Woodstock 99

[Ardbark]

Just watched Trainwreck on Netflix, a Woodstock 99 documentary. I had no idea any of that happened and I graduated High School in 95. I remember talking to my friends about going but never did. I had no idea that went down. If you haven't watched that, it's a pretty good description of that era and now I'm sort of embarrassed too.

Then I watched DMB at Woodstock 99. The was a well played set and a time where it would be a last of that times the original 5 would play alone. It shows them at thier height as we want to remember them. The camera work is good and shows good views of Carter and playing his kit.

Watch that documentary than the performance. Good way to kill an evening.

[georgegimondo]

Oddly enough that was my first DMB show. I graduated high school in 2000, so I guess I was 16, almost 17. Definitely a really solid set, with them in their prime, and really a great experience overall with all the great bands also in their prime.

I'll be honest, a lot of the negative coverage at the time went over my head, and the armchair historians now don't really impress me. Yes there were a few bad incidents, but there was like 250,000 people together for 3-4 days. The real travesty was the greedy organizers who didn't plan and gouged everyone on basic necessities, but to me that was part of the experience. The fires at the end started off pretty harmless. I even started a small bonfire from the sea of trash we all had to wade through with the free candles being handed out. Nothing malicious or out of control, but we all know how they turned out. It was absolutely a crazy end to those days. If I could go back in time and do it again, I'd be there in a second, though.

[KevinTH]

One of my favorite DMB sets of all time. Also my first official pro shot DMB show I ever had on tape. A friend of my brothers recorded the whole weekend and taped the DMB set for me on another vhs. Took him two weeks…how times have changed. I watched that almost every day for like a year. It was my first opportunity as a drummer to really study Carter’s style.

[notorious v.i.g]

Agree the music was great. Probably my 5th or 6th show and dmb played a great set. Probably the only time i saw just the 5 of them play together.

[rain delay]

All 3 Woodstock fests were chaotic shitshows where people died and got raped. Boomers were just mad that the music in Woodstock 99 wasn't to their liking, and tried to blame Limp Bizkit and RHCP for no reason.

[nerrfhearder]

I just got back from riding my bike out to Griffiss and back. (30 miles round trip) As a local - the fallout from Woodstock99 effected the area for years afterwards....

D&T used to stop in my town (Utica, NY) but the last time Dave was here was WoodStock 99. About ten years ago the last remnant of the concert was knocked down - There was a building painted with the fingers gripping the neck of a guitar on it but it was removed as the airport reactivated as a repair hub and drone testing field.

I was working for a newspaper and had a press pass so I missed most of the nastiness camping out in the press area. Still with access to the press area which was another half mile from the closest stage I still saw the scalping of water and food cause although there were some amenities in the press area it was too far away to be useful.

I traded my pass for to go home and shower before the last day... I was just exhausted from the sun and walking across the tarmac so much. Wish I had a bit more stamina to stay for the entire thing but I pretty much went home and slept for 2 days having not slept since the thursday night day 0 events.

[JboDaveGuyYNK]

Hopefully they didn't do Dave dirty in this one like they did in the documentary (HBO?) last year.

For any other skiers out there: mad respect to the crew that was rocking the Alta flag in the crowd during the Woodstock set. Would love to know who was a part of that, especially living in Utah.

[NeatFreakGeek]

Fortunately, DMB isn't brought up at all in this doc. Even though there is an abundance of titties.

[Matt83]

I love the green Yamaha drum kit that Carter used for this show.

[somuchtoplay]

Is this doc different than the one HBO just put out recently? If so, is it any better than HBO's or basically the same idea, just in another voice?

[Speilmen230]

I found it to be a nice companion piece to the HBO doc. A little more behind the scenes in terms of production crew member's perspective/experience. Fleshed out each day individually and they had almost no overlap in terms of content they covered which felt intentional.

I also thought they did a better job of trying to view the festival through the lens of 1999 rather than 2022. The HBO doc felt a little 'woke' if you will.

[somuchtoplay]

Originally Posted by Speilmen230

I found it to be a nice companion piece to the HBO doc. A little more behind the scenes in terms of production crew member's perspective/experience. Fleshed out each day individually and they had almost no overlap in terms of content they covered which felt intentional.

I also thought they did a better job of trying to view the festival through the lens of 1999 rather than 2022. The HBO doc felt a little 'woke' if you will.

Thanks, I will check it out, the HBO one was pretty good, would like to hear what this one has to say.

[jw209]

The HBO one does mention DMB and makes Dave look a little guilty by showing his "titties" comment.

