The book will cover the 1965,1966,1969,1970 Tours, Altamont, and Gimme Shelter.

Swiss-don't leave anything unsaid. Best wishes.

No not Lang..;-) stay tuned..

Great, looking for the projects of swiss and bmuseed to be realized!

One question about Altamont. I wonder how much the actual concert and the film GIMME SHELTER are linked. Of course, the movie turned out to be a story of Altamont concert, but was that already planned initially? Like to enrich the content of tour film by this grand finale, Woodstock by their own terms? It turned out to be something different than planned triumph, but still, had there not been cameras, would the whole 'free concert' ever took place? I recall once reading a claim that it wasn't so 'free' or such an altruistic gesture (among other motives, also to compansate the claims of their high ticket prices, especially by ROLLING STONE magazine), since the band had plans to cash it in movie theatres... Total bullshit?

Swiss, sorry to hear about your beloved. Strength to both of you! I don't know if you have seen this little thread of mine about one cameraman of Altamont (Eric Saarinen), so in the case not, I put the link here (some interesting co-incidencies and details there, me thinks): [www.iorr.org]

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-23 09:47 by Doxa.

Quote
bmuseed
The book will cover the 1965,1966,1969,1970 Tours, Altamont, and Gimme Shelter.

Swiss-don't leave anything unsaid. Best wishes.

No not Lang..;-) stay tuned..

bmuseed, thank you. I won't leave anything unsaid.

Not Lang...not you...hmmm...?

EDIT: omg, RS, pretty sure I know who it is - gasp - aaagh!

Cannot wait to read your book!

all best
swiss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-23 11:05 by swiss.

Quote
Doxa
Great, looking for the projects of swiss and bmuseed to be realized!

Thank you & thanks for the great post! I don't know if I can do another one like the one that
follows below, due to time constraints, but I hope this is somewhat helpful.

Quote
Doxa
One question about Altamont. I wonder how much the actual concert and the film GIMME SHELTER are linked. Of course, the movie turned out to be a story of Altamont concert, but was that already planned initially? Like to enrich the content of tour film by this grand finale, Woodstock by their own terms?

bmuseed can answer this more definitively than I. It's a smart and a perhaps tricky question.
Conversations about the possibility of a "Free Concert" in San Francisco had begun way before
the tour -- in England -- among the Stones, Sam Cutler, Rock Scully, and others from the Bay
Area music scene who were visiting London.

The Maysles were asked to film parts of the tour, which they did (only MSG?), as well as recording
at Muscle Shoals, and of course the Free Concert. At what exact points were decisions made to
film these different segments of the Stones' time in America, I do not yet know. But I believe
bmuseed is in possession of the original hand-written budget for the film, drawn up on a plane,
as he was sitting beside Dave Maysles chatting about the potential for the eventual film, given
the footage that had been shot, and the events that had gone down.

Quote
Doxa
It turned out to be something different than planned triumph, but still, had there not been cameras, would the whole 'free concert' ever took place?

Again, I defer to bmuseed at this juncture. With that said, this is such a "hypothetical"
it might be tough to answer--i.e., What might have happened if something else happened or didn't
happen? That said, the Bay Area folks, clearly, were not thinking in terms of a film.

It's more complicated and involved than we want to get into here, but suffice to say even the way
Monterey Pop Fest developed and was "commercialized" was repugnant to many in the Bay Area --vs.
how it was originally envisioned by them when approached by the LA-based organizers. Meaning,
there was a clash of late 1960s cultures and values that played out at Altamont, that was
very similar to what was involved even with Monterey Pop, which many of us might have thought
was a fairly straightforward non-controversial endeavor.

DA Pennebaker, who directed Monterey Pop (the film) says: "I spent about a week living with the
Stones in LA....and we were supposed to do a film with them. But I kinda didn't want to do a film
with them...I mean, it was a funny thing. I recognized that if you made a film, and they performed,
everybody would want to go see it--and I thought that was kind of great...But I felt something bad
was gonna happen at Altamont, and so we walked on it. We just decided not to go with it. And I think
Maysles came in and they took our contract and scratched off our name and put their name on the
bottom--that's what David told me later...I was glad to see somebody else do it, because it's a
good film, but it's not a film I ever would liked to have have made...For a film to rely on somebody
getting "offed" for it to be popular, it seems...there's too much Quaker in me to go with that."

