By Leah Greenblatt
Updated March 27, 2009 at 12:00 PM EDT
Credit: Fotos International/Getty Images

Fortieth-anniversary mudpits may not be in our future, Music Mixers; Rolling Stone reports today that a 2009 edition of the legendary 1969 music festival (and its attendant sequels in 1994 and ’99) is looking more and more unlikely — and not unsurprisingly, the crap economy is to blame. One of the original event’s producers, Joel Rosenman, told RS, “It may not be the year for Woodstock… [but] We’re not going to let some technical number, some digit, determine when the next one is.”Unlike the ’99 fest, which featured the likes of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, the Beastie Boys, and (no joke) Britney Spears, and was beset by crowd violence and bad press, producers this year were hoping to return to the original spirit of the event, with acts like the Who, Crosby Stills & Nash and Joe Cocker. Either way, says Rosenman, the show will go on, even if it doesn’t hit the date they were hoping for: “There will be a Woodstock and it will be massive.”What do you think, readers? Do you want another Woodstock? Should we just let history stand and not try to duplicate the past, or is it a legacy that deserves to live on in concert? Would you rather just go see Ang Lee’s upcoming film version, Taking Woodstock, due this summer?