The Netflix one spends less time focusing on the line-up and acts playing and their perspective. It flies right past most of the acts -- other than Korn, Limp Bizkit, and RHCP. The most egregious thing this one did was it completely failed to mention RAtM and Metallica, both of whom played after Limp Bizkit on Saturday night and suffered from a continuation of the vibe LB spurred on. Those sets were crazy and violent too and they didn't even get mentioned.

I think the idea was that they wanted to put the blame squarely on LB and not lump RATM and Metallica in with them, even though their music is of a similar genre, given those bands have a more respected reputation of being concerned with the audience's welfare. I get the idea of wanting to pin most of the blame on Limp Bizkit, but it was odd that their coverage of Saturday night just ends with LB, who played at like 6 p.m.

[Springraces]

This was much better that I that it was going to be. By better, I don't mean the content as that was actually horrific, but the storytelling and getting the inside interviews with Michael Lang and the other promoters was key.

By the end of it, I was mortified that bands like Limp Bizkit and RHCP encouraged and incited so much of that negative energy. For RHCP to play FIRE as fires were burning was just mind boggling. And LB is going to be LB, as that was their crowning moment. They pretty much fell out of relevance within 2 years of that. I honestly DON'T think it was in clean fun. They realized they had an angry crowd ready to do whatever, and pushed it over the edge.

Now of course, this was from the perspective of the promoters who claim they were also free of guilt. However they chose to put so many angry acts back to back Rage, Metallica, Limp Bizkit, Korn.. It's going to bring a certain type of person. I love and loved those bands at times, and I'm as gentle as it gets, so I'm not being stereotypical, but angry bands bring angry people.

It was just horrific. 20 plus years later, I really just thought it was few bad apples as the press said at the time, but watching that footage, it was a significant portion of the crowd. The Groupthink took over. It should be used as a psychology test. Why did so many people think it was ok to become destructive in that moment. What tips it from a few people to full on anarchy in a 3 day time frame?

Also loved no mention of DMB, or many of the acts anyways. It was clear the promotors are trying to put some of the blame on the artists themselves so as to clear themselves still from any lingering lawsuits or potential ones.

Lang especially seemed to want to pretend he had nothing to do with any of it. Guy came off like a total asshole by the end. I had no idea that was his attitude. I really really dislike him based on this, and had a curious respect for him previously.

In the OG Woodstock doc, he seemed a bit removed from everything, but also a huge part of the story as any promoter would be. They can't get involved because they are essentially overseeing it all.

[Springraces]

Originally Posted by Speilmen230

I found it to be a nice companion piece to the HBO doc. A little more behind the scenes in terms of production crew member's perspective/experience. Fleshed out each day individually and they had almost no overlap in terms of content they covered which felt intentional.

I also thought they did a better job of trying to view the festival through the lens of 1999 rather than 2022. The HBO doc felt a little 'woke' if you will.

Odd how so many streaming services are piggy backing off each other with docs these days. Like they get wind HBO is doing a Woodstock 99 doc, "let's do our own". Or the Fyre Festival, or any of the serial murder ones. It's obvious they just try to capitalize on the fleeting interest.

[Ardbark]

Originally Posted by jw209

The HBO one does mention DMB and makes Dave look a little guilty by showing his "titties" comment.

The Netflix one spends less time focusing on the line-up and acts playing and their perspective. It flies right past most of the acts -- other than Korn, Limp Bizkit, and RHCP. The most egregious thing this one did was it completely failed to mention RAtM and Metallica, both of whom played after Limp Bizkit on Saturday night and suffered from a continuation of the vibe LB spurred on. Those sets were crazy and violent too and they didn't even get mentioned.

I think the idea was that they wanted to put the blame squarely on LB and not lump RATM and Metallica in with them, even though their music is of a similar genre, given those bands have a more respected reputation of being concerned with the audience's welfare. I get the idea of wanting to pin most of the blame on Limp Bizkit, but it was odd that their coverage of Saturday night just ends with LB, who played at like 6 p.m.

I thought the same thing, I mean Rage would be off the chain in that atmosphere. I figured there were legal or release issues where they wouldn't agree or sign off for being in the doc.

Also - How does BUSH close night 1 and even try to play after KORN? To his credit he did. That's like seeing Last Stop and Halloween as the closer then You and Me followed by Shake Me as an encore.

[Springraces]

Originally Posted by jw209

The HBO one does mention DMB and makes Dave look a little guilty by showing his "titties" comment.

The Netflix one spends less time focusing on the line-up and acts playing and their perspective. It flies right past most of the acts -- other than Korn, Limp Bizkit, and RHCP. The most egregious thing this one did was it completely failed to mention RAtM and Metallica, both of whom played after Limp Bizkit on Saturday night and suffered from a continuation of the vibe LB spurred on. Those sets were crazy and violent too and they didn't even get mentioned.