So--at least according to this account from Pennebaker--there was talk from the time the Stones were
in LA about filming the Free Concert after the tour. So, how much of a motivator was the film
to do the concert...? bmuseed can correct me, but it would seem that--at least in those final days
prior to the concert--if the filming had meant nothing then the Free Concert would possibly
have been more likely to proceed at Sears Point Raceway, in Sonoma County, instead of the bleak
desolate Altamont locale. Among many reasons it did not (and, truly, there are many reasons) is
that Sears Point Raceway was owned by Filmways Inc, which demanded a sizable "take" from the
film, which the Stones did not agree to. Could the Stones, hypothetically, have pulled the plug on
filming the Free Concert, and gone ahead and performed there anyway, without it being filmed? In
some parallel universe, hypothetically. But by then it was already well-determined that it was
going to be filmed, and that it must be filmed. And at that point there were maybe 48 hours before
the Free Concert was scheduled to begin. So, going back to the drawing board and determining
whether to move ahead at Sear's Point (where--as I mentioned--there also were myriad other problems
and shortcomings), and simple perform and not film, just was not going to happen. It couldn't.
The train was already bearing down 180mph and everyone involved was doing whatever possible to
lay down tracks ahead of the train before the whole thing crashed into chaos and ruin.

So---again---the original pencil sketch of an idea to do a "free thing" when in America, when discussed
back in jolly olde England, did not, to my knowledge, include discussion of a film. Subsequent
discussion, once in America, at some early-ish point, among some parties, did include the notion
of a film. Other discussions, among other non-Stones parties involved with the Free Concert [and,
again, the entire concept and planning of the Free Concert was fractured, or at least definitively
nonlinear and not cohesive from the start] probably did not feature the fact of the concert being
filmed--or was not perceived as all that important or interesting to people not in the Rolling Stones orbit.

Quote
Doxa
I recall once reading a claim that it wasn't so 'free' or such an altruistic gesture (among other motives, also to compansate the claims of their high ticket prices, especially by ROLLING STONE magazine), since the band had plans to cash it in movie theatres... Total bullshit?

Things just aren't black and white. The Free Concert was discussed before the Stones came to
America. They thought it was potentially a very cool idea. Beloved respected Bay Area journalist
Ralph Gleason, among other influential parties in and out of the Bay Area, did criticize the
Stones for many things, including ticket prices. Was the Free Concert a completely cynical
PR ploy? Doubtful. Would there have been awareness of potentially multiple benefits to the
Stones (ranging from profit to the intrinsic value of doing a groovy free outdoor concert in
San Francisco, and anything in between)? I'd say sure. Are there perceptions about the Stones'
motivations that range the gamut, even today? Oh yes, indeed!

Quote
Doxa
Swiss, sorry to hear about your beloved. Strength to both of you! I don't know if you have seen this little thread of mine about one cameraman of Altamont (Eric Saarinen), so in the case not, I put the link here (some interesting co-incidencies and details there, me thinks): [www.iorr.org]

- Doxa

Thank you much, Doxa.

Eric Saarinen is fascinating. We have been in touch, and in fact, he is one of the people I
mentioned I need to interview to complete "The Night Before Altamont" radio documentary. He's
down in LA, and I hope to set something up in coming weeks. Thanks for the link to the great thread!

best
swiss

The Gimme Shelter film really paints a good picture of how the festival came to be. From what we know the Stones felt like they wanted to give back to the US after the great tour. Maybe they felt that since they missed Woodstock, and that they had done Hyde Park in UK, they should do their own festival in USA. Mel Belli was instrumental in putting it together, the Grateful Dead manger too, and Mike Lang is seen too. Maybe one of the main problems was that there was not really anyone in charge.
Also , it was the 60's and things were done differently than nowadays. matter of fact, the lessons learned from Altamont played a big part in bringing about the first changes in tightening up these huge get-togethers. It had to be obvious to the movers and shakers that this concept was here to stay, that the market, and the music was only going to get bigger.

