Jump to content
KeyserSoze

Have there been any connections to GNR and Woodstock 50 yet?

Recommended Posts

Okay, okay. Before this becomes a Woodstock bash fest, now that we know for a fact there is going to be a Woodstock 50th Anniversary Concert @ Watkins Glenn, do we think GNR would play it? 

Slash was @ 1994:

 

 

GNR did "not have an album ready" for Woodstock 99... But it seems like they may have been asked. And if they were asked once, I'm sure given their recent spike in popularity, Micheal Lang would see them as a viable draw. 

 

I know a lot of forum members are on the east coast, so whadda think? Or will GNR just use this year to rest? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends how much they are willing to pay GNR to come. I'm sure there's an invite, but GNR isn't doing it for a discount. Coachella put up a lot of money to get them, everyone else has to do the same. So I put it at 15% chance they play. But I'm not even sure when it is, or have I looked at slash's schedule. So it might simply be no chance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woodstock is overrated.  Leave it in the 60's and have a new festival in its place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, KeyserSoze said:

Didn't take long for this one to go down the shitter:lol:

Not at all, the prospect of Guns playing is cool.  I think a lot of people soured on Woodstock with what went down in '99.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't seem like a fit to me, I get the idea of a 50tb anniversary to Woodstock.. but not after the disasters of the '90s. And not with bands like Guns N' Roses. Who else are they going to get? Mastodon? Slayer? Tool? Ed Sheeran? Beyonce? Just seems off doing something like this if you ask me. Anyways, I always love having new Proshot GN'R stuff and I love them touring, being active. But I don't think this makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

 looking like a fat ginger 

 

Woah there

 

'sup, pardner? You got a problem with red headed singers who might be a little overweight? 

 

 

(Ed Sheeran is fuckin shite though, yea)

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was only one Woodstock.

Honorable mention for the 90's version as it had good music and the audience wasn't completely braindead back then.

GNR played Freddie Mercury tribute couple of years ealier, hard to top that one with a warmed up Woodstock.

If GNR want to do something cool, they could bring together some quality dinosaur acts (Stones, AIC, Elton John, Van Halen, Neil Young, Tool, NIN, Aerosmith...) for a good cause instead of their lead singer going amok on fuckin Twitter.

Install a big ass stage at the border of Mexico, then play two concerts back to back on each side of the border. And top it off with inviting Donald Trump. THAT would kick some serious ass and have meaning.

Fuck I could even see Page/Plant and Waters/Gilmour joining that one just for shits and giggles.

THAT would be epic. But another "Woodstock"? Come on...

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know, 

I'm so sick of this "woodstock has flown the coup" mentality. 

Each one of these 'Woodstocks' in the 90's had 250,000+ show up.

Don't act like thats a failure. 

Some people act like festival production in the 90's was Bret Hart status. The best there was, the best there is, and the best there ever will be.

Wrong. It just wasn't.

They try to use Woodstock 99 as some sort of black sheep. 

Music festivals as we know them today were just starting to take off in the late 80's, early 90's. Everything since then has become more organized and controlled. 

We shouldn't act like this band DOSEN'T go to South American every year and play to THOUSANDS of people and other festivals and play for wayyyyyy crazier fans than the states. 

All of those things that people say left a "bad" taste in our mouths after 1999 were all products of all of those peoples environment. Don't try to act like the late 90's/early 2000's meat head upper east coast jock culture wasn't like that at ALL because the fact of the matter is it was. And if you get 300,000 people together and mix in alcohol and drugs, companies and businesses price gouging fans (as you said) at a time when most younger kids had absolutely no money and you will get what you inevitably got at that festival. 

When I see "Woodstock: 50" I don't see rape. I don't see violence. I objectively see a festival that has the potential to be the fucking concert of the DECADE, especially when you have disasters like the Coachella and Hangout lineup. Even Bonnaroos lineup isn't that impressive. Phish is headlining. Twice. What year is it? 

