Rolling Stones At Altamont thoughts

I agree with what Zelox and Dudley have said. Not forgiving it but the Angels did not know how to handle it (but then neither did police, or the National Guard or private security in that era). The Angels role as security was based on one thing, the power to intimidate through a perceived image or reputation as bad guys you did not mess with. You don't do this or that because these guys will f**K with you if you do, so keep clear. Their mere presence was supposed to be enough to do the job they were given - to keep the stage clear. Problem is if the audience is on drugs, drunk or in lust with Jagger that power to enforce through perceived authority disappears as the audience just doesn't recognize it. You then have to act , and in some cases clearly over-react to a situation you are not trained for, too drunk or stoned to cope with, or don't want to be in. Then the authority goes and you are just left with the individuals, both good and bad.

What was supposed to happen was the Angels sit on the edge of the stage, everyone keeps clear of them, the Stones look cool and edgy, the Angels get a good view and some beers, everyone has a mellow time and the world sees how the young can manage themselves without the man.

Look at what happened in Kurhaus 64 or in Fresno 65 when the audience were only 4000!



BTW great topic!

 

I agree with this as to what happened at Altamont!

http://davrosky.blogspot.com/2012/06/altamont-what-really-happened.html

 

Well said. Here's a thought, maybe they ended up in a situation they couldn't control? How about they made a mistake? Like you would when you have 300,000 people at a racetrack with inadequate facilities or security, and the full magnitude only dawns on you when you're halfway through the set.

Were they (and especially Mick) naive? Certainly. Driven by ego? Absolutely. But it doesn't mean they wanted Hell's Angels to pummel the audience with pool cues. I'd say a big reason Jagger micromanages every aspect of a show now is precisely because what he went through that night.

If you read Stanley Booth's masterly account of that tour, every show was poorly planned. Something as bad as Altamont was sadly a matter of time. It just happened to happen with the Stones.

 

dkmonroe: Like others have said, Hunter made many bad decisions that day, but it's awfully hard to not feel that he was a sympathetic character.

There was nothing at Altamont that resembles a "sympathetic character" when you're describing someone who comes to a public venue high on meth waving around a loaded weapon in a threatening manner.

DrBeatle: Well, Hunter had an earlier run in with the Angels during the show where they punched him and threw him back into the crowd. He was, by all accounts (and the coroner's report) whacked out on Angel Dust (irony?) and pissed at the Angels for manhandling him (and also perhaps because someone had made a pass at his girlfriend) so when he went charging back and pulled his gun, nothing good could have come of it.

I have no idea if an earlier altercation with the Angels occurred or not, this could be true or but another myth - or an exaggeration. But assuming it did, he already was doing something bizarre or threatening if the Angles singled him out. Trust me, it wasn't merely his outfit as things like that (or variations thereof) were commonplace enough at festival events like this. But when you pull a loaded piece in a public place, don't expect anything but the lights to go out very shortly after. And in some cases, forever.

kw21925: I seriously doubt that Hunter was expecting to get beaten up by Hell's Angels at the concert; my first question would be why did he bring a loaded pistol to a music festival? What's an 18 year-old kid doing carrying a loaded gun around? I'm sorry, I just can't relate.

No one with a brain can relate either - not back then, and not now. His ignorance cost him his life.

Raunchnroll: Murder is a term usually associated with criminal homicide. Whether Hunter was murdered or not is a grey area and depends on ones viewpoint.

Only an ignoramus, or someone with a anarchistic axe to grind, would hold Hunter to be faultless for his own irresponsible actions that day. Anyone who views him as an "innocent" possesses a disturbingly twisted viewpoint.

Remington Steele: As someone who lived in California, it never stopped being common practice for many residents to carry firearms, especially in certain counties.

Baloney. Your statement amounts to an outrageously broad sweep. California is not Texas. Many Californians possess guns but aren't hauling them into public venues. That's absurd.

Jonboy: Me neither! Maybe someone can enlighten me - was it common practise to carry firearms in California in the 60s?

No. This idiot payed for it with his life. It made little difference whether the security on hand were the Angels or private guards or police. You pull a loaded weapon in a public place, in this case a festival with 300,000 in attendance, you deserve to be taken out as expeditiously as possible. By bullet or any other means. No one needed to suffer or die at this man's unhinged hands that day.

