I find all of this going over this sad, old ground rather tedious and uninteresting. A few more rocks get turned over, and a few more worms wriggle out - big deal. I always found the whole "summer of love" SF music scene to be not what it was cracked up to be, and much of the "talent" that emerged from it to be underwhelming. You didn't have to dig very deep beneath the "love" rhetoric to find "a bunch of spotty kids on drugs", in George Harrison's words. The truth is the Stones were foolish to mix with this scene. Worlds collided that should have remained separate, and bad things happened. A depressing (though mercifully short) chapter in the Stones' history. Mick Jagger makes mistakes, but rarely the same ones twice, thankfully. Hell's Angels, hippies, and Altamont...yawn.

I've always believed the Angels created the tension there that day and that they were hugely jelous of the Stones. Five wimpy englishmen were why more important than they were no matter how they acted out. Still. Mr.Hunter did have a gun and nobody knows to this day what he planned to do with it. One or more of the Stones could very well have been shot and hard as they are to trust the bikers may actually have saved lives by taking the guy out.

I drove through Altamont Pass last weekend (on the way from my home in SF to the Sierra Nevada). Every time I drive through the pass I think of the doomed Stones concert. What a horrible place to stage a concert! The Stones were incredibly naive. Imagine hiring the Hells Angels as security guards! I have to think that, as Englishmen, they didn't have a clue what the Hells Angels were about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-12 03:52 by Pietro.

Quote
rob51
I've always believed the Angels created the tension there that day and that they were hugely jelous of the Stones. Five wimpy englishmen were why more important than they were no matter how they acted out. Still. Mr.Hunter did have a gun and nobody knows to this day what he planned to do with it. One or more of the Stones could very well have been shot and hard as they are to trust the bikers may actually have saved lives by taking the guy out.

This always amazes me. The Angels start trouble with a guy who had had no trouble with anyone else and when they beat the crap out of him he pulls a gun to protect himself, and then the Angels get credit for stopping the man with the gun.

I know what he wanted to do with the gun. Scare the guys who were beating the crap out of him for no reason. How long does it take to fire a gun. If he wanted to shoot at someone he could have done it long before the Angels had time to do anything..It didn't happen because he wasn't pointing a gun at th stage like the Angels claimed..Of course they would say that.

Quote
71Tele
I find all of this going over this sad, old ground rather tedious and uninteresting. .

I know me to. I hate it when someone puts a gun to my head and forces to go to this thread and participate..Doesn't that suck>

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I'd forgotten about the scenes after-the-fact where Mick and Charlie are filmed watching the Altamont footage.
Those are definitely NOT moments that glorify The Stones.

... So what's wrong with the way they look while being filmed watching the footage,
and why would that "glorify" anyone?

I do remember some journalist back in the heat of the "blame the Stones" brouhaha
berating them for looking unemotional or something, but what should they have done - sobbed?
The filmmaker in the scene with them seems almost giddy and I don't hear anyone berating him for it.

Grr and bah humbug :E

One thing that never gets brought up when discussing Altamont is the fact that the Grateful Dead were the biggest band in Cali at the time and Jerry was friends with the Hell's Angels. Yet the Dead completely bailed and left a good 3 hour gap where no music was being played. I remember reading someone saying this made the crowd even more restless.

I am big Grateful Dead fan but they seem to get a pass on this one.

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
LongBeachArena72
I'd forgotten about the scenes after-the-fact where Mick and Charlie are filmed watching the Altamont footage.
Those are definitely NOT moments that glorify The Stones.

... So what's wrong with the way they look while being filmed watching the footage,
and why would that "glorify" anyone?

I do remember some journalist back in the heat of the "blame the Stones" brouhaha
berating them for looking unemotional or something, but what should they have done - sobbed?
The filmmaker in the scene with them seems almost giddy and I don't hear anyone berating him for it.

Grr and bah humbug :E

My point was simply that that footage seemed honest. Showed them in an uncomfortable situation. When was the last time we had such a relatively unfiltered look at the off-stage Stones?

Quote
Hound Dog
One thing that never gets brought up when discussing Altamont is the fact that the Grateful Dead were the biggest band in Cali at the time and Jerry was friends with the Hell's Angels. Yet the Dead completely bailed and left a good 3 hour gap where no music was being played. I remember reading someone saying this made the crowd even more restless.

I am big Grateful Dead fan but they seem to get a pass on this one.

I think the idea was if they did not play, the Stones could come on a few hours earlier and get the whole concert over sooner. But it turned out that the Stones were waiting for the sun to go down to film their set. Phil Lesh said later that the Dead should have gone on (as scheduled) to fill up the time, but added that when the music was being played is when the crowd was rushing the stage and is when thee Angels were pushing back. No win situation...