Tell Me :
Talk
Funny the group/person receiving the most money ($18,000) was seen by the least amount of people! He played Monday morning after most had left....
Agree. And when they did it came out as Janis Joplin. Nothing against Janis, it's just that she was sort of SF hippie R&B.
Yeah, I don't think they were asked at all, but why were they not asked?
Another reason might be: [www.answers.com]
If the Stones played they would have been the headliners. There was no way they were going to play even if asked because Jagger was in the middle of filming a movie for one reason.
From what I've heard they mixed pretty well from about 1966 to 1968. I've read that the actual hippie scene in SF was pretty much dead by 1969 anyway, by then it had been infiltrated by speed freaks and free living con artists and the like.
And by 1969 the Stones were calling themselves Rock and Roll, I always thought R & B was something a bit different, R & B having bigger ensembles, most done by black artists and exploring jazz a bit more, but I'm still not quite sure of the distinction.
peace
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 03:55 by Naturalust.
Yes but to be fair, George was a rich, spoiled rock star who could afford to drop his acid on his country estate, be driven in private cars and jet away when things didn't suit him. I imagine for lots of those kids it was pretty cool for a while. I mean that's life and the real world George, it ain't filled with groovy gypsy people making art and paintings....except a couple places in Marin County where it still is.
peace
Ah, that's a different story.
Than what?
From the following link: "Hendrix did not perform for half a million people. In fact, when he took to the stage at 9 a.m., the crowd, which once numbered 500,000, had dwindled to fewer than 200,000--perhaps considerably fewer. With the demands of work and school weighing on them, many of those fans waited just long enough to see Hendrix begin his set, and then departed themselves."
[www.wpi.edu]
Everything you're saying is correct. It's just that "after most had left"-part that could be adjusted a bit.
Yes, George did have high expectations. It was destined never to live up to those lofty ideals ('flower power'), drugs being its ruin. By late 67', C.Manson was already making the rounds of those 'horrible spotty drop out kids' (and later Dennis Wilson).
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 16:05 by nightskyman.
LOL - Ok about the "most" but read this (these are the numbers that I always heard) :
Firstly, take the story of Hendrix playing in front of a “million-strong crowd.” Exact figures vary, but the best guess is that a million fans attempted to make to it to the festival. At least a third never made it through the ten-hour traffic jam, or the twelve-mile walk past the parked cars.
In advance of the show, the organizers had sold 186,000 tickets. But so many people came without tickets that promoters were eventually forced to declare it a “free festival.” The number of attendees at the site was in all likelihood just shy of half a million. That throng of hippies had just 600 Porta-loos. No doubt fertile turf today.
The size of Hendrix’s audience was greatly affected by his showtime. He was originally scheduled to play on Sunday night at midnight, with the idea that the attendees would clear out afterwards in time to get back to work by Monday morning. But nothing about Woodstock ran as originally planned, and in reality, Hendrix didn’t actually go on-stage until 830am Monday morning… some eight hours late. The timing would at least prove fortuitous in one regard: by playing during daylight, the lighting for Jimi’s set would look fabulous in the eventual Woodstock film.
By the time Hendrix hit the stage on the fourth day of the scheduled three-day festival, most of the crowd had voted with their feet and abandoned the site in what must have looked like an alarming exodus. They had been leaving en-mass almost from the first day, after the food had run out, the Port-a –loos had started overflowing, and torrential rain had turned the field into a muddy quagmire. By the time Jimi emerged onstage on Monday morning, the massive crowd had dwindled to a meager gathering of around 40,000 die-hard stoners, most of whom were too intoxicated to move. Even as Hendrix performed, the crowd continued to file out, which must have been disconcerting to anyone onstage.
And whilst it was Hendrix’s epic rendition of the Star Spangled Banner that would be the festival’s seminal moment, anyone in the crowd that morning also heard Jimi complain about the exiting masses. “You can leave if you want to,” he said at one point. “We’re just jamming, that’s all. Okay? You can leave, or you can clap.” More people left than clapped.
The single most amazing fact about Hendrix’s performance, a musical highlight that would go down as one of the most pivotal moments in rock history, is that somewhere around 450,000 people left Woodstock before Jimi Hendrix played a single note.