Zeki: On top of that, I would think there would be all sorts of red lights going off. Jagger gets punched in the face (not by the Angels), and The Dead who are friendly with the Angels...they refuse to appear because THEY think it is too dangerous.

The Dead were definitely concerned over the Hell's Angel's behavior by that point. But they were equally concerned over the negative vibe they were getting from the crowd, and in fact the entire event. All these factors were playing into each other and escalating things ever higher. And yes, Jagger got punched in the face upon arrival - by a member of the crowd! Just another one of many bad seeds in attendance.

Guy E: They were very different times and I don't think anyone under the age of 45 or 50 can imagine them.

Bingo.

Shem: "After all, it was you and me..."

Well put Shem. And quite apropos.

 

He might look dumb, but hell, he's in a horrible situation and he's doing what he can to salvage it. I'd love to know what else he could have done at that precise point.

 

Shem the Penman: From Keith's book:
That was where the Angels certainly didn't help. They had their own agenda, which was to basically get as out of it as possible. Hardly an organized security force.

Keith and Mick have their asses to protect for what went down. The Hell's Angels were not a professional security force. They were hired for events like this - and others - as a show of force. Normally that's all it takes. They show up, the audience backs off and keeps their distance. But that's not what happened at Altamont. Too many in the crowd were surly and high in ugly ways. To make matters worse, some of the H.A. crew appeared to be the same, especially as the day wore on. The stage was set wrong to boot, with the crowd inertia leaning into it. It was a perfect storm in the making.

Shem the Penman: In the days when 'there was revolution in the air' I think the bands were attracted to the idea of having the Angels as their own security. I can see how that made sense at the time. And Barger was no fool, there were some sharp guys in there from what I remember from Thompson's book. But they blew it at Altamont.

Yes they did. It hurt their reputation in many ways. When Jagger and Richards attempted to portray them as source of what went wrong, instead of taking it on their own chins, or pointing to the abundance of rowdy and out of control partiers (which by extension presumably would have been their fans), further animosity ensued between them.

Shem the Penman: The Hunter situation is what complicates things because they may have saved Jagger or somebody else's life.

Now you're seeing things for what they were worth. Jagger and Richards should have too.

Dudley Morris: It's pretty clear that there were a lot of bad vibes to go around, and the Angels were hardly the only ones provoking confrontations. One indicator of this is, it seems like every third person has a gallon jug of cheap red wine.

More of the same. And yet too many in the press, for their own sordid reasons, refused to portray fact from fiction, playing up hollow myths instead. It wasn't hippies behind the trouble, or the performers, or the so-called security crews. It was too many drugged out and boozed up troublemakers crawling out of the woodwork, in concentrations that couldn't be pacified or tempered as the day grew long.

old school: I was at Newport Pop Festival in june 1969 there were 300,000 people there. 95% of the audience was cool. The last day the Hells Angels started a riot and were the troublemakers not the hippies!

Perhaps. But an upbeat Newport or Monterrey do not guarantee the same results at Altamont, or anywhere else. Different vibes, different beast. I've been to similar ones, where trouble is afoot. You can sense it and feel it. Altamont was one of those. It stands out due to its size - and of course the film that followed. Let me ask you this: What accounts for all the times the Hell's Angels served in similar capacity but there wasn't any significant trouble to speak of? Including a ton of events in the hub and heart of flower power itself: Frisco City!

 

Stones' Altamont Setlist:

1. Jumpin' Jack Flash
2. Carol
   (Chuck Berry cover)
3. Sympathy for the Devil
   (Stopped then restarted)
4. The Sun Is Shining
   (Jimmy Reed cover)
5. Stray Cat Blues
6. Love in Vain
   (Robert Johnson cover)
7. Under My Thumb
   (Stopped then restarted)
8. Brown Sugar
   (first performance ever)
9. Midnight Rambler
10. Live With Me
11. Gimme Shelter
12. Little Queenie
    (Chuck Berry cover)
13. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
14. Honky Tonk Women
15. Street Fighting Man

 

Exactly. What makes that sequence in the film so fascinating and tragic is that you can see all of this slipping away. It's all breaking down right before our eyes. Somebody just posted the picture of the goofy guy with the crazy stare - I forgot him. So much going on in this whole sequence, I'm sure Scorsese the Stones fan is an admirer of the atmosphere that's captured here.

