Credit: Far Out / YouTube / James M Shelley

The Price of Woodstock ‘69: How much did each artist get paid?

Tue 31 January 2023 16:30, UK

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of love, it was the age of folly, it was Woodstock 1969 – the high point of the counterculture movement in every which way. The famed festival marked the fuzzy peak of spring’s hopeful intoxication and forecast the despair of winter’s comedown. For three days in August ’69, just north of New York City, in a small town in the Catskill Mountains, the great unwashed came together and the world has been reeling from the miasma kicked up ever since.

As Jimi Hendrix poeticised: “500,000 halos outshined the mud and history. We washed and drank in God’s tears of joy, and for once, and for everyone, the truth was not a mystery. Love called to all; music is magic.” While Hendrix’s highfalutin recollection of utopian liberation might uphold one side of the Woodstock coin, the obverse was equally apparent. Cue Pete Townshend of The Who’s appraisal: “Well, it changed me. I hated it.”

Good times, bad times, it all happened there, but one thing is for certain: the festival was a pivotal moment in culture. “You watched that high of the hippie thing descend into drug depression,” Joni Mitchell recalled. “Right after Woodstock, then we went through a decade of basic apathy where my generation sucked its thumb and then just decided to be greedy and pornographic.”

That may be so, but was the festival itself beset by greed? In many ways, this is a very pertinent question to ask. There is a rose-tinted reminiscence to supposed the zenith of Woodstock. But was it just a really big festival that retrospect has imbued with a sense of momentous reverence, or was it really the last hurrah of a golden revolution? In an era where we obsess over this juncture while up-and-coming bands face the insurmountable fee of £8,000-10,000 ($9,855-$12,321) just to record an EP, it is important to dwell on the finances that funded this cultural coup.

There were long-forgotten names and oddities on offer alongside the greats of the era and seeing them all set you back $18 (the equivalent of $143.50 / £116.50). However, it is believed that around half the people in attendance hadn’t even bought a stub. Yet every person in attendance witnessed every act just the same. That is a startling fact in itself when contrasted with modern festivals.

Much has been said about Glastonbury’s unaffordable ticket price of £335 (+ a £5 booking fee), which is almost three times as much as Woodstock, but Glasto would argue that it puts on thousands of acts as opposed to the mere 32 who played Woodstock. The common-sense argument from the past would be why? You surely can’t physically see many more than 31 acts in a weekend anyway? And in the endless battle of back-and-fourths, Glastonbury might argue that by putting on such a vast array, it opens the door to greater inclusivity and helps aspiring artists climb the ladder.

Aside from this mire of questions, one element that certainly stands out as a contrast to today is the fee that headliners received. Hendrix’s headline set is seen as one of the greatest and most important cultural moments in modern history. How much did he get for it? In today’s money, $143,536 / £116,514. Considering that it is believed that Ed Sheeran received over £200,000 for headlining Glastonbury in 2017 and acts have been known to score $4million for topping the bill at Coachella, securing Hendrix to head-up the dizzy height of a revolution in front of 400,000 is hardly an astronomical figure.

In fact, in an era when much has been said about beleaguered artists struggling to get by, the fees at Woodstock, during the fabled days of hedonistic luxury for rockers, were noticeably small. Perhaps this is why the great gathering is remembered with such reverence. It might not have been all peace and love – as it happens The Who’s Roger Daltrey even said, “Woodstock wasn’t peace and love. There was an awful lot of shouting and screaming going on. By the time it all ended, the worst sides of our nature had come out,” – but there was a sense of unification against the bourgeoisie, and within that communal appeal the crutch of cash capital clearly hadn’t set in.