeping these tokens? There are many from 1994 - are you misremembering?
Yeah, no big deal, really. The addition of Woodstock Bucks would have made '99 even more crazy. I couldn't imagine the backlash from thousands of people holding onto worthless tokens after what happened on the last night, and management potentially making the worst decision possible on if they should/should not trade them in for cash (saying nothing about you, the vendors!)
I was there too. I was also 17, and went with a group of friends and a dad who was an MD that volunteered for the medical building. We met Wyclef Jean who got treated there after burning his hand.
It was quite an experience. Being a relatively sheltered nerd it was pretty mind blowing. Drugs, naked people everywhere, it was like this insane debauchery I had never encountered in my life before.
Everything people say about the mismanagement is true. I've never since seen such a badly managed event. I have no idea how the organizers avoided prison sentences for their neglect.
It was super hot, and you had to pay some insane price just to get a bottle of water. People were literally passed out from dehydration. For food, you could get a bag of fries for like 8 bucks. None of the porta potties were cleaned out after the first day, and there was water flooding all the tent areas. We left a day early cause it got so bad, so I fortunately missed the complete meltdown that happened.
Was '99 any worse than the original? I seem to remember hearing similar unsavory things so I guess why was there an expectation that '99 would be any less tenuous?
Either way, these large festivals are almost a self-parody at this point and all have stories about how the venues were unprepared, the festival goers using them as justification to do all sorts of illegal things and just a general shit show.
I've been to several big festivals and they were run just fine, I didn't see anything I hadn't also seen on busy streets in SF (less actually). People without the proper experience hosting a festival for tens of thousands of people does end in failure, but plenty of festivals are actually prepared and organized for what goes on. If people taking off their clothes and doing drugs while dancing and experiencing music disturbs you, a music festival isn't for you, but it's also one of the oldest organized human activities.
I can't give a first hand account of either, but yes Woodstock '99 was generally considered much more violent than the original, which was expressed in various ways: vandalism/looting, setting fires, rapes.
Maybe the original festival had some similar instances but the intensity and frequency of them was considered much greater in '99.
I remember hearing about Woodstock 99 in the news during that time. That there were "problems". That documentary was pretty shocking. I hadn't realized it was that bad / chaotic.
i've been to ACL ( Austin City Limits ) probably a dozen times by now. I would say it's pretty well run or at last as well run as a huge festival can be. There's always going to be people smoking weed or passed out in the bushes at large music festivals. I think the difference in a well run festival is well run utilities ( bathrooms and trash management ) and relief from bad weather like cooling tents, water bottle refill stations and things like that.
on the other hand, sometimes things just get out of control. A decade or two ago I was at lollapoloza (not very big) in Dallas at a large amphitheater and for some reason everyone started lightning these huge bonfires all over the place and it just went downhill from there. It just got totally out of control.
I don't know, I went to outside lands(SF) for three years straight 2011-2013 and it wasn't too bad, not being able to leave and come back in during the day was horrible(they wanted you to eat over priced food inside the festival) but everything else was pretty great(water stations, bathrooms pretty clean for a festival). I also don't hear alot of bad stuff around Cochella and it has truly massive crowds. I think woodstock 99 really was poorly run which is why we haven't seen another one since.
I went to Outside Lands in 2018 and it was well run except for the crowds- lots of crushing, to the point where it was borderline dangerous to be near the front.
I mean…absolutely. The original Woodstock was as seedy as any other music festival. I used to perform at festivals as a semi-touring musician, but the culture, even at its best, is questionable. I quit when I found serious evidence of human trafficking going on at some fairly mainstream festivals.
But I mean, come on. People weren’t setting fire to shit. There wasn’t this massively widespread destruction of property, riots or violence in the original Woodstock. It was just sketch. There’s a huge difference.
I don't hear these types of stories about Glastonbury, or Download, or Coachella, or Rock in Japan or other large festivals that happen (nearly) every year. Am I just not finding them?
Glastonbury in the early 90s — before The Fence went up, and while Travellers still got free entry — was pretty iffy in terms of safety.
A lot of the demonisation of travellers at the time was apocryphal in the end. It feels like a community that is well and truly over except for the kind of Native Reservation that is Croissant Neuf, a place where middle class teenagers can gawp at the dreadlocked cider drinking crusty savages.
You missed Reading off your list. The first time I went to that festival, in the 2000s, was fascinating. I remember being astonished at how combustable solid human waste was when confined in a long drop toilet. Once the “water” content had been boiled off by the initial tire fire it would really start to burn. Jaw dropping.
By "Travellers" do you mean, 'new age travellers' (aka hippies) or the thieving scrotes who live a 'traditional way of life' badly tarmacing driveways?
The former still attend Glastonbury for free (they clean up the site for 'free' entry); the latter are a menace who started to show up and whom I'm glad the fence has now kept out.
Why is this comment downvoted? It is perfectly legitimate.