All I know is, since 1999, we've had a major shift in the industry in regards to touring and live shows. Every state basically has a mini Woodstock of their own now. 

I think we should let this notion of "Woodstock 99" destroying the Woodstock image die. It's like getting divorced in a bad marriage and never getting with someone else as you continue to shit talk your ex.

Move on.

You can only go up from the point you are at. 

Corporate America has already kicked in our front door. Yes, the shit is going to be sponsored the fuck out of, but literally what isn't these days???? I can see that shit being a problem in 1999 when DIY was still a tangible idea and not some novelty that seems way more prevalent in hipster culture nowadays... 

Just literally wait till the lineup drops and decide if you want to go. If you don't, move on with your day. Its that simple and yet we try to complicate it by thinking we're so big as to own what we think "Woodstock" should be.  

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KeyserSoze said:

Ya know, 

I'm so sick of this "woodstock has flown the coup" mentality. 

Each one of these 'Woodstocks' in the 90's had 250,000+ show up.

Don't act like thats a failure. 

Some people act like festival production in the 90's was Bret Hart status. The best there was, the best there is, and the best there ever will be.

Wrong. It just wasn't.

They try to use Woodstock 99 as some sort of black sheep. 

Music festivals as we know them today were just starting to take off in the late 80's, early 90's. Everything since then has become more organized and controlled. 

We shouldn't act like this band DOSEN'T go to South American every year and play to THOUSANDS of people and other festivals and play for wayyyyyy crazier fans than the states. 

All of those things that people say left a "bad" taste in our mouths after 1999 were all products of all of those peoples environment. Don't try to act like the late 90's/early 2000's meat head upper east coast jock culture wasn't like that at ALL because the fact of the matter is it was. And if you get 300,000 people together and mix in alcohol and drugs, companies and businesses price gouging fans (as you said) at a time when most younger kids had absolutely no money and you will get what you inevitably got at that festival. 

When I see "Woodstock: 50" I don't see rape. I don't see violence. I objectively see a festival that has the potential to be the fucking concert of the DECADE, especially when you have disasters like the Coachella and Hangout lineup. Even Bonnaroos lineup isn't that impressive. Phish is headlining. Twice. What year is it? 

All I know is, since 1999, we've had a major shift in the industry in regards to touring and live shows. Every state basically has a mini Woodstock of their own now. 

I think we should let this notion of "Woodstock 99" destroying the Woodstock image die. It's like getting divorced in a bad marriage and never getting with someone else as you continue to shit talk your ex.

Move on.

You can only go up from the point you are at. 

Corporate America has already kicked in our front door. Yes, the shit is going to be sponsored the fuck out of, but literally what isn't these days???? I can see that shit being a problem in 1999 when DIY was still a tangible idea and not some novelty that seems way more prevalent in hipster culture nowadays... 

Just literally wait till the lineup drops and decide if you want to go. If you don't, move on with your day. Its that simple and yet we try to complicate it by thinking we're so big as to own what we think "Woodstock" should be.  

Perfectly said.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woodstock should have never been revisited after 1969.

I'll keep my opinion to myself regarding wether or not they should play it, though 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, F*ck Fear said:

Woodstock should have never been revisited after 1969.

I'll keep my opinion to myself regarding wether or not they should play it, though 

Exactly, fuckin' making something of your own times, give it its own cultural landmarks, instead of making pale facsimillies of something that happened half a century ago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The USA is so self aggrandizing that it looks with reverence at that one time they had a really big rock festival. To the extent that "stock" is added onto names of events to denote that level of importance similar to how "Gate" is added to scandals in reference to Watergate. 

Whereas the UK has a bunch of big rock festivals ever single year. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogers/Gilmour

Marillion

The Rolling Stones

Aerosmith

Lana Del Rey

Fiona Apple

The Who

AC/DC

Black Sabbath/Ozzy Osbourne

The Foo Fighters

Paul McCartney & Ringo

Red Hot Chili Peppers

Bruce Springsteen

Radiohead

The Smashing Pumpkins

Guns N' Roses(debuting the new album)

Off the top of my head I'd like to see that. Make it for charity and make a BluRay

Edited by Oldest Goat
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KeyserSoze said:

Ya know, 

I'm so sick of this "woodstock has flown the coup" mentality. 

