I think you mean Roy Rogers.
My mistake.
It was meant to be that way, but I don’t know why.
Sha Na Na factoid: 5 years later, a certain progressive-oriented Canadian power trio opened for them.
Yes, I’m talking about Rush, who were booed offstage. 
:smack:
You’re right–I missed that he said that about them.
That clears it up!
The ‘this guy’ link is broken (for me), but if it refers to Michael Lang, he gives the answer in his book ‘The Road To Woodstock’. I have just read it - but I can’t remember what his reason was!
Define ‘hippie’.
When I was in high school, one of the ‘cool’, dope-smoking kids spoke proudly of being at the 1974 Sha Na Na concert where the lead guitarist Vinnie Taylor died right afterward of a drug overdose. He said “the show ended, and five minutes later we heard the ambulance”. I wasn’t the hippest person, but it was obvious to me that Sha Na Na had an element of parody when they played that old music. I certainly didn’t see them in the same light as the local country/rock and roll bands of the time, who played 50’s rock sincerely and would definitely not have fitted in at Woodstock.
Incidentally, in checking my facts, I learned an incredible story. A convicted child killer who had escaped from prison managed for a time to convince the members of Sha Na Na that he was the aforementioned Vinnie Taylor, and had faked his death. He actually “rejoined” the band for a time before they realized they’d been duped. Afterward, he lived as a fugitive until being arrested in 2001.
Sha Na Na walked the very fine line between tribute and satire so effectively that an individual listener could take them either way.
Your cite does not at all support that the band was duped by the imposter.
10 Years After, I want to know why the Zombies weren’t at Woodstock.
Because they disbanded in December 1967.
If you’re going down that line, there are countless bands that should have been there.
First, as others have noted, concert tours and festival concerts were very different once from what they are today.
At one time, a record company would send a dozen of its acts out on a concert tour, regardless of whether they had similar musical styles or ANYTHING really in common. Each act would play just two songs: the A side and the B-side of their latest single.
When big music festivals came along, they often combined acts that were ridiculously different. The 1970 Isle of Wight Festival, for instance had Jimi Hendrix AND Tiny Tim, the Doors AND Miles Davis, the Who AND Kris Kristofferson, Emerson Lake & Palmer AND Joni Mitchell, Chicago AND Leonard Cohen (Believe it or not, a LOT of people who attended thought Tiny Tim stole the whole show!).
BTW, Jon “Bowzer” Baumann was not yet in Sha Na Na when they performed at Woodstock. Their leader at the time was Henry Gross, who may be best remembered for “Shannon,” a Beach Boys-sounding ballad about Carl Wilson’s recently deceased Irish setter.
I agree. I don’t think they took it all that seriously, yet they cared enough about it to do it well.
That’s what I always thought.
Yeah. David Crosby, Chris Hillman, and Roger McGuinn came to an agreement that the name “The Byrds” could only be used in projects ALL three of them were involved in together.
After Carl Wilson died, the Beach Boys sort of disintegrated. Mike Love suing Brian Wilson for royalties sort of contributed to that. Al Jardine went on tour fronting his version of The Beach Boys and Mike Love and Bruce Johnson did the same. So there was a 2 or 3 (I don’t remember if Brian got involved) way legal fight over who could use “The Beach Boys”. They must have worked something out as I saw a fairly recent special with Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce, and that guitarist who replaced Al for a while when Al left the group to go to dental school all performing together live and doing talking head interviews.
Woodstock was preceded by the Monterey Pop festival that took place 2 years prior in California, which featured (and was in part organized by) the Mamas and the Papas.
The Mamas and the Papas don’t sound entirely like cutting-edge “modern” late-60s hard rock either. Neither (for that matter) does Otis Redding (Monterey Pop), or for that matter Joan Baez (Woodstock) and Arlo Guthrie (Woodstock). All of these acts performed music that was redolent of an earlier era.
In other words, I don’t see Sha Na Na as sticking out there all by themselves as the one anachronism.
Woodstock was in upstate New York. In that locality at that time, there were still strong echos of the Greenwich Village folk scene. And there was an undercurrent of a rumor that Bob Dylan was going to appear. So Arlo and Joan fit right in. Don’t forget John Sebastian and Richie Havens either.
This here. Hippies were big on camp, esp. when it was juxtaposed against the cool of the rest of the crowd.
Thank you, I did not read that closely enough. “Danny C” lied under the radar, and was caught by the band.
I should have questioned why the band wouldn’t have realized that this guy didn’t look like the fellow they saw put on the ambulance. I was thinking that with a mean of 12 band members, and who knows how many years, uncertainty ruled.
So there’s a 3 day music festival and you’re wondering why it doesn’t all sound like the same genre (To you, looking back) for 3 days?
Isn’t this a good question: “Why would there not be a wide variety of groups playing at Woodstock?”
I think Voyager was making a 10 Years After joke 
Monterey wasn’t supposed to be hard rock. None of the festivals were designed that way. Why would John Phillips organize a festival to make himself look out of it? They were all contemporary musicians.
Otis Redding was a big part of the mix at Monterey. The SF bands were in absolute awe of him. Very important as the only R and B act. He was going to go big, and he did but the wrong way. I don’t know what “earlier era” means to you, but things go in and out of style you know.