I think the idea was that they wanted to put the blame squarely on LB and not lump RATM and Metallica in with them, even though their music is of a similar genre, given those bands have a more respected reputation of being concerned with the audience's welfare. I get the idea of wanting to pin most of the blame on Limp Bizkit, but it was odd that their coverage of Saturday night just ends with LB, who played at like 6 p.m.

But per Bill Burr, we can't judge these people for what was completely acceptable at the time. Rockstars pointed out "boobs" - "titties" all the time and much much worse. Flea had his penis flopping around on stage. That alone would get you arrested now. It used to just be rock n roll.

[Erich]

Originally Posted by Ardbark

[...] then You and Me followed by Shake Me as an encore.

I must be the only person here that wouldn't mind that in the slightest.

[ISawTheBridge10]

Hell I’m going to see RHCP on Sunday and I hope Flea has his dong floppin all over the stage.

[GraceBuckley]

Originally Posted by georgegimondo

Oddly enough that was my first DMB show. I graduated high school in 2000, so I guess I was 16, almost 17. Definitely a really solid set, with them in their prime, and really a great experience overall with all the great bands also in their prime.

I'll be honest, a lot of the negative coverage at the time went over my head, and the armchair historians now don't really impress me. Yes there were a few bad incidents, but there was like 250,000 people together for 3-4 days. The real travesty was the greedy organizers who didn't plan and gouged everyone on basic necessities, but to me that was part of the experience. The fires at the end started off pretty harmless. I even started a small bonfire from the sea of trash we all had to wade through with the free candles being handed out. Nothing malicious or out of control, but we all know how they turned out. It was absolutely a crazy end to those days. If I could go back in time and do it again, I'd be there in a second, though.

Did you watch the Netflix documentary? The greed and denial of any responsibility of the organizers is literally criminal. It is a MIRACLE that only 3 people (yes, 3 people) died at the fest, and really only one sounds like it was from a chain of responses that would have been different if they'd been even close to realistic about basic infrastructure to support 250,000 concert goers. Although maybe the girl killed by getting hit by a car on her way leaving the fest might also not have died if they had even basic structure for traffic in and out.

And to say the fires started off harmless, I believe that was your experience of it (you said even you set a trash fire), but the fact that the ORGANIZERS (not a gun control group, the ORGANIZERS) handed out those lit candles to a giant audience that had already tried to take down the sound tower... that is insane. And reckless, and combined with totally inadequate security and medical staff, it's criminal that the organizers got to walk away with their money. It was Lord of the Flies meets Planet of the Apes, and the organizers and their greed and the lack of clean water and clean toilets and affordable food are all part of why the audience lost their shit.

[GraceBuckley]

Originally Posted by ISawTheBridge10

Hell I’m going to see RHCP on Sunday and I hope Flea has his dong floppin all over the stage.

I couldn't make the comment in front of my husband while watching the doc but my inner thoughts were "Oh, ok, now I get why he's so quick & confident to fling it around in public all the time... "

Add the impressive **** to the fact that he was one of the only artists who made a public statement right after the disaster fest about how badly women were treated in the pit (I don't think even knowing 2 women were raped in the pit during band sets), but that he was one of the few who noticed and spoke out, that makes him immediate marriage material (although his fantastic bass playing & awesome personality made him that decades ago!)

[GraceBuckley]

Originally Posted by JboDaveGuyYNK

Hopefully they didn't do Dave dirty in this one like they did in the documentary (HBO?) last year.

For any other skiers out there: mad respect to the crew that was rocking the Alta flag in the crowd during the Woodstock set. Would love to know who was a part of that, especially living in Utah.

I kind of live under a rock, even reading on here sometimes... Who did Dave or DMB dirty and in which documentary?

[GraceBuckley]

Originally Posted by jw209

The HBO one does mention DMB and makes Dave look a little guilty by showing his "titties" comment.

The Netflix one spends less time focusing on the line-up and acts playing and their perspective. It flies right past most of the acts -- other than Korn, Limp Bizkit, and RHCP. The most egregious thing this one did was it completely failed to mention RAtM and Metallica, both of whom played after Limp Bizkit on Saturday night and suffered from a continuation of the vibe LB spurred on. Those sets were crazy and violent too and they didn't even get mentioned.

I think the idea was that they wanted to put the blame squarely on LB and not lump RATM and Metallica in with them, even though their music is of a similar genre, given those bands have a more respected reputation of being concerned with the audience's welfare. I get the idea of wanting to pin most of the blame on Limp Bizkit, but it was odd that their coverage of Saturday night just ends with LB, who played at like 6 p.m.