If you disagree with it, post a response, don't just lazily click downvote. This isn't Reddit. Downvoting is for replies that distract from the conversation, not for replies you don't agree with FFS.
I've seen documentaries about Woodstocks and the difference is the market catered to. It went from a fairly chill group of acts and attendees at a venue that was not prepared to aggressive acts catering to young white males resulting in mayhem.
Honestly reads like some bizarre social experiment by the organizers. Conditions degrade for a few days and then put Limp Bizkit on stage to play "Break" for an angry audience. Give everyone candles and then have RHCP play "Fire". C'mon.
Crowds are incredibly stupid and malleable. Someone knew things would get out of hand.
I'm imagining a Let's Do It And Be Legends type with an extra dash of sociopathy who had just watched an edgy Discovery Channel show about the Stanford Prison Experiment and thought, "If we don't call it an experiment, we don't need to worry about experimental ethics [taps head]."
I don't understand how anyone can enjoy themselves in crowds that big. It sucks! Maybe it's just because I'm short, but being in between that many people is just not fun at all, no matter who's performing. You're totally surrounded by strangers who are bumping into you the entire time and it's way too easy to get separated from your friend group.
when it comes together just right the huge crowd of strangers you're packed in with ceases to exist and that whole blob of humanity becomes one thing participating in an experience. It's rare but when it happens it's truly amazing, i think a lot of festival and concert goers chase that feeling.
I am on the taller side, but I feel the same way you do. All the bumping and shoving is so distracting that it's hard to enjoy the music. Crowding makes any event a tiring and stressful experience.
Beyond that, if the music is good, I am going to want to dance - but how can you dance in a crowd? Any way you move, you're going to bump into someone. So you are stuck just sort of awkwardly standing there, pulling your elbows in, nodding your head a little.
I basically just won't go to indoor shows or mass events anymore. Give me the wide open desert sky and a couple hundred technohippies with a bonfire and a sound system instead; that's heaven.
i remember that, why would you book bands like limp biscuit and korn for Woodstock? To me the original Woodstock vibe was the peace and free love part of the 60s counterculture. peace and love is not a feeling you get from korn in those times. didn't Blind come out about that time? The cover art was an implied violent abduction of a little girl. i doubt that would fly these days...
To be fair, your suggestion that the person above thinks „making money justifies rape and death“ ist pretty far fetched. They basically said „if you want a big festival you book popular band“ and you said „so you thinks rape is okay?“. No that’s not what they said.
Suggesting the thinks the result is „okay“ because they gave a - imho totally reasonable - explanation for a decision someone made some ~23 years ago is pretty disingenuous at least.
Your reply strikes me as snarky and rude. You could have phrased your comment differently, and made the exact same point, but without being disrespectful to everyone who has to read your reply.
> 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 reconsider your interpretation of what I said:
* 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?
> To me the original Woodstock vibe was the peace and free love part of the 60s counterculture. peace and love is not a feeling you get from korn in those times
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.
Both tried to get some of the largest bands of the counterculture, the sixties version of that had far more "peace and love" vibes. They could have done a new Woodstock where they went for reviving the hippy festival, but it was more profitable to go for relaunching the massive festival. Plus a billion hippy festivals exist.
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.
> >> Korn >> Hippies/Woodstock. Pick one. You can’t have both. :P
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."
You're right that chaos is the status quo, but have we stopped to consider that maybe it sucks? I love rock concerts, but I'll find somewhere relatively calm to watch from. I paid money to watch and listen to a band play, not to act like a maniac. A small percentage of the crowd actually wants to participate in a mosh pit, everyone else has to deal with it because "it's a rock show dude!"
> You're right that chaos is the status quo, but have we stopped to consider that maybe it sucks?
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.
Weird for you to gatekeep the metal genre, when in the Netflix docuseries for Woodstock 99 even the lead singer of Korn talks about how everyone should be able to enjoy a show without being assaulted
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
I'm not gatekeeping anything. I'm saying that you should consider the context/situation where you're at and not bring in your loaded expectations (i.e., gatekeeping in reverse) to force others into behaving how you please.
You wouldn't go to Sea World and expect to not get splashed.
I agree, I was into hardcore shows when I was a teenager. Hardcore shows are more violent in my opinion. My hands would get bruised up from hitting other people but no one gives a damn because everyone is aware that this is a hardcore show, not an Abba concert.
I promise you people do care. Just maybe if you’re the one hitting people you’re not being very considerate of their feelings and the concert experience.
It is not like I’m hitting their heads, but it is mostly our arms get caught up like a windmill or backstroke. Stage dives are brutal too but that’s just the hardcore scene.
Bingo. Me and a buddy went to a Dillinger Escape Plan [1] show and he walked out with a giant gash above his eye (affectionally nicknamed "The Dillinger") and a smile on his face.
Calculating Infinity is a game changer. I remember hearing it the first time, it’s just nuts and I loved it. 43% burnt will always be in my top hardcore playlists.