[www.apollomag.com.au]
wow, didn't know that.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 17:08 by stanlove.
George was just a sucker with to much time on his hands. First he fell for the hippie garbage and then the Maharishi garbage. Lennon was in the same boat.
I never understand people who to this day try to describe the hippie movement as anything but total crap. The same with Woodstock the concert. 100s of thousands of drug infested, filthy, hippies rolling around in the mudd while speaking silly hippie lingo. No thanks..It was a joke..
I saw someone describe it a while ago and he said that it was a joke and even today its hard to even talk about without laughing a little. Right on brother...
At Live Aid when Joan Baez ( who pathetically can never stop living in the 60s ) said that Live Aid was this generations Woodstock, I was hoping that someone would kick her right in her backside. Yeah Joan raising money for the poor is exactly like crashing concerts so you don't have to pay and rolling around in the mudd while drugged out of your mind. Good call.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 17:07 by stanlove.
His name was Jimi
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 10, 2015 01:08
No. Hendrix played in the morning hours
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: March 10, 2015 01:18
Quote
DandelionPowderman
No. Hendrix played in the morning hours
Funny the group/person receiving the most money ($18,000) was seen by the least amount of people! He played Monday morning after most had left....
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: March 10, 2015 01:34
Quote
Rockman
R&B and Hippies never really mixed ....
Agree. And when they did it came out as Janis Joplin. Nothing against Janis, it's just that she was sort of SF hippie R&B.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: March 10, 2015 01:39
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
2000 LYFHQuote
tomcasagranda
The Stones didn't play Woodstock, as they needed to blood Mick Taylor, and ensure he was properly rehearsed. The Hyde Park July 1969 gig highlighted a woefully under-rehearsed band.
From the link - Reason: Filming a Forgotten Movie
The Rolling Stones declined because Mick Jagger was in Australia that summer, filming a forgotten movie called 'Ned Kelly.' You don't remember 'Ned Kelly'? It's the poorly received 1970 Tony Richardson-directed biopic of a 19th-century Australian bushranger. Also, Keith Richards' girlfriend Anita Pallenburg had just given birth to son Marlon that week in London.
But is it confirmed anywhere that they declined? I thought it was more like they weren't asked because of those reasons.
Yeah, I don't think they were asked at all, but why were they not asked?
Another reason might be: [www.answers.com]
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
stanlove
()
Date: March 10, 2015 01:39
Quote
LuxuryStones
Can it be they declined cause Hendrix was the headline?
If the Stones played they would have been the headliners. There was no way they were going to play even if asked because Jagger was in the middle of filming a movie for one reason.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
swimtothemoon
()
Date: March 10, 2015 03:20
Seems Arlo made out pretty well, since he would not have to split his 5K. I
Don't remember if he had his band or just him.
Don't remember if he had his band or just him.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: March 10, 2015 03:38
Quote
71TeleQuote
Rockman
R&B and Hippies never really mixed ....
Agree. And when they did it came out as Janis Joplin. Nothing against Janis, it's just that she was sort of SF hippie R&B.
From what I've heard they mixed pretty well from about 1966 to 1968. I've read that the actual hippie scene in SF was pretty much dead by 1969 anyway, by then it had been infiltrated by speed freaks and free living con artists and the like.
And by 1969 the Stones were calling themselves Rock and Roll, I always thought R & B was something a bit different, R & B having bigger ensembles, most done by black artists and exploring jazz a bit more, but I'm still not quite sure of the distinction.
peace
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 03:55 by Naturalust.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
stonehearted
()
Date: March 10, 2015 03:57
<<I've read that the actual hippie scene in SF was pretty much dead by 1969>>
The impression that George Harrison was left with when visiting Haight-Ashbury on August 8, 1967:
"I went there expecting it to be a brilliant place, with groovy gypsy people making works of art and paintings and carvings in little workshops. But it was full of horrible spotty drop-out kids on drugs, and it turned me right off the whole scene. I could only describe it as being like the Bowery: a lot of bums and drop-outs; many of them very young kids who'd dropped acid and come from all over America to this mecca of LSD."
