Too Cool For Woodstock

This exercise is an interesting idea, and we should charitably attribute some of your stranger choices to not having been around at the time. It's true that many of the bands appeared far from their best, largely due to logistics and mood-altering substances. "White Rabbit" is a great song but not on the day. However The Velvet Underground would have started to cry when their New York suits got mud on them. Just a few of the other curious decisions:

1. Replace Richie Havens, who created "Freedom" on the spot to fill the time because on-one else was ready, and drove the crowd (the movie audience, and audiences ever since) ecstatic?

2. Replace The Who or Janis Joplin? Maybe you've got your CD's misordered. This was the '60s.

3. Funkadelic, The Supremes, Jackson 5, Dion Warwick? This was not a Dick Clark production or "Soul Train".

4. Sly and Santana gave the performances of the decade, Two of the few that deserved the attention at Woodstock. Why do you think the makers put them at the climax of the film?

5. I admire your chutzpah. No one else has ever put the word "replace" in front of "Jimi Hendrix" before.

Maybe you should have stuck with Woodstock II.

Was the person that wrote these around in 1969? It sure doesn't sound like it. Too many anachronistic wannabe reinventions of musical history.
But these are funny, tho. Could you imagine Archie Bell doing the fish cheer? Or Tom T. Hall rappin' with the fuzz?
Some are throwaway observations like the Archies replacing the BBB. How about putting Milli Vanilli in a time capsule, sending them back and having them replace The Who?

Funkadelic replace Jimi Hendrix..........ARE U CRAZY. No way. I like the whole George Clinton flavor. But nobody could EVER.....replace Hendrix. Are U on Acid?....or maybe U need to be.....he he he.

Chuck, only fools try to rewrite history.

i started to read this thinking maybe you meant the sound should have been better or better stage not replacing what made woodstock, woodstock
the bands that played was woodstock and that is that. everyone at the time wishes they were there
i went to California Jam 1 in 1974 and it was awesome and the bands were great but it wasn't woodstock..

maybe you need a liitle reminder of the 60's (like lSD) to help you remember lol

What an insane idea. Somebody needs to get a life instead of wasting time on something like this. As if Funkadelic are either a) comparable with or b) cooler than Hendrix - then or now. You may think your encyclopaedic knowledge of bands and musicians is impressive, but with respect you clearly have NO IDEA what you're talking about. You've no understanding of the spirit of those times, and you've no feeling for the blues. Sly, Janis, The Who, CSNY, Jimi etc WERE Woodstock. Of course The Doors, Fleetwood Mac and Led Zep should have been there ideally, but so what? It was what it was.

what???
this is sick.
I agree with Cutch: only FOOLS try to rewrite history!
funkadelic could MAYBE put on a better show, but they could NEVER have the soul that Jimi had!
as supremes could never have Joplin's passion etc.
really, don't even try to change something that has already happened in the best possible way!
and it's not even the bands that are sooo important, it's the spirit that people have brought with them, INSIDE of them... who cares if Quill didn't have cello and horns...
you totally missed the point of Woodstock...

I do like the way he tried to make Saturday the first METALFEST in history. Replacing SABBATH with THE DEAD would be like trying to replace all the flowers from the hippies with skulls. I'm just not sure they were even known in America at that point in time since their first album didn't come out until '70. However to see a band like that at Woodstock which you had never even heard of before may have been the biggest all time shocker in the history of music. Almost like if KISS had first appeared on the LAWRENCE WELK show instead of the MIKE DOUGLAS show.

I've never read such a load of crap in my life. This proposal is written by someone without any knowledge of music, particularly 60's music.

I agree with Jerry Norman . Some replacements are contrary to my taste of music , but thats personal , but replacing THE Jimi Hendrix???Jimi Hendrix was woodstock . Maybe he couldnt do stuff they could , like play the piano and play guitar at the same time , but thats just because they were only with 3 people .Musicaly Jimi would have eaten the funkadelics.

What a load of rubbish, you obviously have no conception of Woodstock or the times or the people involved. and you're notion that Jimi Hendrix could be replaced by some second rate act is a joke surely, and Elvis giving up his showgirls and glitter to turn up in a muddy field, what a joke. You have obviously been indulging in the mood altering substance part of the sixties nostalgia and avoiding the people and music bits.

Hey Chuckles,
Perhaps you are sampling that "bad brown acid" that they warned of more than once. What else could cause you to replace so many apples with oranges- and weak, sour oranges at that! Please let that pipe cool down some before you boot that keyboard back up.
Obviously you never saw Hendrix live...those that did know what Im talking about- if I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.

You forget that woodstock was the greatest peaceful gaithering of youngsters ever in the history of this country. It waas more than the bands and Music. It seems like you were not at Woodstock. I WAS !!

I can approve of some of "Chuck E Cheese's" blues choices, bu da man got a strange thing goin' on with the Crunchy western and bubble gum pop: Merle Haggard and Loretta Lynn, Tommy Roe and the Archies (were there an Archies, then?)??? And no respect for some greats that were still great, but indeed also having some serious fun those days.
It sounds like he was weaned in the disco era and tried to "book learn" the 60's.