When I was 15 I went to see The Damned at Oxford Apollo, it was a good natured gig with a lively mosh pit, but as soon as they played Smash it Up the place went insane and a few rows of seats were ripped up. There was also a small riot outside when we came out as bored kids from a local estate had come into town to fight everyone leaving the gig. Spent half the night in a cell.
Woodstock 99 was more of a commercial endeavor and they booked the most popular acts of the time, which happened to be bands like Korn and Limp Bizkit unfortunately.
I don't think people appreciate just how violent the late 90's hard rock shows routinely were, and the mindset of the majority of the people attending them. Venues would routinely get trashed, large fights would break out, it was something else. Woodstock 99 turned out much like everyone would have expected it to at the time, just on a scale not previously seen.
> I don't think people appreciate just how violent the late 90's hard rock shows routinely were
this is true, i remember coming out of shows with blood splatters on my clothes. The mosh pits and things in front of the stages were basically just riots set to music.
edit: i may add that i distinctly remember walking on top of broken glass in those crowds. It's life threatening to fall down when it really gets going.
I didn't go but remember it being the end of the 90s decade with a thud. I've been to few festivals that decade and beyond (Phish in Worchester/Maine/NY, Lalapoloza in NJ, Solid Sound). Those seemed pretty well run, compared to what I'v heard about woodstock.
The one day festivals are easier. Anytime you have people camping out you can have problems (the solid sound and phish were well run but had camping). For the last Phish show we rented an RV and had 3 tents set up around it, instead of just tents. I guess we were porta-pottied out. Though were woken up from the hissing that some entrepreneurs had decided to set up a nitros tank/sales behind our RV (we asked them to move, they said sure, but did not, when 2more of us awakened and showed up around them, they moved...)
The bands you bring, bring their audience. Some audiences are more trouble than others. In my years at Boston Calling you could tell the headlining Metalica and Tool fans apart from a lot of the rest. To be fair everyone at those shows was well behaved and you could see those fans at a lot of other bands shows. One of the Documentaries on the woodstock 99 points out, just 3 female bands, and a lot of bands popular with young guys might have been part of the issue. I mean mosh pits were a real thing in the 90s. I went into a few, but some shows I honestly wouldn't go near them. [1]
Having a concert continue on when the fans are actively setting fires seems so surreal.
Bradley-J (a boston DJ) was there behind the stage, and had some good commentary on it which I can't find. My cousins friend (VH1 Matt) was there and had some scathing commentary when he talked about it.
There is a decent documentary about woodstock99 on HBO Max. Worth a look.
Its somewhat telling Coachella was also in 1999 and is still going strong.
I was at Woodstock '99, and I was fine. Things were hot, expensive. Moby asked everyone to pick up trash, I saw some good bands, I saw some bad bands, it was a long drive home.
As far as crazy events in my life, it barely registered. 9/11 wasn't long after and nothing could impact you like living through that. Hell, being in a band touring the country had more crazy things happen then just going to some dumb pop festival.
Great photos. Really captures a feeling of an era. And it's always fun to see personal, specific recollections of big events that have entered the collective consciousness.
I've watched the Netflix documentary and as someone who was 20 in 1999 I can only say that it played out exactly as expected considering the 90s, the bands and the organisation. It's really all on the organisers and it was shocking that they still completely refuse to acknowledge any responsibilities.
Now, I obviously wasn't there in 1969 but it's also possible that things like sexual assaults went unreported at the time because, realistically, people drunk and/or on drugs plus nudity is not the best combination at any time...
My best friend's dad was high up in Woodstock 99 corporate, which means he was responsible for making much of it run (yeah, I guess there were some issues ). We had backstage passes, a house, and a ... weird experience. Did some stupid things. Some highlights:
- We were on stage in the famous closing Red Hot Chili Peppers show (like in the wings, looking out on the audience from behind the band). That was surreal. We could see the fires start in the distance, stuff getting ripped down, things starting to sort of go to hell. All while, the most amazing band of the moment is playing the most amazing songs 30 feet away from us. Quite a contrast between awesomeness and ... whatever the strange mix of emotions riots give.
- We learned that there was no Mountain Dew in the whole event because Coke got the contract, so we went out and bought many cases, drove it in through our special entrance, and basically auctioned it off. People were willing to pay $5 a can. We made a lot of money. Pretty sketchy.
- Worse/weirder, we had a backpacks full of ice to hold the Mountain Dew in while we walked around the crowd selling it, and people started to offer to buy ice from us to cool off. So once we ran out of Mountain Dew, we started yelling "Ice is nice! We got ice!" and selling it. That ... well, I feel like that was me experiencing a real microcosm of capitalism and the allure of artificial scarcity ... and not acting the way I would hope . Give away the damn ice man.