The impression that George Harrison was left with when visiting Haight-Ashbury on August 8, 1967:
"I went there expecting it to be a brilliant place, with groovy gypsy people making works of art and paintings and carvings in little workshops. But it was full of horrible spotty drop-out kids on drugs, and it turned me right off the whole scene. I could only describe it as being like the Bowery: a lot of bums and drop-outs; many of them very young kids who'd dropped acid and come from all over America to this mecca of LSD."
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
BeforeTheyMakeMeRun
()
Date: March 10, 2015 03:59
Most likely due to Mick filming 'Ned Kelley' in Australia.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: March 10, 2015 04:36
Quote
stonehearted
<<I've read that the actual hippie scene in SF was pretty much dead by 1969>>
The impression that George Harrison was left with when visiting Haight-Ashbury on August 8, 1967:
"I went there expecting it to be a brilliant place, with groovy gypsy people making works of art and paintings and carvings in little workshops. But it was full of horrible spotty drop-out kids on drugs, and it turned me right off the whole scene. I could only describe it as being like the Bowery: a lot of bums and drop-outs; many of them very young kids who'd dropped acid and come from all over America to this mecca of LSD."
[/IMG]
Yes but to be fair, George was a rich, spoiled rock star who could afford to drop his acid on his country estate, be driven in private cars and jet away when things didn't suit him. I imagine for lots of those kids it was pretty cool for a while. I mean that's life and the real world George, it ain't filled with groovy gypsy people making art and paintings....except a couple places in Marin County where it still is.
peace
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
HeatherAnnePeel
()
Date: March 10, 2015 04:51
With regards to the amounts paid: remember, we are talking about 1969 dollars. Multiply everything by 4 for today's equivalent, at least. For example: $750 in 1969 is equivalent to $4,776.03 in 2015.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 04:58 by HeatherAnnePeel.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 04:58 by HeatherAnnePeel.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
TheGreek
()
Date: March 10, 2015 14:41
if mr lange from woodstock threw enough money at the glimmers they would have headlined the festival
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 20:37 by TheGreek.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 20:37 by TheGreek.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: March 10, 2015 14:41
Jagger has stated various times they simply were not asked.
Mathijs
Mathijs
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: March 10, 2015 14:44
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
DandelionPowderman
No. Hendrix played in the morning hours
Funny the group/person receiving the most money ($18,000) was seen by the least amount of people! He played Monday morning after most had left....
Ah, that's a different story.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 10, 2015 14:50
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
2000 LYFHQuote
DandelionPowderman
No. Hendrix played in the morning hours
Funny the group/person receiving the most money ($18,000) was seen by the least amount of people! He played Monday morning after most had left....
Ah, that's a different story.
Than what?
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
LuxuryStones
()
Date: March 10, 2015 15:00
I thought playing in the morning, so he was the first to play. But he was the last one to play..last best
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 10, 2015 15:05
Steven Tyler described that rather nicely in his book "Does The Noise In My Head Bother You".
He thought the morning slot was excellent for Hendrix, and described how he woke up all the acid heads with his brilliant music. According to Tyler there were still lots of people there
He thought the morning slot was excellent for Hendrix, and described how he woke up all the acid heads with his brilliant music. According to Tyler there were still lots of people there
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: March 10, 2015 15:18
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Steven Tyler described that rather nicely in his book "Does The Noise In My Head Bother You".
He thought the morning slot was excellent for Hendrix, and described how he woke up all the acid heads with his brilliant music. According to Tyler there were still lots of people there
From the following link: "Hendrix did not perform for half a million people. In fact, when he took to the stage at 9 a.m., the crowd, which once numbered 500,000, had dwindled to fewer than 200,000--perhaps considerably fewer. With the demands of work and school weighing on them, many of those fans waited just long enough to see Hendrix begin his set, and then departed themselves."
[www.wpi.edu]
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
stanlove
()
Date: March 10, 2015 15:20
Quote
NaturalustQuote
71TeleQuote
Rockman
R&B and Hippies never really mixed ....
