Quote
Kurt
Santana at $750
Deal of the Day!

Quote
treaclefingers
They knew Altamont would be better.

Quote
stanlove

Quote
stanlove

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Naturalust

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

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.

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
stanlove

Quote
stanlove

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Naturalust

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

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.

The counter-culture did manage to end The Vietnam War. The last generation that stood for anything. Everything about music in those days was better as well. Yes there were plenty of lost souls but being a hippie was also something to be if you were an outcast, disillusioned with the booze fueled hypocrisy that ran rampant in the early 60's. Joan Baez one of the greatest of the eras troubadours could not get a second listen in today's plastic doll world of music. George Harrison? He was most certainly a BON VIVANT, being the youngest of The Beatles he had little real life experience.

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
2000 LYFH

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]

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. that's why we have so many lawyers politicians, and cops around

[www.apollomag.com.au]

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
stanlove

Quote
stanlove

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Naturalust

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

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.

The counter-culture did manage to end The Vietnam War. .

Quote
stanlove

Quote
DoomandGloom

Quote
stanlove

Quote
stanlove

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Naturalust

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

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.

The counter-culture did manage to end The Vietnam War. .

I challenge your history on that. If anything they prolonged it.

Quote
latcho
C.I.A. involved ???

Quote
DoomandGloom
Back to the thread. The Stones, Dylan or Beatles did not play Woodstock because they were already firmly implanted icons. For them to directly connect to the counter-culture in America could effect their longevity or place in history, the war was to come and go during their careers they were careful not be tied to a movement. SFD or GS are is the closest The Stones got to politically timely, still the "Killed The Kennedys" statement is moving but without risk. Dylan played "Turn, Turn, Turn" and Seeger songs but never sang about the war directly. The Beatles' "Revolution" is a decidedly conservative statement although Lennon, who wasn't afraid to evolve his views, soon went all in, including apologizing to Chairman Mao. Looking through the list of those acts that survive today: Melanie, CSN(Y), Country Joe, Joan Baez, Santana... The Who and The Grateful Dead are also limping by this summer. Meanwhile The Rolling Stones are still great. Of course we all love the older stuff but when I watch stuff from the mid 80's for example I'm convinced we are now witnessing their most soulful and genuine period.

Quote
DoomandGloom
the protests fueled the mainstream, for the first time the agenda of such conflicts was in question.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers
They knew Altamont would be better.

Even Stevie Wonder could see that.

Quote
Rockman
Truth be know ...
Charlie was disgusted by the thoughts of having to use one of those portable loos ....

Quote
stonehearted
<<The Stones, Dylan or Beatles did not play Woodstock because they were already firmly implanted icons.>>

The Beatles had already achieved that status by 1967, but that didn't stop one of the organizers of Monterey from complaining to the audience about their conspicuous absence at that festival (and the audience booed over their refusal to show). They received an invite, and were rumored to show because they had their press agent Derek Taylor as one of the organizers. But they had recently retired from live performance, and their music had lately become too complex to be played live.

Dylan received an invite to Monterey, but he was recovering from a motorcycle accident.

The Stones were to receive an invite, but because of the Redlands bust they couldn't get work visas for the U.S.

So what would change in 2 years to make them too big for Woodstock? Suppose these three artists had played Monterey in '67--wouldn't they certainly have been invited for Woodstock?

Anyway, Bob Dylan played at the Isle Of Wight festival in 1970, another big festival shindig with a hippy-dippy audience, so there goes that theory.

Quote
Naturalust

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

Quote
DoomandGloom
Here's my question to Stones historians. In Aug. 1969 were the stones considered to be done and non-influential? My take has them revived with the release of Ya Ya's and especially SF. Listening to Hyde Park and Altimont the band is always out of tune and sounding terrible but the bootlegs for Ya Ya's reveal an amazing, amazing band. How is that possible?

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Rockman
Truth be know ...
Charlie was disgusted by the thoughts of having to use one of those portable loos ....

Who can forget this humble happy fellow cleaning those porta-potties. Forget Hendrix, this guy was the true hero of Woodstock. One kid at the concert one kid over in Viet Nam... I think Charlie would have loved this guy.





peace

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
DoomandGloom
Here's my question to Stones historians. In Aug. 1969 were the stones considered to be done and non-influential? My take has them revived with the release of Ya Ya's and especially SF. Listening to Hyde Park and Altimont the band is always out of tune and sounding terrible but the bootlegs for Ya Ya's reveal an amazing, amazing band. How is that possible?

With Let it Bleed about finished, Through the Past Darkly about to be released, Honky Tonk Women on the charts, a Top of the Pops appearance and a new killer guitarist in the band, I'd say they knew they were about to embark on a new era of success. The 1969 concerts became a hallmark and model for rock concerts for years to come. In retrospect, it's easy to see and say that this was the start of the best and most influential period of their careers. I think they were still darlings in the media as well.

I do however know what you mean about the shaky concert recordings at those events. I can only guess that people were a bit less judgmental about the performances in those days, more excited just to see their rock stars up on stage playing something that sounded like their cherished records and probably all a bit stoned. The excitement of a crowd of freaks at a rock show was also probably a potent factor. Basically, The records were there for the best quality music experience, the music at the concerts was only a single variable in a complex equation.

That's my take on it, but I wasn't there, it would be interesting to hear from some of the posters here who actually saw (and remember) their take on it back in 1969.

peace