Foxhound
retired
An article on the fortieth anniversary of the Rolling Stones' free concert at Altamont was printed on the front page of the Entertainment section of today's 06 December 2009 edition of the Toronto Star:
The Blood and the Stones
Here's some quick excerpts and my commentary thereon:
Yes, for a variety of reasons.
Well that's laying it on a bit heavy but the writer is after all a journalist.
Methinks that chroniclers misunderstood Mick. The Stones concert did indeed make a statement for the rest of America that day, but the statement wasn't what the chroniclers thought. It was that all this flower power business was just a sham and had been so all along.
Right on!
Now here's a point that I've never seen made by any commentator. Given that a crazed individual brought a gun to the concert and then pulled it a mere twenty feet from the stage, don't you think that it was a good thing that there were some no nonsense enforcers in the form of the Hell's Angels to provide security? Had your typical security guards been hired to provide event security, might they not have just stood back and watched in horror as this fellow just started shooting at everybody? How many people would have been killed then?
Well it's not accurate to say or even imply that the Stones just stood by while a kid was being knifed. The Stones as the movie "Gimme Shelter" makes clear had no way of seeing or knowing what was happening twenty feet into the crowd.
Once again, a bit overstated but I can't disagree.
Well certainly not the Bee Gees or Crosby, Stills & Nash and whoever else.
The Blood and the Stones
Here's some quick excerpts and my commentary thereon:
Keith Rchards said:Altamont, it could only happen to the Stones, man. Let's face it. It wouldn't happen to the Bee Gees and it wouldn't happen to Crosby, Stills and Nash.
Yes, for a variety of reasons.
Within 24 hours, the name Altamont would become forever associated with many things, none of them having to do with car racing. It would be shorthand for the death of an era, the Luciferian powers of the Rolling Stones, the disillusioning rupture between rock music and its fans, and the moment when the violence latent in American culture finally caught up with countercultural idealism and fatally beat the flowers right out of its hair.
Well that's laying it on a bit heavy but the writer is after all a journalist.
Most baffling, however, might be the contradiction contemporary observers will immediately apprehend between the sunny stated intent behind Altamont – which Mick Jagger told a press conference was "creating a sort of microcosmic society which sets an example to the rest of America" – and its grim reality.
Methinks that chroniclers misunderstood Mick. The Stones concert did indeed make a statement for the rest of America that day, but the statement wasn't what the chroniclers thought. It was that all this flower power business was just a sham and had been so all along.
Mostly, however, it was the year of Woodstock. And more than anything, Altamont became the anti-Woodstock.
Right on!
The Stones had no idea that Meredith Hunter, a black teenager with a lime-green suit, bowler hat and a pistol in his pocket, had been stabbed to death by an Angel when he pulled his weapon less than 20 feet from the stage.
Now here's a point that I've never seen made by any commentator. Given that a crazed individual brought a gun to the concert and then pulled it a mere twenty feet from the stage, don't you think that it was a good thing that there were some no nonsense enforcers in the form of the Hell's Angels to provide security? Had your typical security guards been hired to provide event security, might they not have just stood back and watched in horror as this fellow just started shooting at everybody? How many people would have been killed then?
By the next day, Altamont had already begun its journey to myth. The '60s were over and this concert had killed them. The Stones had lived up to their Satanic majesty and stood by as a kid was killed in the process. Blood had stained what Rolling Stone Magazine rushed to call "Rock & Roll's Worst Day," and there was no washing it out. Woodstock had morphed into something ugly in its slouching crawl westward, a beast borne of its mere crossing of the American landscape.
Well it's not accurate to say or even imply that the Stones just stood by while a kid was being knifed. The Stones as the movie "Gimme Shelter" makes clear had no way of seeing or knowing what was happening twenty feet into the crowd.
It stuck, as bloodstains do. The myths surrounding Altamont as curtain-closing generational bummer were as easily debunked as those that anointed Woodstock the apex of the dream – for one thing, the dream was never more than that: a vision of peace that flashed briefly in a violent time and age. But the convenience was simply too neat and compact to resist. A rise had to be followed by a fall, a revolution with its reckoning.
Despite the fact that wreckage of the '60s idealism was everywhere evident even while the decade was playing out, a certain comet-streak trajectory was needed for purposes of pop mythological convenience.
Once again, a bit overstated but I can't disagree.
Something had to bring the fall. What better than Stones and Angels?
Well certainly not the Bee Gees or Crosby, Stills & Nash and whoever else.
Last edited: