Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Woodstock Redux

August 07, 1994

It is perplexing that the commercialization of Woodstock ("Deja Vu All Over Again," by Chuck Crisafulli, with related articles by Lorraine Ali and Steve Hochman, July 24) is a sore point, when that concern should have been addressed a year or two after the original event.

There is not too much being made of the anniversary of the concert--it changed musical history and should not be forgotten. The ideals espoused did not directly change the world (and weren't all good), but they should not be allowed to quietly expire, as they once were. The point is to remember the original vision and not what the media and Madison Avenue have parlayed it into.

In any case, there is no way that the original experience can be repeated in an entirely different social climate. The real glory of Woodstock was in the mere searching .

It was an inspiring occurrence, but in the end was really only a catalyst necessary in the same way as Elvis and the Beatles were, especially in the wake of their breakup. But the main drawback to Woodstock was that it helped escalate the pay scale for rock 'n' roll--even though some artists are worth it--and thereby caused too many people to enter the music business for all the wrong reasons.

FRANK BEESON

West Los Angeles

I would like to take exception to Lorraine Ali's comments in her commentary "Lollapaloozer to Hippola: Give It a Rest, Will Ya?" that "the '60s are alive--and more bloated and self-important than ever."

First of all, she means to say "the late '60s," which bore very little cultural resemblance to, say, 1962. But more important, as one who lived through the Woodstock era, I can assure Ali that the '60s were just as bloated and self-important then as they are now. That's why the music of that period, for example, has aged so badly.

STEVE PROPES

Long Beach

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|