Jump to content
SubSpace Forum Network

$1,000,000 hippie museum?

NBVegita

By NBVegita
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

ra$ta420 Newbie

ra$ta420

Posted
Posted (edited)
I dare you to mention one musical marvel that occured at woodstock, minus such a huge compelation of bands playing. If you're going to make a museum about music, even of that era, do that, but woodstock was not singularly important to the music industry, and there are many other more noteworthy events that are far more deserving of a museum than woodstock.

 

I mean !@#$%^&* woodstock was like anything other concert, it was started to simply make money. And if you think the list of musicians who played was impressive, which overall I do not think they as a whole had a terribly impressive lineup, in fact I bet you couldn't even name three bands, without using google, that played woodstock, you should see the list of bands who refused/cancelled woodstock.

 

I have no idea where to start.each of your post i could write a 4page paper on how far you have ur head up ur !@#$%^&* ,soo ill just mention this one post

 

you said "but woodstock was not singularly important to the music industry, and there are many other more noteworthy events that are far more deserving of a museum than woodstock." ...It is widely regarded as one of the greatest concerts in music history and was listed on Rolling Stone's 50 Moments That Changed the History of Rock and Roll..whats that History..?omg

 

 

you said ..woodstock was like anything other concert.. Only 500,000 came to watch ..thats verrrrrry far from "any other concert"

 

you said "it was started to simply make money" your kinda right about that ,but for get to say that it became a free festival after it became obvious that the concert was drawing hundreds of thousands more people than the organizers had prepared for.

 

you all so said that the line up was crap? ...ill mention a FEW .Grateful Dead. Creedence Clearwater Revival (ccr) .Janis Joplin .The who.Jefferson Airplane .Blood, Sweat & Tears .Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young.Santana.Jimi Hendrix.

 

Led Zeppelin was asked to perform, their manager said, "We were asked to do Woodstock and Atlantic were very keen, and so was our US promoter, Frank Barcelona. I said no because at Woodstock we'd have just been another band on the bill."

 

the only other bands that canceled worth mentioning is The doors and Bob Dylan.. as u can see the bands that played out weight the bands who didn't by far.

Edited by rasta420
NBVegita Newbie

NBVegita

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What you fail to mention is that the only reason why it became free is that the thousands of people who could not get in tore down the fences keeping them out. It was once they realized they could not stop all of those people is when it so benevolently became free.

 

Also have you read some of rolling stone's 50 moments that changed rock and roll? I will assume not. Try to wiki that one too, or actually go beyond wiki.

 

!@#$%^&* Madonna singing like a virgin, and eminem singing "my name is" made it. Not very impressive if you ask me.

 

And for 500,000 people? cmon now. In the 90's over 3.5 million people turned out to see the stones. !@#$%^&* there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of concerts with bigger turnouts that woodstock had.

 

And out of 32 bands, between half a dozen and a dozen bands, based on opinion, were great bands. And out of those bands half of them didn't even play a full set.

 

I bet it was a great concert, if you didn't mind the drugs, but not worthy of a $1,000,000 tax funded museum.

Samapico Newbie

Samapico

Posted
Posted
It is widely regarded as one of the greatest concerts in music history and was listed on Rolling Stone's 50 Moments That Changed the History of Rock and Roll..whats that History..?
Does that mean we should have a museum for each of these 50 events?

It's a CONCERT... yeah make tons of DVD's about it, but I doubt a museum would be very interesting/useful/fun/worth 1M$.

ThunderJam Newbie

ThunderJam

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't think sama, nbv, or myself have any objections to a museum dedicated to the music of that era. It's the fact that it's an museum dedicated to one concert, which has a infamous reputation for being drug orgy.

 

Couldnt help saying this...

Lil kids field trip: "Hey mommy we are going to the woodstock museum, what is that?"

Mom: "It's where me and daddy got high as crap together... Oh and there was some music too"

:rolleyes:

 

 

Edit**: and of course rasta is gonna be in favor of it, just look at his avatar.

Edited by ThunderJam
JDS Newbie

JDS

Posted
Posted (edited)
i could write a 4page paper on how far you have ur head up ur !@#$%^&*

 

that quote stands for all 3 of you..