- We kind of just walked around backstage and there were so many super famous people that none of them felt very special, and they'd just kind of talk to you while you were in line for food. Ice Cube had some cool sneakers that my friend chatted with him about. George Clinton was chill. I think we talked with Erykah Badu for a while at some point. (Stars are not at all like this backstage at a normal concert, btw, which we also did a lot because of his father. A their normal concerts, these same performers are the center of the universe, and don't have time to chat with a bunch of high schoolers running around.)
Anyway, it was a very strange event, and we had a very strange vantage point.
Last night I watched the new Trainwreck : Woodstock 99 doc on Netflix. I completely recommend watching
It exposes John Scher and all the greedy individuals that permanently destroyed Woodstock.
Instead of pointing the finger at the Nu metal artists they deliberately chose to perform and the $4 water dehydrated, trench mouthed, fecal ridden kids who inevitably became disgruntled enough to raise chaos.
i remember it was really really hot and water was basically like demand priced and then i think there basically a handful of porta-potties for everyone. Everyone was already miserable and then a couple bands whipped things up, things just broke down, and everyone went nuts. I remember the MTV people live on-air having to run off stage because people started throwing rocks and batteries or something at them. I may be remembering wrong, that was a long time ago.
What most strikes me about this write-up is how awful the bands are. 1999 was clearly a nadir for mainstream rock.
Even a truly graceful piece of writing (which this is not) is going to have trouble building a dramatic climax if it has to be soundtracked by Sevendust.
1999 was clearly a bad year for music but there were sets at that concert that would be great to see. The west stage closers were George Clinton, The Chemical Brothers and Megadeath.
You could also see Al Green, Willie Nelson, Ice Cube, Elvis Costello, etc.
Lots was wrong with that festival and dunking on Korn is as far as I can tell a universal indulgence but there was good music to be seen.
So, I hadn't looked, and now that I have, what we've established is that this is a writeup about how transformative Woodstock '99 was from someone who could have seen George Clinton, The Roots, Wyclef Jean, Metallica (albeit '99 Metallica), Rage, and Willie Nelson, and instead wrote about seeing Lit, Bush, The Offspring, Limp Bizkit, RHCP, and, again, I can't emphasize this enough, Sevendust.
I can't stand Korn (I've had the misfortune of seeing them live opening for other acts), but I don't begrudge anyone for liking them at the time, though I do begrudge anybody who enjoys Korn and finds a way to dismiss The Roots and Wyclef Jean.
Al Green, as it turns out, had to back out of the show. If you have an opportunity to see Al Green and you see Bush instead, you're not allowed to write about music anymore.
90's teenagers trying to restage what they thought the 70's (1969 actually) Woodstock was like in a really distorted manner... I think they should've asked their parents what peace and love really meant... they just remembered about the sex and rock'n roll, but didn't realize that the sex was supposed to be consensual, and freedom didn't mean use of violence.
Their parents could have told them about Bull Island. A disaster perhaps worse than Woodstock 99 headlined by those peace & love ambassadors Black Sabbath.
Freedom being synonymous with violence is a continuing problem in the US. Most of the people I know that wear a different "freedom" tshirt every other day are open champions for objectively less freedom for most individuals that aren't themselves. Gadsden flags and stickers abound, their particular interest being on the "me."
Nice pictures! Reminds me of my own Love Parade pictures I took in Berlin some years after. Berlin was good by the way, even more years later I experienced the tragedy in Duisburg from close up.
One thing I vividly remember from my first time at the Love Parade in Berlin is - just like this author tells about Woodstock '99 - all the trash knee-high in the gutter.
Was in Bethel Woods for the first time this summer to attend an Garbage/Alanis concert. Incredibly beautiful and large venue, in the middle of nowhere. The location is much more rural than I expected. Unfortunately missed the Woodstock Museum on site.
Lol. Griffis AFB, recently retired by the US govt. and the home of Woodstock ‘99 was my actual birth place, 40 years earlier, nearly to the day. August 3, 1959. My dad was an enlisted man in USAF and base medical services was all they could afford.
So, here's some cringe I didn't expect to read today:
>"Tragically, following the festival, there were also reportedly allegations of rape.... You couldn’t go more than five minutes without seeing a topless woman being fondled by a random stranger.
>With all of that said... there were still some beautiful moments during the concert’s last day."
Not sure if you're just trolling, but that's quite a different scenario. Mrs. Lincoln had a horrible personal experience, whereas the writer here had a great time personally. Though he recognized that the atmosphere surrounding the event was messed up, his prevailing memory of Woodstock '99 is that he got to see his favorite bands and be a part of this massive, generational experience. I don't see why that'd make him cringy, it's just human and honest to me.
> If anything, Woodstock taught me that nothing in this world is black and white; the capacity for both love and greed exist to some degree in all of us. The highest highs can come with the lowest lows; beauty can be corrupted. But mention Woodstock ’99 to me, and my initial feelings aren’t of guilt or disgust. They’re of joy, nostalgia, and the thrill of being able to utter the phrase, “Dude… I was there.”
I honestly don't know how I feel about this conclusion. It seems like a very whitewashed (pardon the pun) thing to say.
