Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4
Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: RoughJusticeOnYa ()
Date: March 10, 2015 17:22

Quote
Kurt
Santana at $750
Deal of the Day!

...750 US $ by 1969 standards is close to 5,000 US $ today, mind you.

[ www.usinflationcalculator.com ]


EDIT:
I should've cruised a bit further down through this thread before posting this; for apparently 2 or 3 others of my fellow IORRians had already pointed this out. smoking smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 17:27 by RoughJusticeOnYa.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: March 10, 2015 17:43

Quote
treaclefingers
They knew Altamont would be better.

Even Stevie Wonder could see that.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: DoomandGloom ()
Date: March 10, 2015 19:26

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. smoking smiley

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 19:29 by DoomandGloom.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: TheGreek ()
Date: March 10, 2015 20:44

what a bunch of malarky

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: March 10, 2015 21:05

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. smoking smiley

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.

thumbs up Stanlove even you are influenced by that hippie culture (right on brother). The ideals and cultural change in those days was powerful stuff and had more of a lasting effect on our world than any other movement I know about. Support of free thinking, art and music, individualism, peace and love and tolerance went a long way to change the war-mongering world that preceded it. It birthed the women's rights movement, supported anti-racism, the sexual revolution and certainly changed music in a way that allowed that super creative period of the late 60's and early 70's to happen.

Basically it brought people together in a lot of ways, that is always a good thing. It wasn't all dirty hippies taking acid and rolling around in the mud. Those people went home, took showers and jumped into bed to birth the next generation! grinning smiley Also , companies like Apple computer and Microsoft were products of that revolution, it's impossible to separate it from what we have become today. I think the overall effect was positive.

peace

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: latcho ()
Date: March 10, 2015 21:27

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 smiling smiley


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]

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: latcho ()
Date: March 10, 2015 21:28

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

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: stanlove ()
Date: March 10, 2015 22:00

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. smoking smiley

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.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: latcho ()
Date: March 10, 2015 22:33

woodstock made a world wide message, love, peace, everywhere, vietnam, india, europe, united states ??? don't mention the war,it's a no go area

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: usetobesampeg ()
Date: March 10, 2015 22:34

I remember reading the promoters tried to stiff the WHO, it went something like, Pete Townshend “We flew over here to play your festive & we’d like to get our money we’ve got bills to pay back home! Promoter “we asked you to play in good faith & now you’re asking for all this money!” afterwards the Jefferson Airplane came over & asked “what was that all about?” Townshend “ Oh nothing we just got paid & so should you, The Airplane, “ We did, six months ago in advance”

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: DoomandGloom ()
Date: March 10, 2015 22:55

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. smoking smiley

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.
Well that's a conclusion that's confusing. My point is obvious, the protests fueled the mainstream, for the first time the agenda of such conflicts was in question. Johnson considered escalating after the Tet Offensive but when General William Westmoreland reported that completing the Vietcong's defeat would necessitate 200,000 more American soldiers and require an activation of the reserves, even loyal supporters of the war effort began to see eye to eye with the counterculture. Nixon won and ran promising to end the war in his first term, America's withdrawal from Saigon while a disgrace to US' armed forces started on the streets of Chicago and the fields of Bethel NY, saving my generation which was next to go, to instead grow up in a rare decade of peace. That was the gift the slimy counter-culture gave me and I salute their resolve. Dismissing the hippie movement by saying they grew up to be lawyers and doctors spits on the graves of those shot at Kent State or others that sacrificed for peace and to keep me from the killing fields of Vietnam.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 22:58 by DoomandGloom.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: latcho ()
Date: March 10, 2015 23:00

[www.youtube.com]

OK you got a point !!!!!!!

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: DoomandGloom ()
Date: March 10, 2015 23:23

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.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-10 23:36 by DoomandGloom.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: latcho ()
Date: March 10, 2015 23:39

C.I.A. involved ???

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: DoomandGloom ()
Date: March 10, 2015 23:56

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

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: latcho ()
Date: March 11, 2015 00:14

your video has been already checked, don't worry be happy, whe have got a open page here,just be sharpay !!!