Thank you very much for your awesome answer, swiss! Lots of things I didn't know about its history (though my knowledge of these matters is not actually very much).

So, to sum up, could one say that everything - like usually - was not black and white; there were different parties involved, and most likely Jagger's stance didn't go hand in hand with the one of Bay Area scene, who probably were more into a 'groovy free' thing with no commercial aspect. Jagger, despite seeing there a goddamn great party and a fun thing per se, saw there also other opportunities for him and his band PR- and, in the end, even money-wise... Of course, if we leave such - a bit cynical, but perhaps realistic - scenario out, one could hippie-wise think that the plan to film it was to offer the rest of the world a chance to take part into this great party..

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-23 15:09 by Doxa.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
The Gimme Shelter film really paints a good picture of how the festival came to be. From what we know the Stones felt like they wanted to give back to the US after the great tour. Maybe they felt that since they missed Woodstock, and that they had done Hyde Park in UK, they should do their own festival in USA. Mel Belli was instrumental in putting it together, the Grateful Dead manger too, and Mike Lang is seen too. Maybe one of the main problems was that there was not really anyone in charge.
Also , it was the 60's and things were done differently than nowadays. matter of fact, the lessons learned from Altamont played a big part in bringing about the first changes in tightening up these huge get-togethers. It had to be obvious to the movers and shakers that this concept was here to stay, that the market, and the music was only going to get bigger.

GIMME SHELTER movie really paints a good picture but also a kind of only picture we have of whatever involved with Altamont. Most of us, I think, do think the whole thing in terms of that movie. if I have understood right, one of the leading ideas in swiss's project is to offer different perspectives into it, or at least widen up the given perspective.

But that said, I agree with you said of its contextual, oddly lead, experimental nature, which, in the end, gave a lesson for upcoming events like that.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

GIMME SHELTER movie really paints a good picture but also a kind of only picture we have of whatever involved with Altamont. Most of us, I think, do think the whole thing in terms of that movie. if I have understood right, one of the leading ideas in swiss's project is to offer different perspectives into it, or at least widen up the given perspective.

But that said, I agree with you said of its contextual, oddly lead, experimental nature, which, in the end, gave a lesson for upcoming events like that.

- Doxa

Try (if you haven't read it yet) Sam Cutler's "You Can't Always Get What You Want: My Life with the Rolling Stones, the Grateful Dead and Other Wonderful Reprobates"?

I think he gives a very good "insider" account of what happened. Indeed an interesting read (or, better, listen, as I got the ipad app version of the book with Sam reading it).

C

I know of bands/solo artists that have a gig at the New Orleans Jazzfest that, from what I've been able to gather over the years, do not do the set list of the tour they're on. That it's treated as not part of the tour.

It makes sense that Altamont was not part of the 1969 tour.

Quote
liddas

Quote
Doxa

GIMME SHELTER movie really paints a good picture but also a kind of only picture we have of whatever involved with Altamont. Most of us, I think, do think the whole thing in terms of that movie. if I have understood right, one of the leading ideas in swiss's project is to offer different perspectives into it, or at least widen up the given perspective.

But that said, I agree with you said of its contextual, oddly lead, experimental nature, which, in the end, gave a lesson for upcoming events like that.

- Doxa

Try (if you haven't read it yet) Sam Cutler's "You Can't Always Get What You Want: My Life with the Rolling Stones, the Grateful Dead and Other Wonderful Reprobates"?

I think he gives a very good "insider" account of what happened. Indeed an interesting read (or, better, listen, as I got the ipad app version of the book with Sam reading it).

C

I haven't yet read that book, but it is rather high in my list... Thanks for reminding me!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-23 20:20 by Doxa.

These days it's called a "one off". Obviously is wasn't a part of the tour but a free concert idea, one which Mick thought would be a cool big deal and cement the Stones as a big part of the free festival parties which were making headlines and at the time seemed to be the apex of concert experiences.

