Woodstock vs Live Aid

Skibo · Post by **Skibo** » November 2, 2006 4:19 pm

Which was better and why? Based on footage I have seen and the bands that performed I don't think it is close. Woodstock blows live aid away. Other than Queen I don't think there were any memorable performances at live aid.

SharkOnLand · Post by **SharkOnLand** » November 2, 2006 5:33 pm

Which one had mud wrestling?

Zuke · Post by **Zuke** » November 2, 2006 6:08 pm

U2 was great at Live-Aid.

Moonie · Post by **Moonie** » November 2, 2006 6:26 pm

Jimi Hendrix was quite memorable at Woodstock...

You can't really compare Woodstock and Live-Aid, too many of todays artists weren't even born..

it was a completely different world.....

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » November 2, 2006 7:48 pm

I have to agree with what Moonie says but also add not only the fact that Hendrix was there but also Janis. If I'm not mistaken it was also the concert that basically launched Crosby Stills Nash and Young. At the time of Woodstock, wasn't Neil Young was a solo artist and joined CSN for a few songs which lead to his joining them.

Not to say that Live Aid in its self wasn't a ground breaking event because it definitely was. So many artists and venues. But I have to go with Woodstock.

sonofabeach · Post by **sonofabeach** » November 2, 2006 9:40 pm

Live Aid
RunDMC cold rocked it....word

ejr · Post by **ejr** » November 2, 2006 11:22 pm

I agree that they were totally different, and were intended to serve different purposes. Woodstock was a large music festival that far exceeded anyone's expectations in terms of attendance and impact, but was not, as I remember, designed to serve as a fundraiser as Live Aid was. Live Aid was a phenomenal music festival at multiple sites, but was designed to raise awareness and to raise money. It was carefully orchestrated to do just that, including same day television coverage. Woodstock did not have such lofty goals.

But I also wonder if there could have been a Live Aid if Woodstock had not occurred.