You could talk about the corporate gouging for water and food, which was extravagant. Or the lack of planning and safety traded in for profit which was so in vogue right before the dotcom boom and bust. They were supposed to provide free drinking water fountains, but provided like 1, and it didn't work right. Bottled water was ridiculously overpriced.
Even the Simpsons ragged on this, in 2001 in the episode "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Marge", Otto is at a concert where he gets set on fire and runs to the concession stand where Becky pours an 8 dollar bottle of water on him to put out the fire. That's when he knew it was love.
Or you could talk about how people can easily resort to mob action at a person on a stage shouting at them. That would have been a good lesson to learn maybe 20 years ago.
Or how consent has radically changed over the years, or if you will, consent is more respected than it was back then, and how that's a good thing.
This feeling of nostalgia almost points to the fact that we didn't learn. We just watched it go by and did what everyone does. We go home. We turn on the TV. We make the same mistakes again. It's almost this feeling of "yeah, there's good and bad on both sides, but let's not try to do better next time. it is what it is"
Maybe there was supposed to be another paragraph after this one (it feels like the article ends in a weird place, maybe got edited)? The title is that it destroyed your innocence. Which I guess is true, but usually you don't just lose it, you trade it for knowledge, and experience. In this case, I'm just not sure they did.
The entire premise of the article rests on the context that most coverage about Woodstock 99 are exactly those things you're criticizing this for not being.
In addition to all the lessons learned, both by society and this author, it still also functioned as a teenager's music festival experience. Just with seeing more shades of humanity than you get at a flawless festival.
The very point is that there are people who don't recall the event the way you want them to discuss it: as a sterile learning opportunity where every word they speak must be chosen to maximize the societal value they are able to impart.
> The entire premise of the article rests on the context that most coverage about Woodstock 99 are exactly those things you're criticizing it for not being.
I mean, fair enough if you want to say that the author wants to talk about something other than those issues, but they do call them out and talk about them as real, like the sexual assault part:
"Tragically, following the festival, there were also reportedly allegations of rape. And while I didn’t personally witness anything as serious as those accusations, I don’t find them at all hard to believe, given the tenor of the event by the end of the weekend. You couldn’t go more than five minutes without seeing a topless woman being fondled by a random stranger."
Then literally the next sentence plays it off almost as if this was said just to say he's not denying it, only to brush it off instead:
"With all of that said, even after hell had broken loose, there were still some beautiful moments during the concert’s last day"
It's almost like saying, it was crazy, and a lot of people got hurt, but you know what? I had fun. And I didn't get hurt. And that's what I remember.
> The very point is that there are people who don't recall the event the way you want them to discuss it: as a sterile learning opportunity where every word they speak must be chosen to maximize the societal value they are able to impart.
I think the point of the article is he does recall the event the way everyone else does - it was basically a literal shitshow. But again, he had fun. I don't care that he doesn't want to talk about what he wants to impart, but he's writing this specifically to impart something. And what he's imparting is his nostalgia: nostalgia, that act of taking a memory out of the disposal bin, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts, and recycling it for more than it's worth.
There are so many better ways to write this article if you want to talk about something other than what the documentaries are talking about. Here's some ideas I came up with in 2 minutes:
- I found my old Woodstock '99 photos, #7 will surprise you!
- Looking back at my Woodstock experience, then and now
- Toss it up in the air like you just don't care, the best part of Woodstock '99
- What I didn't see at Woodstock '99 but everyone else did
Or you know, talk about the reason why he was there. The music? What made it great? Did he go with his first love? Friends from high school that he misses now? He could easily play to the hype by saying "well that's what other people saw, but from my vantage, this is what was going on in my life"
But by spending pretty much most of the article saying either yeah it happened, yeah it happened, and then kind of say but I had fun, implying that it wasn't really that bad. It didn't really happen. That leads down the "It's all fake news" path.
> it was crazy, and a lot of people got hurt, but you know what? I had fun. And I didn't get hurt. And that's what I remember.
This is every time you have fun. How far away was the closest person being assaulted from you during your last joyful experience? Might have been the alley outside the restaurant. The more densely populated and/or poor the area, the closer it probably was. Festivals in particular are insanely densely populated and, in a narrow sense, "poor". There are probably robberies and assaults at every Wikipedia-scale gathering you or I have ever attended.
It's not some 17 year old's responsibility to police the wild festival, or to feel shame about it after learning after the fact that worse things happened there than they realized. Finish the sentence "he should have..." for the day things got crazy at the festival. Left the scene, and by so doing become less corrupted by the proximal sins of others? Suspected that the craziness would probably lead to serious crimes and gone around seeking them out and reporting them? Or is the important thing that he just change the way he feels about the festival now in hindsight?
I dunno what I was doing the day those bad things happened at that festival (I was in Colorado) but I was probably having a good time. And I don't regret it!
> There are probably robberies and assaults at every Wikipedia-scale gathering you or I have ever attended.