The Stones were at the top of the heap and imho they couldn't resist being the main part of one of these huge festival experiences in America. With Monterey Pop and Woodstock getting such great press and general post event success, I think Mick's ego wouldn't let him pass up an opportunity to be a part of that.

I still think is could have been great without the questionable security decisions. I've no doubt that some folks probably had a blast and avoided the violence and bad vibes. peace

Quote
Doxa
Thank you very much for your awesome answer, swiss! Lots of things I didn't know about its history (though my knowledge of these matters is not actually very much).

So, to sum up, could one say that everything - like usually - was not black and white; there were different parties involved, and most likely Jagger's stance didn't go hand in hand with the one of Bay Area scene, who probably were more into a 'groovy free' thing with no commercial aspect. Jagger, despite seeing there a goddamn great party and a fun thing per se, saw there also other opportunities for him and his band PR- and, in the end, even money-wise... Of course, if we leave such - a bit cynical, but perhaps realistic - scenario out, one could hippie-wise think that the plan to film it was to offer the rest of the world a chance to take part into this great party..

- Doxa

Doxa - so well, and succinctly, said. The only nuance I would perhaps shade a bit more is that
I'm pretty sure no one had an actual "stance" on the Free Concert in its early stages. The very
high-level "vision" seems to have been more or less shared, meaning in the realm where
ideas hatch before there is much in the way of detail attached, but a cohesive "strategy" or "plan"
about how it was going to play out "on the ground" was lacking, and seems to have been far
more amorphous for pretty much everyone involved.

Other than that nuance I think you, as usual, nailed it.

- swiss

Quote

... the Stones as a big part of the free festival panties

later commemorated as the cover of Sticky Fingers

(I know I know, it wasn't a Stone but a Warhol protege - but it's the thought that counts!)
_{(Sorry, I truly couldn't help it - don't mind me)}

I was around for quite a lot of the pre-Altamont discussions and I don't agree with Naturalust's above post.

I look forward to Ronnie Schneider's book because he knows what he's talking about.

Quote
stonesrule
I was around for quite a lot of the pre-Altamont discussions and I don't agree with Naturalust's above post.

I look forward to Ronnie Schneider's book because he knows what he's talking about.

What part don't you agree with? Since you were around for the discussions, I'm sure we would all appreciate you're take on them! with respect. peace

Mick's ego had little to do with it.
The SF contingent was hounding the Stones to do a free concert.

Ronnie Schneider was in the middle of the action; his book should be worthwhile.

This thread has gotten incredibly interesting.

I also look forward to reading what swiss and bmuseed come forth with and feel a little honoured to be posting amongst people that have worked so closely with the Stones in the past.

Makes this a great place to congregate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-24 01:11 by treaclefingers.

There's so many of you...don't push around.

Quote
stonesrule
I was around for quite a lot of the pre-Altamont discussions

stonesrule,

I'd not known that. Were you in LA? working for the Stones? or in which capacity were you around
for quite a lot of the pre-Altamont discussions?

thanks
swiss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-24 01:58 by swiss.

................................................. Ethan Russell



ROCKMAN

Rockman

Great Ethan Russell photo and anecdote. Carter was not taking the course at Stanford. Two
Stanford MBA students approached Carter to help him modernize and save his business, as
part of a business class project. I'm not 100% sure **yet** who the students were, but apparently
one of the student's roommates was somehow peripherally involved with --or aware of-- the
last-minute Free Concert location dilemma, and the students suggested to Dick Carter that
Altamont be offered up as the loocation. As another tactic for saving his business...oy.

swiss

Here is the accurate answer to your question......

This Rolling Stones tour was acclaimed but also derided as rank profiteering. Remember that this was the hippie era and the era of "Street Fighting Man". As this tour was winding down the Stones decided to do a free concert to restore their street credibility. There was pressure on them to do so from the rock and roll culture as lead by Rolling Stone magazine. The Stones decided to give something away. So they got together with the most hippie band ever, The Dead, and put on a free concert at Altamont.