, by then it had been infiltrated by speed freaks and free living con artists and the like.
peace
You just described the hippie movement perfectly.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: March 10, 2015 15:24
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
DandelionPowderman
Steven Tyler described that rather nicely in his book "Does The Noise In My Head Bother You".
He thought the morning slot was excellent for Hendrix, and described how he woke up all the acid heads with his brilliant music. According to Tyler there were still lots of people there
From the following link: "Hendrix did not perform for half a million people. In fact, when he took to the stage at 9 a.m., the crowd, which once numbered 500,000, had dwindled to fewer than 200,000--perhaps considerably fewer. With the demands of work and school weighing on them, many of those fans waited just long enough to see Hendrix begin his set, and then departed themselves."
[www.wpi.edu]
Everything you're saying is correct. It's just that "after most had left"-part that could be adjusted a bit.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
runaway
()
Date: March 10, 2015 15:37
One of Jimi Hendrix's greatest performances: The Star Spangled Banner ( Live at Woodstock 1969 )
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
latcho
()
Date: March 10, 2015 15:56
i still think it was jimmy's best performance ever,the people that left when hendrix started to play, all dispite now, and became lawyers, politicians,are cops .Bob dylan just should stayed there,instead of complaining about people having a great time at his backyard, pffff, come on george ,was he expecting a red carpet?? all the artists that were not there, felt they had missed something huge in history.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: March 10, 2015 15:57
Quote
NaturalustQuote
stonehearted
<<I've read that the actual hippie scene in SF was pretty much dead by 1969>>
The impression that George Harrison was left with when visiting Haight-Ashbury on August 8, 1967:
"I went there expecting it to be a brilliant place, with groovy gypsy people making works of art and paintings and carvings in little workshops. But it was full of horrible spotty drop-out kids on drugs, and it turned me right off the whole scene. I could only describe it as being like the Bowery: a lot of bums and drop-outs; many of them very young kids who'd dropped acid and come from all over America to this mecca of LSD."
[/IMG]
Yes but to be fair, George was a rich, spoiled rock star who could afford to drop his acid on his country estate, be driven in private cars and jet away when things didn't suit him. I imagine for lots of those kids it was pretty cool for a while. I mean that's life and the real world George, it ain't filled with groovy gypsy people making art and paintings....except a couple places in Marin County where it still is.
peace
Yes, George did have high expectations. It was destined never to live up to those lofty ideals ('flower power'), drugs being its ruin. By late 67', C.Manson was already making the rounds of those 'horrible spotty drop out kids' (and later Dennis Wilson).
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 16:05 by nightskyman.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: March 10, 2015 16:07
The Who I believe benefitted greatly from the post concert coverage of american media...speculation, on my part, but they became bigger concert draw in America afterwards?
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: March 10, 2015 16:20
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
2000 LYFHQuote
DandelionPowderman
Steven Tyler described that rather nicely in his book "Does The Noise In My Head Bother You".
He thought the morning slot was excellent for Hendrix, and described how he woke up all the acid heads with his brilliant music. According to Tyler there were still lots of people there
From the following link: "Hendrix did not perform for half a million people. In fact, when he took to the stage at 9 a.m., the crowd, which once numbered 500,000, had dwindled to fewer than 200,000--perhaps considerably fewer. With the demands of work and school weighing on them, many of those fans waited just long enough to see Hendrix begin his set, and then departed themselves."
[www.wpi.edu]
Everything you're saying is correct. It's just that "after most had left"-part that could be adjusted a bit.
LOL - Ok about the "most" but read this (these are the numbers that I always heard) :
Firstly, take the story of Hendrix playing in front of a “million-strong crowd.” Exact figures vary, but the best guess is that a million fans attempted to make to it to the festival. At least a third never made it through the ten-hour traffic jam, or the twelve-mile walk past the parked cars.
In advance of the show, the organizers had sold 186,000 tickets. But so many people came without tickets that promoters were eventually forced to declare it a “free festival.” The number of attendees at the site was in all likelihood just shy of half a million. That throng of hippies had just 600 Porta-loos. No doubt fertile turf today.