I mean, true, but when there are literal piles of flaming debris and the fun involves what other people might consider a riot, I think it's not like he didn't know what was going on.
Look at what happened with the twitchcon party thing with the open cups of alcohol and a bunch of people got drugged. Now that was just bad party planning as well, but for random attendees, I get it - they didn't know that some of the cups were spiked.
> Or is the important thing that he just change the way he feels about the festival now in hindsight?
He doesn't have to change the way he feels, but the way he presents what he feels very much sounds like denial to me. And if you're posting your feels on the internet, you have to put up with everyone else's (including mine)'s feels too. He could have just posted all the pictures on his very popular instagram and not written that he didn't see the bad things.
It would have been just as interesting, if not more, to let people draw their own conclusions based on the pictures.
> I dunno what I was doing the day those bad things happened at that festival (I was in Colorado) but I was probably having a good time. And I don't regret it!
Fair enough, but this is almost like someone saying they got married on 9/11 and that is why they had a great day so it wasn't as bad as people remember? It doesn't seem related at all if you weren't there.
> Look at what happened with the twitchcon party thing with the open cups of alcohol and a bunch of people got drugged. Now that was just bad party planning as well, but for random attendees, I get it - they didn't know that some of the cups were spiked.
That's a good example. What degree of responsibility do the innocent attendees of that twitchcon have for the misconduct that happened there? I'm not familiar with the whole story, but if it was a big thing I'm guess most weren't aware of it. It's interesting to consider how culpable, if at all, the attendees and influencers at the event were, as well as those who reported on it afterwards.
> Fair enough, but this is almost like someone saying they got married on 9/11 and that is why they had a great day so it wasn't as bad as people remember? It doesn't seem related at all if you weren't there.
For one I don't think the author ever said it "wasn't as bad as people remember". He's not making an effort to discount anybody's negative experience. He's just saying that it was indeed a bit of a shitshow and yet his 17 year old self still had a memorable and overall good time. And I think he acknowledges his own blindness to the really bad things that he learned later had happened, but he doesn't seem to take any blame upon himself for it, which to me is reasonable.
How about this example: I was at an occupy wall street protest where I learned later a lot of criminal activity was suspected to have occurred. Let's say I still see it as an overall positive experience and I don't regret having attended. Is that similar to where the author stands w.r.t. Woodstock `99?
> What degree of responsibility do the innocent attendees of that twitchcon have for the misconduct that happened there? I'm not familiar with the whole story, but if it was a big thing I'm guess most weren't aware of it. It's interesting to consider how culpable, if at all, the attendees and influencers at the event were, as well as those who reported on it afterwards.
Right, so it's actually really interesting and I'd ask that you go look up the details yourself, don't believe me obviously.
So basically the problem was, at the party, the organizers (twitch / amazon employees) took a bunch of cups, and filled them with alcohol, and set them on a table, beer pong style. Like just sitting there, open top, etc. And left them unattended.
Now - not only is this probably against some kind of alcohol serving rules or licensing problems, but it's also the opposite of what any bartender would do. Especially in Vegas or cities with a lot of clubs and people where drugging may be a problem, girls and bartenders know the rules:
1. If some stranger orders you a drink, you take the drink from the bartender, you don't let the stranger buy a drink, and bring it to you, since they might spike it on the way.
2. If a bartender pours out a drink and sets it on the bar, and the other person isn't in like visible sight of reaching out to pick it up, or looks distracted, they will watch the glass until it is retrieved, or put a coaster on top to prevent anyone from dropping something in the drink.
3. Obviously nobody is watching for people who may be showing signs of being drugged or too drunk, there's no cutoff line since it's more like a beer fridge than a bar. Bartenders are not supposed to serve you more alcohol, even if you ask for it, if they think you are too intoxicated. I think they might even be liable in some way if they don't.
Okay, so what happened here is almost exactly like what happened at Woodstock '99. Here's the parallels.
Twitch, owned by Amazon, in all its hubris and thinking about how great it was, decided for some reason that they would not hire a bartender to handle this for them. They thought they could handle it themselves. "It's just pouring out drinks, we remember this from college last year," they say. Ignorant? You bet. Evil intention? probably not. But they've never done food service, they've never run a party, especially not one with girls (only half joking here).
But overall they were violating obvious best practice that could have been found if they just contacted a professional or even did a google search. Hell, even talking to a woman would have probably brought up this problem. But they missed it.
So to put on my INTJ judicial robes for a moment, here's the punishments.
Amazon is guilty of gross negligence. They should have known better. The individual employees I think shouldn't be sued individually, and should be covered by Amazon's corporate liability insurance, which I'm sure is considerable. Also, of all the things they could have done for a party, why did they have to choose alcohol? A bunch of people objected to this, mostly women, who said it might make them feel like it's an unsafe environment with drunk people drooling around and on them.
Anyone doing spiking of drinks is criminally liable. That's obvious right? You put something in the drink, you're committing an actual crime, so that's bad. You get all the blame, and the blame of anything that happens because of it, even if you didn't do it (think like all the DUI / murder complications).