Chuck E. wanted to replace Janis, the Airplane, Cream, Arlo Guthrie, the Band, Creedence (there's your "nod" to Country Western), the Dead, The Who, Johnny Winter, Country Joe & the Fish, Joe Cocker, Blood Sweat and Tears, Butterfield Blues Band, Sweetwater, Joan Baez, and Crosby Stills and Nash, for Chrissake???

Had they been there, would he have wanted to "Dump" Pink Floyd as well (for maybe Tommy James or the Strawberry Alarm Clock?)

I was not a big fan of Ten Years after, Santana or Sly (at that time), but AT THE TIME, they absolutely had to be invited... and welcomed to play.

Hey, bring on the Doors, Miles Davis, Dr. John, Fleetwood Mac, James Brown and Zeppelin (You just can't get everybody). Would've been great, but nobody on the street had heard of Fela Kuti then. I think somehow that the "Step in time bands like the Supremes, Jackson 5 and Velvet underground (and yes, Elvis) couldn't have made it in the rain and mud.

If Woodstock, the movie, or the soundtrack did not get you excited than it is you who need to be replaced. You were not part of the sixties, the excitement, the revolutionary spirit, and you will never get it.

rappin with the fuzz...Hahahaa ;)

If you really want to be serious to say what you really mean, hire someone that really knows about music.

I'm sorry, but no band or artist can replace The Who, the Grateful Dead or Jimi Hendrix. Talk like that borders on sacreligious. Sure, add Funkadelic, James Brown but replace Hendrix????

So Woodstock was a "tedious snoozefest"? Are you %@#!ing joking?

I am a veteran of Woodstock. You should not try to alter anything, it happened the way the creator wanted it to happen.

So Woodstock was a "tedious snoozefest"? Are you #@$!ing kidding?! What a joke...

I ageree with all of the above especially Charlie G. I was 19 at the time of Woodstock, but unfortunatly did not go although I lived just 2 hours away. Nothing should be chaged!

Obviously written by someone who wasn't there, who's entire Woodstock "experience" is watching the movie, wasn't in their teens or older in 1969, and is completely clueless to the culture of that time!

I don't honestly think that this is a sincere suggestion to change Woodstock. Perhaps more it is a satiric approach to demonstrate that Woodstock was not an accurate representation of all the music at that time. However, I have never been to or known of such a concert. Even the Grammys are not an accurate representation of the music of the time. They are what is or was most popular at that time. Granted I was not around in 1969, and my parents would not have been there if they could have will. I definitely would have, but musical tastes does not always come from genealogy. I think the writer’s point is, perhaps flawed in logic, that people of later generations see Woodstock as a monumental concert that represents the time and music of a certain generation. But it was just a happenstance gathering of people and musicians that were all on the same wavelength, if not the same hallucinogen. Although some of the bands that played did not grow into historical legacies like Jimmy Hendrix, no one knew at the time that they wouldn't or who would. Only after being there did people know how extraordinary it was. I can only hope to be present at a concert that future generations will talk about, sing about and create movies in honor of. It is not only about who played what, but how they played it and how those taking it in reacted. True, some acts of the time were to “cool” (a dated terminology in and of itself) and would not have even imagined going to a muddy field near Bethel, NY to play for a bunch of spaced out hippies. But having them there probably would not have increased the potency and majestic nature of the concert. So in honor of Woodstock's anniversary, let us just sit back and admire what it was and hope to be at the next of its kind!

Te new list is absurd to say the least. Obvious someone who was BORN during this era. This was an epic music event. Sounds like some jealousy, because rocks today lives in the vapors of a once glorious past.

I think your musical choice is your own and no one can take them away,but to alter the Woodstock line up does not make sence. It was what it was and is still one of the greatest collection of artist to represent the time. Trust destiny to make history.

Are you trying to say Woodstock or Africa live?.
man, Woodstock is spirit, feeling, living the time, actually I was born after woodstock but I have heard records live from the time and I belive music was even better than now days, music today is good, but I wish music were made and played as those days, defenitelly music would sound even better with todays technologie, and please try to understand, Hendrix will never be replaced by anyone in time.

Note to pissed off people: when you see the words "modest proposal", that's a reference to Jonathan Swift's essay of the same name, an archetypal work of satire in which he suggests eating babies. This is a sure tip off that what follows is not meant to be taken seriously, or at least not literally!!! The original "Modest Proposal" nevertheless provoked an uproar as well

Consider also that this is 40 years later. Dissing Jimi Hendrix now should be like dissing Bing Crosby was then. Let the new generation have their fun and conceitedness, just like we did (I was only 6 in '69, but I've been through that phase, too, and incidentally I identified more with the 60's generation than my fellow late boomers and early Gen X-ers). Really, we're very lucky that 60's and 70's music get the huge amount of respect that they still do (while the 80's and 90's have largely fizzled).

You were hippies, damn it, try to remember how to be hip!

Seriously, though, peace and love to you all. And great music!