There was some discussion of the interactions between the band & the Angels onstage. The guys around the stage looked angry & bitter at that point, like they were the ones charged with this impossible task of controlling the mob and now it's all going to pot, so to speak. Here come the rock stars to save the day but the Angels already know that it's a lost cause. There's nothing but animosity at that point.

 

As far as my point goes yes I went to many " Love Ins " at Griffith Park lots of Hells Angels there and no problems. And the Diggers fed us very cool.

 

Exactly old school. I hope no one views what I've added here as a defense for the Hell's Angels per se. I have seen these guys in and at many places over the course of my days. I've seen them behave well, and I've seen them get nasty. Anyone who mistakes them for a professional outfit is crazy. But to drop the blame at their feet for Altamont is equally crazy. They were just a small part of what went wrong that day, but make for a convenient bogeyman.

The fact that they may have saved lives by taking a gun toting meth head out is the first thing that gets overlooked. He could easily have killed one of your favorite performers (I'm talking to you Mick Jagger, and you Keith Richards) instead of some nondescript, no-name Angel. More people need to wrap their heads around this. It had nothing to do with the guy being young, or black or bouncy. If a similar speed freak with white skin whipped out a pistol and charged the stage, he would have received the same shank, and just as quickly. And deservedly so.

 

I always said Hunter caused his own demise. But I think blame goes to many people including Stones Management and for the Stones waiting till dark to play making a volatile situation even worse. And I don't understand the people that think the Rolling Stones have zero blame is ludicrous. And how the Stones left there tour manager Sam Cutler holding the bag when the Stones told Cutler we have your back. Which they did a knife right where it hurts terrible way to treat a employee. But Mick and Keith screwed so many people who worked for them.

 

I haven't thought about Altamont or seen the film in decades, but I've learned a lot of details from this thread and you're right, the word "innocent" can be grossly misplaced. If Hunter had fired at the stage there would have been mayhem. It wouldn't have mattered if the bullets went stray or someone got a flesh wound or he killed a Hell's Angel or a band member... that site would have exploded, at least up front. The shot may not have been heard by most people in the crowd, but word would have spread, and fast. Given the chaotic organization of the festival, the low stage, the HUGE crowd, it's surprising things remained as in-control as they did.

The closest I've been to a nasty festival experience was the Sly Stone riot in Chicago's Grant Park, a FREE concert. When things got dicey word spread fast and we found our way back to the train station the LONG way around. I've enjoyed lots of FREE outdoor shows in NYC through the years, but the crowds are rarely more than a few thousand. 50,000, 100,000, hundreds of thousands... that just spells trouble.

 

Before the concert the Stones and their organization were guilty of naive stupidity. After the concert the Stones were guilty of spin. I guess they still are.

That's entertainment.

 

Altamont, like most other calamities or disasters, had a chain of contributory factors that all came together to create that perfect tempest. What you just added is but another part of the story of how and why things went south. Apparently the Hell's Angels were so mad at Jagger they decided to finish what Hunter may have started (I'm talking about the alleged hit that came later). Not sure how real that was, but frankly I can understand why they felt deserted - left to hang in the wind to be everyone's convenient scapegoat. The Stones left Cutler dangling too. So yes, Mick and Keith have their own keesters to cover. There was too little innocence to go around that day.

Again, no one should try to reduce this to a single or simple out. Just too many negatives came together one festive day, and you got what you got.

 

Exactly. You spell it out well. This is why I say it is precisely the duty of security personnel - no matter how they're comprised - to snuff out trouble as it arises. The more threatening or volatile, the more forceful the dispatch needs to be. There's no way around it. When you're dealing with large crowds - in this case 300,000 souls in a tightly congested area where a high percentage are high or intoxicated - you are dealing with potential mayhem. One death may have escalated into 10, 20, or perhaps 100 individuals in the blink of an eye, many of whom would have been wholly innocent.