Anyone seeing something but not saying anything I think is morally liable. I'd feel terrible if I noticed something and didn't check up on it or say something. But on the other hand, I don't necessarily feel that everyone has a duty to report and fix all the crime in the city. Everyone has to also be responsible for themselves and the situations they get in.
> For one I don't think the author ever said it "wasn't as bad as people remember". He's not making an effort to discount anybody's negative experience
I agree, I'm reading into it a bit, but the way that the story is edited gives that vibe that that is the story. The medium is the message, all that.
I don't think he deserves any blame personally. I just think that 20 years after, and reflecting on all this because the news brought it up... these are about the most nothingburger conclusions or thoughts ever. Most people learn something of at least some kind of wisdom in that time. Like, I can't believe that I thought that was fun, but it was, etc. And I think that obvious lack of reflection and lesson learning isn't unique to this person, I think it's a huge percentage of an entire generation of people. Even saying "I'm amazed that I had such a great time at such a crazy and time defining event" would have been better than "I was there."
"I was there." seems like the call of the by-standard who will stand there and watch you get beaten on the street, and since they aren't doing the beating, they don't feel bad at all. But, as it is said, for evil to flourish it just takes good men to do nothing. And it's so true.
So should they both have known better? Absolutely. Were they running afoul of the law, probably (occupancy, alcohol, arson, etc) - but I'm not a lawyer. Does it look bad? Absolutely. And the legal system simply cannot take the stand that ignorance of the law means that it's not wrong. Especially when everyone knows that bartenders serve alcohol and there are rules for doing it, and schools that do it, and licenses for it. Any 25 year old would have known this. But not really any one, but one exercising common sense (in the very loose legal idea of common sense, that most people would know).
> I was at an occupy wall street protest where I learned later a lot of criminal activity was suspected to have occurred. Let's say I still see it as an overall positive experience and I don't regret having attended. Is that similar to where the author stands w.r.t. Woodstock `99?
I'd say so, but also, it depends on the criminal activity that occurred. Are we talking like trespassing as a part of protest? Or maybe living on the street? Or are we talking about arson? Sexual assault? I would judge it exactly the same. If you said "it was a beautiful effigy that was burning on the starbucks headquarters, and nothing burns like an effigy" I'd probably put you in the "what are you thinking???" camp.
The problem is not his younger self having fun. It's this article trying to normalize that crazy violent insane festival.
He had fun, ok, but why write this just to still say that yeah ppl got hurt, but I had fun.
Why? What's the purpose? Does he feel blamed for enjoying himself so he writes this as some weird unwarranted self justification?
Oh, and no, I've been to plenty of massive festivals, there were no robberies, no looting, no fires, no rapes.
Yes you have so much more eloquently found the word: normalize. That's exactly what this is. It's like pushing the window. It's asking something like "have you read the climate science that says we're NOT responsible for global warming?" or "have you listened to that doctor who drives a car paid for by a cigarette company on the dangers of smoking? it's unproven!" or "the theory of evolution is just a theory". It's things like this that different groups of people react to different ways. I used to roll my eyes. Some people are like, hm, that seems valid. The words sound big. Others are in the absolute crackpot camp, the alien probes and cattle mutilations.
Now that the crackpots are more well armed than the normal intelligent people, I'm a bit scared. They also seem to be more effective at sabotaging the government using the same tactics.
And if you ask "why was this article written" or "what purpose does this article serve" or "why is it being promoted by this particular news site" - their answer will be "just to talk about it" or "presenting the other side". When really if you assume the author doesn't have evil intentions just makes them really hard to believe through their blind ignorance of the madness around them. IE, why would anyone read this drivel, it offers nothing. If they do have evil intent, then I go back to my previous contention as to the nature of it being a dogwhistle.
I don't think the author's good-faith reflection on their experience at Woodstock '99 supports your conclusion about fake news. But telling someone the proper way to remember their experiences does seem like forcing a specific narrative.
Sorry I missed this. You are absolutely right. I personally am a child of abuse, and I have a lot of mixed reflections on it too. Things like, would I really be who I was if I wasn't in that family, etc. And I think all of us learn to deal with the situation were are given (well, or if we don't, it seems like a pretty fast decline into maybe suicide, depression, drug abuse, etc).
Now, all that being said, just because you may have a complex relationship with your abuser or your memories of the place or what happened, that doesn't make it any less wrong or more right.
What really amazes me is that there are so many "poor" people in the world that really honestly live a great happy life, even though by American standards it might be not only considered poverty but injustice. Things that really seem to add to happiness are things like strong community, strong family ties, etc. But again, just because you are one part of the survivor bias doesn't change the moral problem with the original situation in my opinion.
