Here he is, bounding from the woods of Yasgur's Farm, clean-shaven and ready for an evening's entertainment. What is more femmy, the bounding figure, the font or the background color? Could it be more sedate?
I think I sorted it out, doesn't make me feel much better, but perhaps it's this: They had to give whatever occupied the site of Woodstock a name and brand that had a vague connection but did not evoke directly either the original bachanal nor the third one 20 years later that ended with the kind of un-peaceful rebellion everyone worked so hard to avoid during the first one (the middle one, in '94, was probably more of a fitting sequel to '69, though it was as much about the big biz rock had become as a nostaligic revisitation). Plus, I presume they want an ongoing enterprise that will draw crowds of all kinds, vs. a pure rock venue that draws more of a younger, hell-raising set.
OK, I get that. And I also get that most women over 35 prefer something a little tamer, and the little guy bounding from the woods and through the fields with his flute at the ready bespeaks such.
Still, it is telling that this is the logo that represents the birthplace of Woodstock Nation.
