Rolling Stones At Altamont thoughts

Maybe he borrowed a Harley.

 

This has been a really interesting thread. New, to me, information and background constantly being churned up.

I was just accepting the film as an edited documentary, not thinking at all (or really realizing) that it was funded (initially) by The Stones. Which does, I would say, put a little twist on things.

Thank you for this Salon link. This, too, is a MUST read.

 

Recently watched: Crossfire Hurricane and Mick said something to the effect "that the hippy crowd knew how to put on these big free concerts on the west coast, that was their thing, not the Stones thing."
Basically seemed to be throwing it back at the Dead, and the other "hippy band element types" that were involved... Again, big, free concerts, west coast USA, their expertise -- and they let the Stones down...
that was my take anyway.

 

OK, I assumed that he was talking about film footage. And I also figure that there must be much more footage than we've ever seen, and I can't think of a moment during the Stones' relatively short performance where it would have been necessary to turn the cameras off. But he could have been talking about audio tapes.

 

On the surface it seems dickish of Mick ("Mickish?" ) to throw it back on the West Coast groups, but it's true that the SF crowd had much more experience with outdoor events than anyone connected to the Stones did, and the Stones were working their way across the USA on tour before the event, so it seems reasonable that perhaps the JA/GD crowd was more involved with the prep than we think. And it also seems reasonable that they (JA/GD) might not want to emphasize their involvement too much.

 

The Angels? You know some of them must have been packing heat..

 

Oh, there's no question in my mind there's far more footage than what made it in the final film. I just question that any sort of "complete cut" was ever compiled.

A complete audio recording, on the other hand, would have been pretty straightforward.

BTW, does anyone recall something about the audio recording having problems because of fluctuations with the generators? I thought I read something to that effect once.

 

I took it the way you did as well. Because this follows:

But Zwerin doesn’t regret leaving any of that out. “We’re talking about the structure of a film. ..."

Me again: but I guess it could be sound only. Don't know.

 

Yeah...but with that logic you'd think the Stones would have followed The Dead's example!

 

I think that has more to do with the editing of the article than any reference to a complete cut of the performance. That is, I don't think Zwerin was specifically referencing a complete cut of the performance, nor was Marcus. Marcus was talking about the flow of the concert as a whole, which he was able to hear from the complete recording, while Zwerin was discussing her role as an editor. Obviously there was more footage that wasn't used.

 

Well, the Dead weren't the headliners, so they knew they could do a runner. But if the Stones had done so, there probably would have been a LOT more dead people.

 

He looks like your avatar!

 

Maybe. I'm just remarking on the "we were just following The Dead's lead" concept. If that's their spin...follow the leader all the way! Which is, something ain't right, I'm getting outta here!

As I now know from having read the Salon article, The Stones had invested, what? Close to $90,000 for their movie. Might that have had something to do with them soldiering on? Just thinking out loud.

 

Great article, a very good read. One thing I agree with is that their performance certainly did improve after "Under My Thumb"...they were on fire the last half of the show. "Brown Sugar" in particular, as well as "Gimme Shelter" are just blistering.

 

Well, c'mon, there was no way they were going to bail. They'd played at concerts that ended in riots before, so that wouldn't have been a deal-breaker, and they'd been building anticipation for the event for weeks. I don't see what's so remarkable about saying that maybe they just said, "Well, the show must go on." They were the headliners and everyone knew that 300,000 people didn't show up to see the Grateful Dead. If they had refused to go on, that would have resulted in a much more disastrous situation, so I see no reason to presume greedy motives for not having abandoned the monster they created.

 

I have to watch it again, on the dvr... but Sir Mick might...? have used the term the: "hippy, dippy crowd?"


That said... from my reading, watching youtube vid etc (and I am a big Stones fan) but don't think that Mick or Keef ever had much respect or use for the Dead per se

 

Yeah, that would be him just being Mickish.

 

This is the guy I alluded to in post#138. I said
"The scene in Gimme Shelter where a Hell's Angel is standing a few feet from Jagger, staring at him with undisguised hatred and menace while Mick is performing is one of the most unsettling moments in a film chock full of them."

This scene only lasts a few seconds, but is so full of menace, it stuck with me all these years.

 

I know I could go back to film and watch it in its entirety, to find the answer, but being at work...

In "Gimme Shelter," is there a quick cut of Keith Richards do a quick Sign of the Cross when the violence is really getting heavy? I seem to remember that in the film... If so, I guess that follows the theory that "there ain't never any atheists in foxhole."

 

I didn't say that! I mainly was going on in a lighthearted way to respond to Jagger pointing the finger at The Dead. I don't buy that at all. Do you?

 

At 1:18:32, after Stu is asking for a doctor down front:

 

True story: A friend of mine at the time and his wife drove down from the suburbs to see Sly, and parked in the underground parking garage at Grant Park. My friend looked very much the hippie type. When things got ugly, he and his wife left, and eventually made their way through the mob back to the garage. He started up his car, started to drive out of the garage, and before he got very far, his engine seized up. Someone at the garage, he obviously never found out who, had gotten underneath his car and drained all the oil out of the crankcase. This guy was not the rioting type, and wanted no part of that scene, but because he had long hair, and he and his wife dressed in the style of the hippies of the day, he paid the price.

 

Classic!

 

I don't remember the exact quote from CH and was only responding to another's paraphrase, but as I indicated, it does seem somewhat credible that the SF crowd might have been involved in the prep for Altamont beyond simply showing up to get punched. And the Wikipedia entry (cue the shouts of, "It's Wikipedia, dammit! Not to be trusted!") has two different scenarios, one Stones-based, one Airplane-based. Now, this doesn't mean that Mick isn't being a dick when he points at "the hippy dippy types", but it does seem to suggest that the whole situation was much more complicated than some people realize.

 

The Angel in question here is former San Francisco chapter president Bob Roberts. It's a powerful moment in the film, to be sure, and lord only knows what's going through his head, but I'm not sure he's on the verge of losing control or seething with rage -- a few shots later, he gets the Wolfman off the stage with dispatch but (seemingly) without unnecessary roughness.