Actually I had a really different impression. My impression was they only wanted to focus on artists who would talk to them for the doc (like Durst or the Korn guy or Fatboy Slim), or who they had footage of talking about what was going on (like Anthony Kiedis). I can see RAtM and Metallica feeling like the whole thing was such a shitshow, they didn't want to be part of anything that would further make Woodstock 99 or anyone involved any money. Especially given that apparently neither John Scher, Michael Lang and the 3rd guy had to give up their $millions from it even though so much of it went wrong because they were cheap. cut really predictably important corners, and denied it was bad and denied any responsibility for the stuff they were totally responsible for.

That's why I figured Rage and Metallica were barely mentioned (other than by a few fans I think).

[Springraces]

Originally Posted by GraceBuckley

Actually I had a really different impression. My impression was they only wanted to focus on artists who would talk to them for the doc (like Durst or the Korn guy or Fatboy Slim), or who they had footage of talking about what was going on (like Anthony Kiedis). I can see RAtM and Metallica feeling like the whole thing was such a shitshow, they didn't want to be part of anything that would further make Woodstock 99 or anyone involved any money. Especially given that apparently neither John Scher, Michael Lang and the 3rd guy had to give up their $millions from it even though so much of it went wrong because they were cheap. cut really predictably important corners, and denied it was bad and denied any responsibility for the stuff they were totally responsible for.

That's why I figured Rage and Metallica were barely mentioned (other than by a few fans I think).

You are an incredible person and the good light radiates amongst the molecules in your orbit.

[bigeyedpigs]

Originally Posted by Springraces

This was much better that I that it was going to be. By better, I don't mean the content as that was actually horrific, but the storytelling and getting the inside interviews with Michael Lang and the other promoters was key.

By the end of it, I was mortified that bands like Limp Bizkit and RHCP encouraged and incited so much of that negative energy. For RHCP to play FIRE as fires were burning was just mind boggling. And LB is going to be LB, as that was their crowning moment. They pretty much fell out of relevance within 2 years of that. I honestly DON'T think it was in clean fun. They realized they had an angry crowd ready to do whatever, and pushed it over the edge.

Now of course, this was from the perspective of the promoters who claim they were also free of guilt. However they chose to put so many angry acts back to back Rage, Metallica, Limp Bizkit, Korn.. It's going to bring a certain type of person. I love and loved those bands at times, and I'm as gentle as it gets, so I'm not being stereotypical, but angry bands bring angry people.

It was just horrific. 20 plus years later, I really just thought it was few bad apples as the press said at the time, but watching that footage, it was a significant portion of the crowd. The Groupthink took over. It should be used as a psychology test. Why did so many people think it was ok to become destructive in that moment. What tips it from a few people to full on anarchy in a 3 day time frame?

Also loved no mention of DMB, or many of the acts anyways. It was clear the promotors are trying to put some of the blame on the artists themselves so as to clear themselves still from any lingering lawsuits or potential ones.

Lang especially seemed to want to pretend he had nothing to do with any of it. Guy came off like a total asshole by the end. I had no idea that was his attitude. I really really dislike him based on this, and had a curious respect for him previously.

In the OG Woodstock doc, he seemed a bit removed from everything, but also a huge part of the story as any promoter would be. They can't get involved because they are essentially overseeing it all.

It was a shit show. I have never felt as uneasy as I did in that crowd on Saturday during lb and rages sets and I've seen some serious concert violence since Hartford is my home venue. The energy in that crowd was something else.
When they passed out the peace candles it had to be the pinnacle of stupidity, might as well give the crowds molotov cocktails.
If anything im shocked it didn't turn out worse with more fatalities, assaults, and sewage related diseases.

[nerrfhearder]

Yeah the peace candles was the stupidist decision - I mean what did they think was going to happen with those.

Interestingly Michael Lang tried to put together another Woodstock locally in 2019 just before he died. Local officials wouldnt grant him a license for the event because the planning he presented would have resulted in a repeat of 99 with such a lack of security, and facilitlies to support the event... If memory serves he was trying to put it together at Vernon Downs not too far from Griffiss where 99 took place. Thank god the local government seemed to learn their lesson from 99 and wouldnt approve the license - he then tried to move it out towards south of Syracuse and ran into the same road blocks and lastly tried to move it to I forget if it was North Carolina / Virginia does anyone remember and still hadn't learned his own lessons regarding getting the even approved.

Not sure I'm remembering the details accurately of that attempt feel free to correct me.