It was definitely not part of the tour. It was an afterthought that was organized during the final days of that tour.

Yep...wait for ron's book I think...the only one who can legitimately comment.
I would personally think the Measles took advantage of their opportunity.
Imagine as a film maker you were told of a free concert..and even better one that had some people die..gold!!!
Keep it up also swiss...very good
ER

RE: My book-still not sure of a title---I expect to do something special for the IORR users and fans when the book is
ready but in the mean time I can say that I am so happy to see this discussion as it validated my decision to do the book for the fans and the facts!

A lot of you are totally wrong about some of your points Please be patient.

First I heard of this: "DA Pennebaker, who directed Monterey Pop (the film) says: "I spent about a week living with the Stones in LA....and we were supposed to do a film with them. But I kinda didn't want to do a film with them...I mean, it was a funny thing. I recognized that if you made a film, and they performed,everybody would want to go see it--and I thought that was kind of great...But I felt something bad was gonna happen at Altamont, and so we walked on it. We just decided not to go with it. And I think Maysles came in and they took our contract and scratched off our name and put their name on the bottom--that's what David told me later...I was glad to see somebody else do it, because it's a good film, but it's not a film I ever would liked to have have made...For a film to rely on somebody getting "offed" for it to be popular, it seems...there's too much Quaker in me to go with that."

In deference to Pennebaker I will only say he shouldn't trust his memory. I never asked him to film Altamont and he should rethink his discussion? with David. In all sincerity one cannot trust ones memory after all these years but one can trust the piece of paper from 1969 that has the info as it was then.
Yes I did post the $103,000 note covering film costs written by David Maysles but that was nothing compared to what I have...sorry to be such a tease but it will be worth it..

Quote
Eleanor Rigby
Yep...wait for ron's book I think...the only one who can legitimately comment.
I would personally think the Measles took advantage of their opportunity.
Imagine as a film maker you were told of a free concert..and even better one that had some people die..gold!!!
Keep it up also swiss...very good
ER

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-25 18:05 by bmuseed.

My summation of Altamont:

"Beware of unintended consequences."

That's all you really need to know.

Quote
71Tele
My summation of Altamont:

"Beware of unintended consequences."

That's all you really need to know.

Not bad!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-10-25 10:14 by swiss.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
The Gimme Shelter film really paints a good picture of how the festival came to be. From what we know the Stones felt like they wanted to give back to the US after the great tour. Maybe they felt that since they missed Woodstock, and that they had done Hyde Park in UK, they should do their own festival in USA. Mel Belli was instrumental in putting it together, the Grateful Dead manger too, and Mike Lang is seen too. Maybe one of the main problems was that there was not really anyone in charge.
Also , it was the 60's and things were done differently than nowadays. matter of fact, the lessons learned from Altamont played a big part in bringing about the first changes in tightening up these huge get-togethers. It had to be obvious to the movers and shakers that this concept was here to stay, that the market, and the music was only going to get bigger.

GIMME SHELTER movie really paints a good picture but also a kind of only picture we have of whatever involved with Altamont. Most of us, I think, do think the whole thing in terms of that movie. if I have understood right, one of the leading ideas in swiss's project is to offer different perspectives into it, or at least widen up the given perspective.

But that said, I agree with you said of its contextual, oddly lead, experimental nature, which, in the end, gave a lesson for upcoming events like that.

- Doxa

Doxa, there is a book on Altamont. I THINk it is called "Let it Bleed" which allso tells a good bit of story.
And then of course Sam Cutlers' book, where I earned a lot about the Grateful Dead's manager.
There is one book, and I can't recall which one that really tells us what a douche John Jaymes was. Ronnie Schneider would know a lot more about that.
That being said the two projects by Schneider and Swiss sound exciting.

My summation of Altamont:

"No good deed goes unpunished"

Quote
71Tele
My summation of Altamont:

"Beware of unintended consequences."

That's all you really need to know.

"No good deed goes unpunished."

Thanks Bemused.

[www.rollingstone.com]