curious about which Woodstock Bluray is the best ?

[Tony Burns]

I picked up the 40th anniversary director's cut -and was very disappointed ( Thou ive never seen Woodstock in any version ) seems one or two random songs by an Artist -some songs were so unheard of I wanted to fast forward them -
Basically I was not impressed at all - wonder how some of those kids made it to adulthood ( sorry about the rant )
is there a more advanced copy with more music ? It basically seemed poorly made and amateurish.

[Purfle Haze]

Tony, is this a single-disc edition? If so that's the director's cut of the theatrical edition. If The Who play Summertime Blues, then that's the film. I read on Amazon that later multi-disc releases have additional performances by some of the bands, perhaps with more obscure music selections on the extra discs.

I liked the film, which is the same vintage as me, but no, it's not the finest music film ever made; it's a documentary, it seems a miracle that it got made at all. I saw it in a theater on its original release, and it seemed very impressive at the time.

Two notes: one of the shots of Pete during the solo in Summertime Blues, is completely out of sync; it looks like footage from another song. And, Martin Scorsese was one of the editors on the film. He went on to make The Last Waltz and Shine a Light, two very good music films, as well as his great dramatic films.

[MikeBmusic]

The Director's Cut edition should have an extra 40 minutes of 'movie' music and interviews that was cut from the original theatrical release PLUS a 2nd disc of other music and interviews and 'behind the scenes' stuff.

Umm.. just how young are you, that you never saw the movie before? What about listening to the CDs/albums?
You have to remember that this was all shot on big film cameras - video taping was not an option back then. No computer editing/enhancing. Some bands' record labels would not allow their music on the albums or in the movie.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Tony Burns

I picked up the 40th aniversary directors cut -and was very disapointed ( Thou ive never seen Woodstock in any version ) seems one or two random songs by an Artist -some songs were so unheard of I wanted to fast forward them -
Basically i was not impressed at all - wonder how some of those kids made it to adulthood ( sorry about the rant )
is their a more advanced copy with more music ? ,basically seemed poorly made and amateurish.

Assuming sincerity on your post, which could be a mistake?

Your report proves that tastes in art differ. As the quality of the performances or the cinematography, I suppose the same must apply.

I would agree that the original film doesn't really highlight acoustic guitar performances that focus on intricate, subtle work. Most 400,000 audience size live outdoor events have this fault. The one act where this is present is CSN (...and Y, though for complex reasons, this is hidden) had some sound/performance issues that were rumored to be subject to post-performance fixes. I happen to love Richie Havens, and to me that's one of the film's highlights. But, acoustic guitar forum and all, you didn't like Santana, Sly, or Hendrix, and the gurning wretched excess of Alvin Lee/Ten Years After didn't make your "guilty pleasure center" light up even a little bit?

And cinematography/editing wise, it's so much better (effective) than most other contemporary music films from the later 60s. How many other filmed performances from the time are marred by goofy "look I'm making the camera psychedelic" crap and shots of the bass player while the guitar solo erupts defects? Watch The Who segment again, and even if you don't like the use of split screen and freeze-frame (innovative at the time) know that it really established that band in the US, not just because they were good, but because of how the editing increased their impact.


In the out-takes, I happen to like the Jefferson Airplane performance, but then I'm a huge fan of that band and it more of a straight video shoot.


As has already been pointed out, it was more difficult than most live video shoots for a number of environmental reasons (rain, drugs, logistics), and because of the technology at the time. And as for the "just one or two random songs" part, that's what let this already long film show so many acts and the context of the event. I suppose if you watch "Jazz On A Summer's Day" you'll be similarly un-moved.

[Purfle Haze]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

And cinematography/editing wise, it's so much better (effective) than most other contemporary music films from the later 60s. How many other filmed performances from the time are marred by goofy "look I'm making the camera psychedelic" crap and shots of the bass player while the guitar solo erupts defects?

Frank, an excellent example of "psychedelic" camera work can be seen in the Cream Farewell Concert. It is almost unwatchable today.

Watch The Who segment again, and even if you don't like the use of split screen and freeze-frame (innovative at the time) know that it really established that band in the US, not just because they were good, but because of how the editing increased their impact.

My jaw dropped, seeing The Who in the Woodstock film. The film came to theaters around the same time that The Who's Live at Leeds was on the charts. They sounded like just another pop band in their studio albums, but Leeds and their Woodstock appearance made it clear that The Who was real, raw rock.

[Tony Burns]

One question asked was how old was i ? Back in 1969 I was 14 and lead a very sheltered life -my brother in law actually was at woodstock ( but doesnt talk about it very much -guessing he doesnt remember it for obvious reasons )


it came to mind when i watched the Omega man -when Charlton Heston came out of the movie theatre that had Woodstock on the marquee .


The version i had is 3 discs ( have heard the 40th anniversary disc with 2 was the same but the two discs were put on one. - it just seemed choppy -but i do understand it used real movie film -and was probably awkard and hard to put together - plus the fact it was made in a difficult place to film etc.
Guess i had the best version and didnt know it -so thank you for the help !

By the way Frank - Richie Havens was one of my favorite performers on this disc as well
The Who's performance also really wowed me -they have always been one of my favorites of that era.


.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Purfle Haze

Frank, an excellent example of "psychedelic" camera work can be seen in the Cream Farewell Concert. It is almost unwatchable today.