[jw209]

Originally Posted by GraceBuckley

Actually I had a really different impression. My impression was they only wanted to focus on artists who would talk to them for the doc (like Durst or the Korn guy or Fatboy Slim), or who they had footage of talking about what was going on (like Anthony Kiedis). I can see RAtM and Metallica feeling like the whole thing was such a shitshow, they didn't want to be part of anything that would further make Woodstock 99 or anyone involved any money. Especially given that apparently neither John Scher, Michael Lang and the 3rd guy had to give up their $millions from it even though so much of it went wrong because they were cheap. cut really predictably important corners, and denied it was bad and denied any responsibility for the stuff they were totally responsible for.

That's why I figured Rage and Metallica were barely mentioned (other than by a few fans I think).

I don't think that's it. Limp Bizkit weren't in it at all. They were the ones everyone pinned the problems on at the same and do still to this day. They wouldn't participate in something like this because they know they're gonna be made to look like a bunch of testosterone-fueled oafs. I really think the creators of the doc wanted to make LB look bad but didn't want to do the same to Metallica and RAtM because they simply have a better reputation as better musicians and people.

In fact, almost the opposite, I think portraying Gavin Rossdale and Bush's set as being some sort of love-fest after Korn's crazy set was almost like a gift to Rossdale for participating.

[jw209]

One thing that annoyed me about the doc (and in general when the Woodstock revivals are discussed) is how quickly they glossed over Woodstock '94 and even referred to it as "having its problems".

Woodstock '94 gets lumped in with '99 as a bad attempt to resurrect the original Woodstock, but the fact is that Woodstock '94, in retrospect, was absolutely memorable and had some massive generation-defining moments.

Green Day's set was perhaps the single most iconic live set of that era by any band. Nine Inch Nails' set the night before was the defining moment of their career. RHCP played their first show ever with Dave Navarro with giant light bulbs on their heads. Metallica and Aerosmith played a great sets in the middle of the night.

And there were a ton of big-name classic acts to balance out the bill and give it a more respectable, wide-ranging lineup: Dylan, CSN, Allmans, The Band, Santana, Peter Gabriel, Country Joe, Joe Cocker.

That one should be remembered as much more than it is.

[GraceBuckley]

Originally Posted by jw209

I don't think that's it. Limp Bizkit weren't in it at all. They were the ones everyone pinned the problems on at the same and do still to this day. They wouldn't participate in something like this because they know they're gonna be made to look like a bunch of testosterone-fueled oafs. I really think the creators of the doc wanted to make LB look bad but didn't want to do the same to Metallica and RAtM because they simply have a better reputation as better musicians and people.

In fact, almost the opposite, I think portraying Gavin Rossdale and Bush's set as being some sort of love-fest after Korn's crazy set was almost like a gift to Rossdale for participating.

"Limp Bizkit weren't in it at all"? If you read my post I said either they were interviewed for it for this doc, OR they had interview footage from '99. There are several clips of Fred Durst where they talked to him I think both before and right after their set. So that fits what I was saying seemed to be the common thread in terms of who they featured.

It's cool we just see it differently. I do not see Rage or Metallica agreeing to participate in this, because given what came to be known about the awful decision-making and how bad it got, I don't see either band as wanting to put further focus or give further publicity and noteriety (even if a lot of it is bad) to those who organized it.

And for those making the doc, I would guess they'd LOVE to have either or both bands because unlike Limp Bizkit, they are still totally relevant TODAY. But again we can just see that differently.

[GraceBuckley]

Originally Posted by jw209

One thing that annoyed me about the doc (and in general when the Woodstock revivals are discussed) is how quickly they glossed over Woodstock '94 and even referred to it as "having its problems".

Woodstock '94 gets lumped in with '99 as a bad attempt to resurrect the original Woodstock, but the fact is that Woodstock '94, in retrospect, was absolutely memorable and had some massive generation-defining moments.

Green Day's set was perhaps the single most iconic live set of that era by any band. Nine Inch Nails' set the night before was the defining moment of their career. RHCP played their first show ever with Dave Navarro with giant light bulbs on their heads. Metallica and Aerosmith played a great sets in the middle of the night.

And there were a ton of big-name classic acts to balance out the bill and give it a more respectable, wide-ranging lineup: Dylan, CSN, Allmans, The Band, Santana, Peter Gabriel, Country Joe, Joe Cocker.

That one should be remembered as much more than it is.

I love Green Day but know very llittle about their Woodstock '94 set. Can you say more about what made it so iconic and memorable? It sounds amazing! Same for NIN, what about it made it their "defining moment"?