But to cycle back to the mixed reflections - people are stupidly complex and beautifully wonderfully diverse and brilliant in their own way. Some people (mostly in debates) try to argue "who would decide to knowingly believe a lie?", "who would do something so illogical?" but not only does it happen, it's probably the norm. My family is all still together, driving each other crazy into a cycle of codependence, which makes no sense, but doesn't make the abuse that goes on right. If anything, that complexity only make sit more dangerous.
Yeah. In the context of this article, I think the different views stem from judging the totality of the event, or some aspects of it. Do the flaws taint the whole to the point where it can't be positive?
Clearly a lot of people had a really good time.It can also be true that there were some serious flaws, that should have never happened and should not be repeated, but that doesn't negate the fun some had.
I too have had the same observation talking with incredibly poor but happy people in developing nations. I don't know how they do do it, but I think part is being thankful for what they do have opposed to fixating on what they don't have
Totally agreed. The biggest example of "love" I read in the piece was... people jointly throwing plastic bottles in the air (most of which they presumably just left on the ground)? That's the epitome of human kindness?
Unlike the original Woodstock, this doesn't sound like a group that came together out of any shared values other than to have as much fun as they could, whatever the cost. Oh, and of course to brag that they were there. Not exactly inspiring, and I'm dismayed it's at the top of HN.
For some reason "throwing water bottles in the air" seemed to be the thing to do in concerts in the late 90's - 2000. I remember it happening in just about every venue I was at (wasn't at Woodstock '99). Maybe it was the nexus of bottled water being ubiquitous for the first time but before the backlash about waste and switching to reusable bottles.
>Not exactly inspiring, and I'm dismayed it's at the top of HN.
The kind of people that did these things in 1999 are now pushing 40 and have jobs as PMs, 1.2 kids and a house in a good school district. Why wouldn't this sort of nostalgia be top page of a white collar website on a slow Friday?
I mean it seems much more honest to me than the title, which the writer likely didn't choose. My guess is it's been a great conversation piece in the writer's life, and that's what sticks with him moreso than "loss of innocence."
This is absolutely a great point. I forgot that authors generally don't pick their titles (which I think is foolish, a title is so important! same for cover art! or at in general! but that's for another day). It's kind of weird since the pictures are just very... kind of normal I guess. It's a kid taking pictures of himself and his friends at a concert. By it's contrasted with some pretty heavy topics. I also honestly wonder if the end was edited and there was more to the story that got chopped off. It just seems like kind of a weak ending although the rest of his writing was actually pretty good.
What are you talking about? He's telling a coming of age story, that's it.
Imagine coming into a movie theatre that's playing a kids movie and complaining that it isn't realistic, animals don't really talk, we're confusing the youth, bears are actually dangerous and don't sing songs. Duuuuude... Shut up!
There might be a content-warning flag or something for the unwary on this site. This comment is about the mentions of sexual assault in the post.
> the subsequent sexual misconduct
According to some other first-hand accounts of the people who were victims of this "misconduct," it would be more accurate to call it _assault_.
> And while I didn’t personally witness anything as serious as those accusations, I don’t find them at all hard to believe, given the tenor of the event by the end of the weekend. You couldn’t go more than five minutes without seeing a topless woman being fondled by a random stranger.
It sounds like the author may have witnessed sexual assault several times and it didn't even register in their minds.
Update and the author is writing this as a person in their 40s now with the gift of hindsight, #MeToo, etc.
The author is literally saying they didn't witness any sexual assault. The next sentence they describe witnessing sexual assault.
That might not register to a 17 year old who was raised in a culture that minimizes/hides sexual assault but the author is 40 now. They should be able to recognize what they saw for what it was and not continue to minimize it.
If they haven't learned that fondling someone without their consent was wrong then and is wrong now they haven't learned anything.
The pictures make me so sad, broken. I am too old to experience that, too bitter, too broken. Even though my country has festivals I was and is too afraid to go.
The author who is shirtless -- he doesn't need to give himself a black rectangle.
Unidentified women who didn't consent to topless photos of themselves being published get black rectangles for both nudity and identity (black rectangles over eyes).
Do you really not see how a woman having a good time expressing herself in person at a music festival might not want identifiable topless photos of herself uploaded for eternity to the internet?
Don't you think the black rectangles could actually be a sign of respect here rather than some affront to gender equality?
They didn't consent to photos of themselves smoking a joint either, so why not censor the joint? The other shirtless men probably didn't consent either, so why not censor their breasts? Etc. As far as we know, they didn't consent to anything, so why publish it at all then?
I've read somewhere that humans are of the few (only?) mammals with permanant breasts. So that might suggest that breasts are something of a sex symbol and that there is some precedent to having women cover up their breasts. At least it seems to make our cultural standard logicially consistent.
We are born into a world already populated with nonsensical rules and status quo. I'm not gonna dedicate my life to trying to fix these things, but still one should never tacitly accept them, and always question them.
On the bright side: the scientists at the Labs were very pleased with the microphone's performance, since (sitting in a room with six speakers) you could clearly hear the drum circle behind and outside the stage doors.