The person who even had an idea of doing this excersise obviously has no idea of anything musical. Woodstock and the talent were history and you cant change that. The lineup through horendous conditions put on performances that will never be topped.
I have seen many of the performers from woodstock perform in recent times. Crosby stills and nash and young, John Sebastan, Mountain and many more. I`ve attended the hippyfest in Pa. for 3 years now and every performer has gotten better with time. They still rock and thier performances are still historic.

Whatever sells papers I guess.

Hey Chuck, what planet are you from ???????

I realize you painted yourself into a corner here. Having set yourself the task of "Alternate Woodstock," you had to replace every act. You'd put yourself in a situation where you couldn't really say "except for Jimi Hendrix" or "except for the Who."

Some of your suggestions seem OK, and some seem downright inspired. Replace Sha-na-na with Elvis Presley? Genius. Don't know that Elvis would've done it, but it would have been cool. But I think on a few, you maybe should have cheated a little. I'm going to make two suggestions of my own, and let's see where that goes.

Replace Jimi Hendrix with the Who, and replace the Who with Jimi Hendrix. There: mission accomplished, every act replaced.

Rhapsody doesn't have the license to the Woodstock soundtrack...so what better to do then make up their own... NOT!

Chuck, WTF??

Thanks Chuck for introducing me to some new old music that I might not have explored if not for your interesting "modest proposal".

Well,nobody seems to agree with you. Me neither.
Maybe I missed the point but didn't you enjoy it?
Your line up sounds good though. Shame you weren't arround to set it up in your own muddy field. Could have been a legend too. Though I think there was something more than choice that made it what it was.

I could not get past replacing Richie Havens to read anything else. Did I see Jimi on the hit list?
If this guy wants to change history, let him work on my first marriage.

OK. YOU GOT THE TIME TO DO IT. BUT IT`S COMPLETELY USELESS JUST THINKING ABOUT IT.WOODSTOCK IT`S THE FESTIVAL. AND THE BANDS THERE WERE SIMPLY THOSE WHOM WE WILL SEE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.... LOSE YOUR TIME IN OTHER ISSUES.

It is fun to think who might have been better in a concert setting, but then you lose the whole idea of what Woodstock was about. It was a kind of culmination of the 60's, when some of the innocence of the earlier 60's was coming to an end and we were heading into another time. There is no way that you could recreate the whole feeling of the event, and for those who were there (I was not as a west coaster), even though they came for the music, it turned into something else entirely. The sheer numbers of people completely overwhelmed the event, and people had to come together to get through the weekend, sharing and caring for each other, and truly getting lost in the feeling of the thing.

I read through the whole list, and some of the replacements were cute and all, but I am an old 60's guy, and could not fathom in the spirit of the event why you would make these replacements, any of them. Remember we were mired deep in Vietnam in '69, and those who spoke out in their music had to be a part of the whole thing, like Country Joe and Richie Havens. And as I read through the list, I had to think you would not dare to even suggest replacing Hendrix. He was at his peak. And Santana, who was new and fresh and really hot as a rock band with a Latin vibe. And Crosby, Still and Nash, just off their first smash album as one of the seminal "super bands" of the late 60's. No, change the lineup, and maybe you change the whole thing and make it fade into meaninglessness.

Besides, I don't think the organizers had any idea what was going to happen. I went to a couple of "Festivals" before Woodstock, and maybe they drew 50,000, not 400,000. And Woodstock was in the middle of nowhere relatively speaking, so you could not walk down the street and get a burger. Most of the people who went there drifted in without a clue they would be camping out and there would not be food and water. No, Woodstock was intended to be a smaller event, and then it happened, and everyone had to go with the flow and survive, and ended up having an increditble experience. Please, don't think it would have been "better" if there had been different bands. Maybe you would have enjoyed the album more, but it would not have been "Woodstock".

Replace Jimi Hendrix! OMG this 57 year old can't take it!
Funkadelic, great but not good enough to replace the master!

Am loving all of the Mr. Van Driessen responses!

wow, the number of self-righteous, humorless old hippies on this comments thread is quite impressive. I don't there's been that many in one place since the last CSNY reunion tour.

Brilliant, Chuck! I agree with many of your "substitutions," especially Fairport Convention, Marvin Gaye, Fela, the MC5, and Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac. Dunno 'bout Hendrix, though I sure would like to have seen Funkadelic on the bill, and I'd certainly keep Santana on the stage.

The Archies are a bit of a stretch, but to be honest, the Butterfield Blues Band was a bit of a cartoon by this time, without Bloomfield or Bishop. While we're at it, though, why not add High Tide, May Blitz, and/or Sir Lord Baltimore to the list? And where is Spirit? A criminal oversight if there ever was one!

You guys are crazy; Chuck is allowed to have his opinion--it is not your opinion, it is his. And he is one of the top critics in rock. Just ask Christgau. Sure he pisses you off, but that's the point.

I Agree with You Criag you right on the money man thats when we all had it good was the 60s and early 70s nowadays its all crackout for crackheads I quess
Someone tell me if I;m wrong because I'm with Criag on this one Black Sabbath Hendrix and Doors im just stoping here