My jaw dropped, seeing The Who in the Woodstock film. The film came to theaters around the same time that The Who's Live at Leeds was on the charts. They sounded like just another pop band in their studio albums, but Leeds and their Woodstock appearance made it clear that The Who was real, raw rock.

Oh yes, the Cream Farewell Concert film is one the best worst examples of that! But you see it elsewhere in stuff that was shot for TV around then.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Tony Burns

One question asked was how old was i ? Back in 1969 I was 14 and lead a very sheltered life -my brother in law actually was at woodstock ( but doesnt talk about it very much -guessing he doesnt remember it for obvious reasons )


it came to mind when i watched the Omega man -when Charlton Heston came out of the movie theatre that had Woodstock on the marquee .


The version i had is 3 discs ( have heard the 40th anniversary disc with 2 was the same but the two discs were put on one. - it just seemed choppy -but i do understand it used real movie film -and was probably awkard and hard to put together - plus the fact it was made in a difficult place to film etc.
Guess i had the best version and didnt know it -so thank you for the help !

By the way Frank - Richie Havens was one of my favorite performers on this disc as well
The Who's performance also really wowed me -they have always been one of my favorites of that era.


.

People react to art differently, even react differently to the same art viewed at different times in their lives or viewed in a different context. The best reason I (or other folks) read and write about the music or other arts ("Dancing about Architecture") is that sometimes someone will offer an insight and that different aspect becomes visible (audible?).

I'm a bit older. I was in the wrong place when the concert happened, though just a couple of years later I worked at the hospital where some of the folks needing medical treatment were taken to. The whole "Sixties" counterculture and associated music is a big subject, seen from a whole lot of different angles.

[ManyMartinMan]

Can’t speak to the “best” Blue-Ray version of anything. However, Woodstock was a marvel that should never have gone as far, or as well, as it did. As it was the first of its kind they never expected the attendance, the weather or logistical problems created by both. The fact that it went on and they got music we are all remembering 50 years later is amazing. Unfortunately looking at something like Woodstock or the slide rule or abacus through 21st Century eyes won’t reveal the marvel that any of them were in their time.

[OneMansGuitar]

It was an Oscar winning documentary after all. The human nature aspect of the film is as important as the music.

I saw it ten times in theaters before I was 21. I have seen various other versions as they aired on PBS in (more) modern times.

When it came to the music, it was pretty obvious in hindsight that Atlantic Records artists dominated the official soundtrack and that several acts were left out of the movie who more important to the audience at the time than they were the record companies, like the Dead, the Airplane, Johnny Winter, Mountain, Credence, and Janice Joplin. So it is very nice that they were included in later versions.

CSNY, who were a major part of my adolescence, got a MAJOR boost toward their super-stardom from the film and record, when they weren't considered in any way on the same plane as the Who or Sly Stone or Hendrix, at the time. (Sorry, none of their previous bands were considered A-List bands, even if you personally thought they were.) Then again, Santana was virtually unknown outside of San Fransisco at the time. So they DID include some true breakouts who weren't Atco artists.

But I still say the moments off stage, like the clean cut Jewish kid from New York trying to phone home, and the Porta-San man with the son flying helicopters at that very moment in the DMZ in Viet Nam were as important as any guitar or guitar player. It pains me that some of the Oscar-winning documentary stuff is removed from later make-a-buck versions.

I saw the film as a teenager on the 10th anniversary in LA on Sunset Blvd. (or maybe it was Hollywood Blvd.) at Midnight. And the guy behind me in line claimed to have lost his two front teeth at Woodstock. He gave me some blotter acid, which I took before he told me it was 4-Way (meant for four people.) We bought a joint from a street dude, for $4, which was ridiculous since they typically went for $1 and used five papers and a thin line of pot; we had no idea it was dusted until the first puff in the front row of the theater resulted in instant trails.

And so, as I start to melt into the universe, the guy sitting next to me in the front row, who clearly tried to emulate Dennis Hopper in Easy Rider, is IN the movie, bigger than life. Talk about a time trip!

The next day, on zero sleep, in 100 degree heat with a bag of fruit and a bit thing of water, I went to one of the very first No Nukes concerts, at the Hollywood Bowl. I got to go in early as I won my tickets on the radio, by calling up to request a song* and the DJ said, "Congratulations! You're our 9th caller!"

I walked in, still tripping like a madman, and saw David Lindley (already my idol) and Jackson Browne doing their soundcheck. So I rushed down the aisle and bumped into a woman, and turned to say how sorry I was.

It was Joan Baez, who I had seen just ten hours before, ten years before, young and very pregnant.

The rest of the day was like that, as I sat close enough to throw a peanut at Graham Nash or John Sebastian or Ms. Baez. But Sweet Honey in the Rock and Holly Near stole the show. That is until John Denver came out and was the only person to sing a Capella to the entire Hollywood Bowl, because of the great acoustics. I had no idea he had such a HUGE VOICE!!!! It completely changed my opinion of him in an instant.

No one said a word about the Woodstock anniversary at the concert. But the spirit was alive and well.

[Tony Burns]

OneMansGuitar -Thank you so very much sharing your story- thats way cool !
I was only like 13 or 14 in 1969 - But always wished i could of gone - thou watching it on DVD was fun-