|
Anonymousgirl83 (October 8, 2008 at 3:49 pm)
about 400,000. I saw a documentary on it; and there were 3 deaths, like around 7 births, and people were just rolling around and having sex out in the open
guthax20 (October 7, 2008 at 10:05 pm)
i was born in 95...so im only 14=/im just discovering this music and yeah,waaaay better than alot of stuff out there now.On a side note: god that crowds big...any one know how many people went to the first wood stock?
Maty0269 (October 6, 2008 at 10:33 am)
ah i love this performance so uch...i think grace slick was really feelin it...
MorrisonPageBarrett (October 4, 2008 at 9:01 pm)
ugh i hate the fact that i was born in 1992.i would have loved to have gone to Woodstock!the music and everything else now sucks, it cant compare to the 60s...!
whiteybird (September 27, 2008 at 9:14 am)
Far out man...
zulmyru (September 27, 2008 at 4:45 am)
this is not bad but The velvet was much better than anything else at the time =Dunfortunately for them their sound and creativity was only truly understood much years later
OhSoRadAmiee (September 23, 2008 at 3:15 pm)
The worst part is that the new generation, which I am so sadly apart of, could never have another Woodstock like the first one.I mean look what happened last time.Arson, Theft, Rape.
MinkStoler (September 20, 2008 at 1:24 am)
Oh god this is repulsive! The Velvet Underground was so much better. At least they weren't pretentious stoners.
TeenyxBub (September 4, 2008 at 7:30 pm)
Fuck i wish i was alive at that timethat would've been awesome to see.Thanks for posting this!You're awesome
borski67 (September 3, 2008 at 3:06 am)
But still, your generation had the best bands and was less selfish and more aware and proactive. My generation has inferior artists, and is full of self-serving i-pod retarded sheep. |
