Making the case: Live Aid better than Woodstock

Posted Aug 25, 2009 by Kevin Walker

Updated Aug 25, 2009 at 04:52 PM

Well, here’s yet another movie coming out about the 1969 Woodstock concert (this week’s “Taking Woodstock”) and another wave of nostalgic stories about the “generation defining” event. But was Live Aid, the 1985 concert held simultaneously in Philadelphia and London, better? Here are a few reasons it just might be.

The number of people who watched Woodstock: 500,000, many too far away to see or hear much of anything. Number of people who watched Live Aid: about 200,000 at the venues, and 400 million on television. Four. Hundred. Million.

The point of Woodstock was to reveal in peace and love and mud. The point of Live Aid was to feed starving people.

At Live Aid, you could actually hear the music.

The musical line up was better. Quick, which show had Bob Dylan? That’s right, Live Aid. Which festival actually had a Beatle play? Mm-hmm, you guessed it. (Paul McCartney played “Let It Be” in London). The Who played both festivals, because The Who are generation-bridging golden gods of rock and roll, but at Live Aid they didn’t play at 4 a.m. Joan Baez played both shows, but Jack Nicholson introduced her at Live Aid.

Not convinced. How about this? Led freakin’ Zeppelin played Live Aid (having, in 1969, declined an invitation to Woodstock). Other killer acts from Live Aid: U2, Queen, David Bowie, Bryan Ferry, Elton John, Run D.M.C., Black Sabbath, The Boomtown Rats, The Beach Boys,  The Pretenders, The Cars, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Neil Young and Eric Clapton.

Think it over. I’m just saying.