 

 

and what the !@#$%^&* is so bad about drugs

Edited by JDS
JDS Newbie

JDS

Posted
Posted

well when they "legalize" marijuana and your still sitting on your high horse (chances are good you will be voting conservative), i shall laugh and then visit the museum and indirectly be subjected to glamourized drugs and love every second of it.

 

 

its just a matter of time.

ThunderJam Newbie

ThunderJam

Posted
Posted (edited)
well when they "legalize" marijuana and your still sitting on your high horse (chances are good you will be voting conservative), i shall laugh and then visit the museum and indirectly be subjected to glamourized drugs and love every second of it.

I really wouldn't mind if they legalized it.

 

But still, have fun waiting for them to happen. Even though you hear a lot of talk about wanting to legalize it now as compared to five years ago, I don't foresee it getting through congress any time soon. Even if they did begin considering it, the publicity would be so extreme that the process would be slowed down and it would take another year before anything happen probly.

Edited by ThunderJam
Bak Newbie

Bak

Posted
Posted (edited)
could it possibly be that theyre illegal?

 

yo marijuana (and others) were legal in 1969 because it was after the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was ruled uncons!@#$%^&*utional by Leary v. United States in 1969 and before the passage of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Also, from the sounds of it, woodstock was the most kick-!@#$%^&* party ever and should get a museum just for that. obviously it's not for all people, but neither is lots of things the government spends money on.

 

 

and if you meant they're illegal by today's standards, then we could apply the same argument to take slavery out of federally funded museums, which wouldn't make any sense.

Edited by Bak
NBVegita Newbie

NBVegita

Posted
  • Author
Posted
and if you meant they're illegal by today's standards, then we could apply the same argument to take slavery out of federally funded museums, which wouldn't make any sense.

 

Museums don't glorify slavery, nor was slavery a voluntary act.

 

I can't believe some of the arguments people try to use lol

 

As for Marijuana you will not see it legalized in this lifetime. The case is that the government has no reason to legalize it. For dozen's of reasons. There would be so many taxes on it that you would never be able to afford to buy it from the government, and the good stuff would still only be available from the dealers. So why would you spend 3 times as much to get less pot thats worse quality? In order for there to even be a strong legislative pull there would have to be an indisputable study that shows a MAJOR posistive impact to either health or economy, before it would even have a chance. And unfortunately unless we discover something miraculous about pot in the next decade or two, that would make you SOL. The only chance you'd have to see it in your lifetime is if we become a near dictatorship with an immensely liberal ruler.

 

And you'll have a tough time trying to visit that museum that was nearly unanimously opposed and denied.

 

And write your 4 page paper, I bet you can't even throw up a valid argument to my last two paragraph post about why I don't feel woodstock should have a museum.

 

!@#$%^&* I went over to my parents last night and of course we talk politics, and both of them, who were there for the concert, think it's rediculous to have a museum for it. The worst part is that if you tried to find a bigger hippie in the 60's than my mom you'd have had to look pretty hard.

ThunderJam Newbie

ThunderJam

Posted
Posted (edited)
I take it u live in usa where they program kids to believe in god and think drugs are bad.

ROFL!!!!!!

 

1) Have you not read anything else on this forum? The majority of the people here are from the US, and almost none of us believe in God (im one of the several that does)

2) if you don't live in the united states, you really shouldn't even be debating this topic. Why should you get any say in where our tax money goes?

 

As for marijuana being illegal: Its not that theres a museum that is indirectly emphasizing something illegal. What I think is wrong is that our government would be funding something that they themselves made illegal. If that's not !@#$%^&*-backwards, I don't know what is.

 

 

**PS: i hate when you write a) and b ) the b one turns into a smiley lol

Edited by ThunderJam
NBVegita Newbie

NBVegita

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I take it u live in usa where they program kids to believe in god and think drugs are bad.

 

Actually I'm not at all religious.

 

And second it does not take a genius to figure out that drugs are "bad".

 

Arguing with a pothead on the internet is like throwing JDS in a circular room and telling him to piss in the corner.

Samapico Newbie

Samapico

Posted
Posted
Arguing with a pothead on the internet is like throwing JDS in a circular room and telling him to piss in the corner.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...