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: March 11, 2015 00:18

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.

I think the answers were a bit simpler than all of that. The Stones, Dylan and the Beatles defined the counter culture, couldn't separate themselves from it if they tried. I have a hard time swallowing that they didn't want to play because it could effect their longevity. The Stones were not invited, The Beatles weren't a live act (and probably weren't invited) and Dylan was on his was to England for the Isle of Wight festival (and probably wasn't formally invited).

Plenty of those acts went on to have great runs. I can't think of a single one that was actually hurt by their appearance there, for most it was a career boost.

peace

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: Boognish ()
Date: March 11, 2015 00:27

Quote
DoomandGloom
the protests fueled the mainstream, for the first time the agenda of such conflicts was in question.
And the media fueled the protests. The media was a big reason why that war was lost. Previously the government had control over what the media reported back home from warzones. They had carte blanche to censor. But the media were free to report as they saw fit during the Vietnam War. It was really the first time that familes back home watched the 6 o'clock news with footage of the realness and devastating nature of a war. That definitely changed things, especially when Walter Cronkite expressed his opinion on the war.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-03-11 00:28 by Boognish.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: March 11, 2015 02:27

<<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.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Date: March 11, 2015 02:48

Quote
GasLightStreet
Quote
treaclefingers
They knew Altamont would be better.

Even Stevie Wonder could see that.

Are we going to burn if we laugh at this?

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: Rockman ()
Date: March 11, 2015 02:53

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



ROCKMAN

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: March 11, 2015 03:02

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...thumbs up I think Charlie would have loved this guy.





peace

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: DoomandGloom ()
Date: March 11, 2015 18:06

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.
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?

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Date: March 11, 2015 20:25

Well, they released JJF the year before, a song that re-defined their career and made them huge.

Altamont was a way better show than HP, save the ridiculously slow JJF.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: Pietro ()
Date: March 11, 2015 20:37

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. smoking smiley

peace

Speed had taken over the Haight-Ashbury by 1969. We all know how pleasant speed freaks are...

I live in SF. Every June when school lets out, kids in the 18-25 age range still come to the Haight to sit on the street and soak up the hippie vibe -- or whatever it is they do there. The words "Haight-Ashbury" carry a lot of meaning for many people still. And, like Harrison said, they still get drunk and stoned and it's kind of disconcerting. I've seen some weird stuff over the years in that neighborhood.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: Naturalust ()
Date: March 11, 2015 21:03

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

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: stonehearted ()
Date: March 11, 2015 22:28

<<I can only guess that people were a bit less judgmental about the performances in those days>>

Particularly given the monumental changes in major concerts between 1966 and 1969: Concert length went from 25 minutes to over an hour, and with the new PA systems the music was being heard on a level as never before--or, rather, it was just plain being heard. Once people realized they could actually hear the music, they stopped trying to scream over it, and just began to listen.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: fuzzbox ()
Date: March 11, 2015 22:37

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...thumbs up I think Charlie would have loved this guy.





peace

These are the true heroes of any society. smiling smiley

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: fuzzbox ()
Date: March 11, 2015 22:40

They couldn't play even if they wanted because Mick was in Australia failing to be an actor.

Re: Why the stones didn't play woodstock
Posted by: DoomandGloom ()
Date: March 11, 2015 23:50

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
I may be a little young to remember the release of JJF. I register it as an older song than it actually is. HTW, that was a big deal, there was no denying they were breaking barriers regarding sex and lyrics, still neither fit in exactly with the peace and love message of the festivals. The Stones made a sloppy stab at "Flower Power" with SMR but that was not them. Their message however explicit was a more traditional one of bedding women and girls or boasting how cool they were. Straight rock 'n' roll and there's no complaints here but they didn't fit in the hippie festival circuit of 1968 and 1969. The Who didn't either but they had a rock opera and thus were considered cutting edge by performing it.

Goto Page: Previous1234Next
Current Page: 3 of 4


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 237
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home