The size of Hendrix’s audience was greatly affected by his showtime. He was originally scheduled to play on Sunday night at midnight, with the idea that the attendees would clear out afterwards in time to get back to work by Monday morning. But nothing about Woodstock ran as originally planned, and in reality, Hendrix didn’t actually go on-stage until 830am Monday morning… some eight hours late. The timing would at least prove fortuitous in one regard: by playing during daylight, the lighting for Jimi’s set would look fabulous in the eventual Woodstock film.
By the time Hendrix hit the stage on the fourth day of the scheduled three-day festival, most of the crowd had voted with their feet and abandoned the site in what must have looked like an alarming exodus. They had been leaving en-mass almost from the first day, after the food had run out, the Port-a –loos had started overflowing, and torrential rain had turned the field into a muddy quagmire. By the time Jimi emerged onstage on Monday morning, the massive crowd had dwindled to a meager gathering of around 40,000 die-hard stoners, most of whom were too intoxicated to move. Even as Hendrix performed, the crowd continued to file out, which must have been disconcerting to anyone onstage.
And whilst it was Hendrix’s epic rendition of the Star Spangled Banner that would be the festival’s seminal moment, anyone in the crowd that morning also heard Jimi complain about the exiting masses. “You can leave if you want to,” he said at one point. “We’re just jamming, that’s all. Okay? You can leave, or you can clap.” More people left than clapped.
The single most amazing fact about Hendrix’s performance, a musical highlight that would go down as one of the most pivotal moments in rock history, is that somewhere around 450,000 people left Woodstock before Jimi Hendrix played a single note.
[www.apollomag.com.au]
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 10, 2015 16:48
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
2000 LYFHQuote
DandelionPowderman
Steven Tyler described that rather nicely in his book "Does The Noise In My Head Bother You".
He thought the morning slot was excellent for Hendrix, and described how he woke up all the acid heads with his brilliant music. According to Tyler there were still lots of people there
From the following link: "Hendrix did not perform for half a million people. In fact, when he took to the stage at 9 a.m., the crowd, which once numbered 500,000, had dwindled to fewer than 200,000--perhaps considerably fewer. With the demands of work and school weighing on them, many of those fans waited just long enough to see Hendrix begin his set, and then departed themselves."
[www.wpi.edu]
Everything you're saying is correct. It's just that "after most had left"-part that could be adjusted a bit.
LOL - Ok about the "most" but read this (these are the numbers that I always heard) :
Firstly, take the story of Hendrix playing in front of a “million-strong crowd.” Exact figures vary, but the best guess is that a million fans attempted to make to it to the festival. At least a third never made it through the ten-hour traffic jam, or the twelve-mile walk past the parked cars.
In advance of the show, the organizers had sold 186,000 tickets. But so many people came without tickets that promoters were eventually forced to declare it a “free festival.” The number of attendees at the site was in all likelihood just shy of half a million. That throng of hippies had just 600 Porta-loos. No doubt fertile turf today.
The size of Hendrix’s audience was greatly affected by his showtime. He was originally scheduled to play on Sunday night at midnight, with the idea that the attendees would clear out afterwards in time to get back to work by Monday morning. But nothing about Woodstock ran as originally planned, and in reality, Hendrix didn’t actually go on-stage until 830am Monday morning… some eight hours late. The timing would at least prove fortuitous in one regard: by playing during daylight, the lighting for Jimi’s set would look fabulous in the eventual Woodstock film.
By the time Hendrix hit the stage on the fourth day of the scheduled three-day festival, most of the crowd had voted with their feet and abandoned the site in what must have looked like an alarming exodus. They had been leaving en-mass almost from the first day, after the food had run out, the Port-a –loos had started overflowing, and torrential rain had turned the field into a muddy quagmire. By the time Jimi emerged onstage on Monday morning, the massive crowd had dwindled to a meager gathering of around 40,000 die-hard stoners, most of whom were too intoxicated to move. Even as Hendrix performed, the crowd continued to file out, which must have been disconcerting to anyone onstage.
And whilst it was Hendrix’s epic rendition of the Star Spangled Banner that would be the festival’s seminal moment, anyone in the crowd that morning also heard Jimi complain about the exiting masses. “You can leave if you want to,” he said at one point. “We’re just jamming, that’s all. Okay? You can leave, or you can clap.” More people left than clapped.
