Live Aid vs Woodstock

I was watching Woodstock on TV last night.

Which do you believe left a bigger legacy: Woodstock (1969) or Live Aid (1985)? I'll leave it to you to define 'bigger' and 'legacy'.

Woodstock Festival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Live Aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well, not having been at woodstock, but having been at Live Aid, I'd still say there's no question that Woodstock had the greater legacy. Woodstock helped define an era... Live Aid was just a cool party.
 
Woodstock, naturally.

It is THE standard from which all other mass entertainment events of this sort are measured.
 
I was watching Woodstock on TV last night.

Which do you believe left a bigger legacy: Woodstock (1969) or Live Aid (1985)? I'll leave it to you to define 'bigger' and 'legacy'.

Woodstock Festival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Live Aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Woodstock ... many people don't even remember or know about Live Aid.

But you clearly do, so why Woodstock?

Actually, I didn't know about Live Aid until I read this ... :razz:
 
I was watching Woodstock on TV last night.

Which do you believe left a bigger legacy: Woodstock (1969) or Live Aid (1985)? I'll leave it to you to define 'bigger' and 'legacy'.

Woodstock Festival - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Live Aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well, not having been at woodstock, but having been at Live Aid, I'd still say there's no question that Woodstock had the greater legacy. Woodstock helped define an era... Live Aid was just a cool party.

Same here. I was at the London Live Aid, and it was great fun. Also, it did raise a lot of money for a worthy cause. However, much of that money was wasted or siphoned off by corrupt regimes in Africa, and African famine happens almost every year so it didn't really have a legacy IMO. Pity.
 
Same here. I was at the London Live Aid, and it was great fun. Also, it did raise a lot of money for a worthy cause. However, much of that money was wasted or siphoned off by corrupt regimes in Africa, and African famine happens almost every year so it didn't really have a legacy IMO. Pity.

I was in Philly... and Freddy Mercury stole the show even on the big screen from London. I tend to agree with you about the legacy, but I think Bob Geldorf tried to do something really good.
 
I don't know if you can even compare the two because things were so different in 1969 than they were in 1985. I also think it depends on your age when these events took place.
 
Woodstock was a impossible mess; having the equipment for a few thousand and having a few hundred thousand showing up? That sounds like a smashing good time, maybe you could hear one of the concerts if you were lucky. Don't even mention that it was pissing rain, while half of them were just drunk frat boys bummin out on bad acid cause they couldn't tell the difference between the good stuff and Drain-o. Then no porta-potties, no restrooms, how much that must've smelled - I don't even want to imagine.

Being out in the middle of God-knows-where you know the only people who really showed up en masse were mostly the 'weekend warriors' from college who had to "fight the power" after being good college approved activists at Dartmouth, Harvard, whatnot while their rich mommies and daddies bought them, or rented them a car to go be activists at this Woodstock place. Like if that doesn't sound like the exact opposite of what the anti-materialistic creed of the hippie movement; then I don't know what does.

Of course, it was totally hyphy, or whatever. Poor ass party thing it was...
 

Forum List

Back
Top