inherit
HA HA HA HA!
2807
0
Nov 19, 2012 14:50:09 GMT -8
Inkjet
15,550
February 2002
inkjet
|
Post by Inkjet on Aug 18, 2019 18:15:30 GMT -8
From what I’ve gathered, Michael Lang had no business trying to create an event like this in modern times.
He also should’ve listened to the production company when they told them to cap the event at 65k. If he really wanted his 150k limit, he should’ve created a Coachella style event. But then there’s no originality to that, is there?
|
|
inherit
252032
0
Sept 18, 2023 9:07:51 GMT -8
Retread
Tribbial Pursuit.
5,014
January 2018
retread
|
Post by Retread on Aug 19, 2019 5:48:57 GMT -8
From what I’ve gathered, Michael Lang had no business trying to create an event like this in modern times. He also should’ve listened to the production company when they told them to cap the event at 65k. If he really wanted his 150k limit, he should’ve created a Coachella style event. But then there’s no originality to that, is there? I'd go one step farther and say Michael Lang had no business trying to create an event like that in 1969. The finances were upside down. Investors paid out twice as much money as the event took in. It was only the film and album sales that eventually provided enough income to repay the investors more than a decade later.
|
|
inherit
HA HA HA HA!
2807
0
Nov 19, 2012 14:50:09 GMT -8
Inkjet
15,550
February 2002
inkjet
|
Post by Inkjet on Aug 19, 2019 12:56:44 GMT -8
From what I’ve gathered, Michael Lang had no business trying to create an event like this in modern times. He also should’ve listened to the production company when they told them to cap the event at 65k. If he really wanted his 150k limit, he should’ve created a Coachella style event. But then there’s no originality to that, is there? I'd go one step farther and say Michael Lang had no business trying to create an event like that in 1969. The finances were upside down. Investors paid out twice as much money as the event took in. It was only the film and album sales that eventually provided enough income to repay the investors more than a decade later. That’s true. I had read it ended up being purely dumb luck that the first one made it. However, the production industry was a lot different than it is now.
|
|
inherit
29252
0
Sept 6, 2012 15:46:49 GMT -8
Derek‽
28,652
August 2004
kajiaisu
|
Post by Derek‽ on Aug 19, 2019 13:46:01 GMT -8
Yeah, the first one succeeded very much in spite of Michael Lang. The “success” of ‘69 set him up to think everything would always just work out in the end. He’s a would-be businessman who learned the wrong lessons from his ventures. Watching the American Experience documentary on the original Woodstock makes it clear how little he had to do with it turning out alright. Lang was never really in control, he just pushed the boulder off the cliff and watched as it only took out a garage and a tool shed, otherwise missing the village below.
From what I’ve read of Woodstock 50, he royally screwed investors and made an absolute nuisance of himself while the real industry professionals tried to salvage what they could. Dentsu should have called their legal team and found a way to withdraw from the contract the minute Lang booked unapproved acts for at least $500K each, paid in advance, totaling over $30 million after the company had already refused to accept his initial $19 million wishlist. The fact that he had the gall to instruct Dentsu to pay these acts ASAP to “save our good names” would have put me over the edge and landed us in the middle of “£¥€$ off” territory.
|
|