The single most amazing fact about Hendrix’s performance, a musical highlight that would go down as one of the most pivotal moments in rock history, is that somewhere around 450,000 people left Woodstock before Jimi Hendrix played a single note.
[www.apollomag.com.au]
wow, didn't know that.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
stanlove
()
Date: March 10, 2015 16:55
Quote
nightskymanQuote
NaturalustQuote
stonehearted
<<I've read that the actual hippie scene in SF was pretty much dead by 1969>>
The impression that George Harrison was left with when visiting Haight-Ashbury on August 8, 1967:
"I went there expecting it to be a brilliant place, with groovy gypsy people making works of art and paintings and carvings in little workshops. But it was full of horrible spotty drop-out kids on drugs, and it turned me right off the whole scene. I could only describe it as being like the Bowery: a lot of bums and drop-outs; many of them very young kids who'd dropped acid and come from all over America to this mecca of LSD."
[/IMG]
Yes but to be fair, George was a rich, spoiled rock star who could afford to drop his acid on his country estate, be driven in private cars and jet away when things didn't suit him. I imagine for lots of those kids it was pretty cool for a while. I mean that's life and the real world George, it ain't filled with groovy gypsy people making art and paintings....except a couple places in Marin County where it still is.
peace
Yes, George did have high expectations. It was destined never to live up to those lofty ideals ('flower power'), drugs being its ruin. By late 67', C.Manson was already making the rounds of those 'horrible spotty drop out kids' (and later Dennis Wilson).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 17:08 by stanlove.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
stanlove
()
Date: March 10, 2015 16:56
Quote
stanloveQuote
nightskymanQuote
NaturalustQuote
stonehearted
<<I've read that the actual hippie scene in SF was pretty much dead by 1969>>
The impression that George Harrison was left with when visiting Haight-Ashbury on August 8, 1967:
"I went there expecting it to be a brilliant place, with groovy gypsy people making works of art and paintings and carvings in little workshops. But it was full of horrible spotty drop-out kids on drugs, and it turned me right off the whole scene. I could only describe it as being like the Bowery: a lot of bums and drop-outs; many of them very young kids who'd dropped acid and come from all over America to this mecca of LSD."
[/IMG]
Yes but to be fair, George was a rich, spoiled rock star who could afford to drop his acid on his country estate, be driven in private cars and jet away when things didn't suit him. I imagine for lots of those kids it was pretty cool for a while. I mean that's life and the real world George, it ain't filled with groovy gypsy people making art and paintings....except a couple places in Marin County where it still is.
peace
Yes, George did have high expectations. It was destined never to live up to those lofty ideals ('flower power'), drugs being its ruin. By late 67', C.Manson was already making the rounds of those 'horrible spotty drop out kids' (and later Dennis Wilson).
...
George was just a sucker with to much time on his hands. First he fell for the hippie garbage and then the Maharishi garbage. Lennon was in the same boat.
I never understand people who to this day try to describe the hippie movement as anything but total crap. The same with Woodstock the concert. 100s of thousands of drug infested, filthy, hippies rolling around in the mudd while speaking silly hippie lingo. No thanks..It was a joke..
I saw someone describe it a while ago and he said that it was a joke and even today its hard to even talk about without laughing a little. Right on brother...
At Live Aid when Joan Baez ( who pathetically can never stop living in the 60s ) said that Live Aid was this generations Woodstock, I was hoping that someone would kick her right in her backside. Yeah Joan raising money for the poor is exactly like crashing concerts so you don't have to pay and rolling around in the mudd while drugged out of your mind. Good call.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 17:07 by stanlove.
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by:
Koen
()
Date: March 10, 2015 17:06
Quote
latcho
[ultimateclassicrock.com]
I wonder if the stones would have asked more than jimmy's 18 thousand ???
His name was Jimi
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
AllAboutYours , bkrancho , brucepv , dandelion12 , daspyknows , JadedFaded , ladinsky14 , mariano , midimannz , mosthigh , rogerriffin , RollingFreak , SecondSet , Slop
Guests:
1788
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10