You have to be to one - or more - to know the implications. I've been to enough to understand how quickly things can get out of hand. I've seen knife fights, heads bashed in barely ten feet from me, and people intent on going out of their way to get themselves killed by their irresponsible behavior. Seeing a lot of this helped me grow up myself, to take a few extra sober breaths, and differentiate between wishful thinking and the cold hard realities this world presents. Of those two, rely on the latter if you know what's good for you.

FREE concerts are a no-no. With but few exceptions, I can't think of any I attended that didn't bring in a bad crowd - like moths to a flame! It made me think on what I was seeing. And yes, the bigger the crowd, the bigger the potential for trouble. I would NOT have wanted to be part of that H.A. crew or the handful of private guards at Altamont. For all their own unruliness, the Angels themselves had no idea what they got themselves into. Contrary to popular myth, I've always felt they were trying to make the best of a bad situation. But then were left to hang for it when they did what they had to do. It was them against the world at that point. Thankfully most juries do their best to decipher right from wrong, and the one judjing them apparently took that resposibility seriously.

 

Is there anyone who says he was 'faultless' or 'innocent'? ....maybe a few do. High + young/immature + armed + in a large, close crowd = very bad decisions and hardly faultless; what his intent was will never be known.

When someone asserts they know 'what really happened' - based on a few interviews, and nothing from several key players - you're getting a dose of tabloid journalism. Sip carefully.

 

I was just using your quote Raunchnroll, I don't believe you were actually advocating that notion or position. Everything I've seen you add runs counter. But have there been some who've portrayed this guy as faultless or innocent? Surprisingly, yes. And for quite a few years. Again, anyone with but a modicum of sense will take the time to examine enough facts to see how this amounts to sheer baloney. But others, including members of the media, have hedged their bets on this issue, playing up the myth that he was singled out for special treatment. Others love to play up the race card to add more tantalizing juice. It helps to sell things better.

Sage and well spoken.

 

This thread is a fascinating read. I've had a copy of the show on my DVR for a few weeks now but haven't watched it yet. I first watched it a couple times on VHS like 25 or 30 years ago. I've kinda been putting off viewing it again...

 

the guy brought a gun to a knife fight....and lost.

 

Here's the initial concept of the free show in Golden Gate Park. No announcement. The Dead crew set up the stage. The Stones begin to play. The music attracts a gathering crowd from the park. By the the time word gets around the city the show is essentially over. Likely caught on film and fairly exciting.
The comparable thing is the 1975 flatbed truck ride through NYC or even The Beatles on the Rooftop.
No weeks long momentum attracting the Stones' massive fan base.

 

As deadpan humor, that's actually pretty good.

 

In the film, yes, but the sequence has been edited. Richards also explicitly tells someone to "stop pushing people around" between Sympathy and The Sun is Shining. Pretty sure all the stage banter/on mike talking has been transcribed somewhere online...

 

I am cognizant of the unsympathetic aspects of Hunter's character as well, and have expressed that. Had circumstances gone only slightly differently, he'd be right down there with Mark David Chapman. But thanks anyway.

 

Zelox:
When someone asserts they know 'what really happened' - based on a few interviews, and nothing from several key players - you're getting a dose of tabloid journalism. Sip carefully.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree that this is tabloid journalism. This wasn't written up immediately after the event. The author researched exactly what we all want to know here in this thread. What part of this account screams "tabloid" at you? It seems a very good attempt at describing events leading up to the concert and then what transpired. Covers the height of the stage, relates how The Dead had used only individual Angels (not en masse)...and on and on.

Below is pasted author note:

"[Note: This is the full, unedited version of a story I wrote titled Deadly Day for the Stones, published in the Panorama section of The Canberra Times, on 5 December, 2009. It is based on interviews I conducted with Sam Cutler, Road Manager for the Rolling Stones; Chip Monck, Stage Manager for The Rolling Stones; Rock Scully, Manager, Grateful Dead; Robert Altman, photographer; and Albert Maysles, documentary filmmaker. Enjoy.]"

 

You get a much more accurate feel for the atmosphere during the Stones set by listening to the bootleg audience recording than you do by watching the film.