Each one of these 'Woodstocks' in the 90's had 250,000+ show up.

Don't act like thats a failure. 

Some people act like festival production in the 90's was Bret Hart status. The best there was, the best there is, and the best there ever will be.

Wrong. It just wasn't.

They try to use Woodstock 99 as some sort of black sheep. 

Music festivals as we know them today were just starting to take off in the late 80's, early 90's. Everything since then has become more organized and controlled. 

We shouldn't act like this band DOSEN'T go to South American every year and play to THOUSANDS of people and other festivals and play for wayyyyyy crazier fans than the states. 

All of those things that people say left a "bad" taste in our mouths after 1999 were all products of all of those peoples environment. Don't try to act like the late 90's/early 2000's meat head upper east coast jock culture wasn't like that at ALL because the fact of the matter is it was. And if you get 300,000 people together and mix in alcohol and drugs, companies and businesses price gouging fans (as you said) at a time when most younger kids had absolutely no money and you will get what you inevitably got at that festival. 

When I see "Woodstock: 50" I don't see rape. I don't see violence. I objectively see a festival that has the potential to be the fucking concert of the DECADE, especially when you have disasters like the Coachella and Hangout lineup. Even Bonnaroos lineup isn't that impressive. Phish is headlining. Twice. What year is it? 

All I know is, since 1999, we've had a major shift in the industry in regards to touring and live shows. Every state basically has a mini Woodstock of their own now. 

I think we should let this notion of "Woodstock 99" destroying the Woodstock image die. It's like getting divorced in a bad marriage and never getting with someone else as you continue to shit talk your ex.

Move on.

You can only go up from the point you are at. 

Corporate America has already kicked in our front door. Yes, the shit is going to be sponsored the fuck out of, but literally what isn't these days???? I can see that shit being a problem in 1999 when DIY was still a tangible idea and not some novelty that seems way more prevalent in hipster culture nowadays... 

Just literally wait till the lineup drops and decide if you want to go. If you don't, move on with your day. Its that simple and yet we try to complicate it by thinking we're so big as to own what we think "Woodstock" should be.  

Who gives a shit though? It's a festival designed to make a lot of people a lot of money - why the passionate defence?

It's no more or less corporate than any music festival, all of which absolutely aren't worth giving a fuck about or showing any loyalty to. The days of them being "gatherings of like minded folk" are long gone, as have the days have them being anything more than a selection of the same bands who perform everywhere performing the same routines in front of a bunch of rich people they can hardly see from the stage. There's nothing exciting or ground breaking about any of them - they're highly priced events designed at squeezing the sort of uber-casual music 'fan' that goes to one event a year, who largely don't even give a fuck who's on the lineup. They're about as alternative or challenging as a trip to Walmart these days. 

I'm not knocking Woodstock, as it'll probably just be the same as all the other festivals - I just can't understand why anyone would care enough to defend it against people who want to laugh at it? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lame ass security said:

This is my early nominee for post of the year. 

Abput the same as santana, who dropped a couple of tabs of acid and thought the effects would wear off by the time his band were due to play only to then realise the promotors have bumped his band up the schedule. So there he is playing on stage and his guitar turning into a serpent while the drugs start to take full effect and not trying to freak out at the same time.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, F*ck Fear said:

Woodstock should have never been revisited after 1969.

I'll keep my opinion to myself regarding wether or not they should play it, though 

No. Woodstock 50 will just be a combination of coachella and glastonbury combined.  A bunch of rich kids wanting to be "seen". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soon said:

Whereas the UK has a bunch of big rock festivals ever single year. 

There are great festivals all around the world. This year the Pinkpop festival in my country is celebrating its 50th anniversary, making it the oldest and longest running festival in the world. And don't forget all the festivals in Belgium and Germany, just to name a few.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×