I just got done watching woodstock and am curious why mick & company didn't play the festival? Were they even asked? Wickipedia does list a number of acts that didn't play for various reasons ( link attatched ) but doesn't list the stones on it.   It's interesting that  "The Jeff Beck Group" was scheduled to play but they broke up shortly before the festival.  Anyway it was a great movie to watch i would recommend it to anyone.................





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival

cabledogg2 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2008 at 8:04am:

I just got done watching woodstock and am curious why mick & company didn't play the festival? Were they even asked? Wickipedia does list a number of acts that didn't play for various reasons ( link attatched ) but doesn't list the stones on it.   It's interesting that  "The Jeff Beck Group" was scheduled to play but they broke up shortly before the festival.  Anyway it was a great movie to watch i would recommend it to anyone................. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodstock_Festival

I think you would have to really study the Astrological charts at the the time to get any answers. And then "answers" would be iffy.

Good question. I remember someone on here explaining that the Stones and Altamont were the real 60s, and that Woodstock just represented sort of and idealistic dreamworld. Maybe the Stones didn't want to represent something that wasn't the truth? Maybe I'm just talking outta my ass? I don't know...

I think the answer is they wouldnt play for free like the other bands and didnt want to share the spotlight or the timing wasnt right.In those days they actually spent considerable time making records.

gimmekeef wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2008 at 10:08am:

I think the answer is they wouldnt play for free like the other bands and didnt want to share the spotlight or the timing wasnt right.In those days they actually spent considerable time making records.

The bands did get paid.........


http://www.woodstock69.com/woodstock_stats.htm

I't's really not all it was cracked up to be. Woodstock was a mess, logistical and performance wise. Everything rane late, the weather sucked and the drugs made for horrible conditions that people tolerated, and somehow after acted like didn't exist. It was less violent than most festivals, but not w/o problems. It wasn't even meant to be free in the begining, something people forget, and the bands were getting paid, or supposed to be.
I wouldn't have gone. Just like todays hipsters and phonies, most of the crowd was just there to be seen. The real scene, was then, and is now, the small clubs, street corners ect...
The Who rocked pretty hard, and a few others gave great performances, if you were lucky to be within 100 yards of the stage and speakers.

awesome film but not as good as Gimme Shelter, is it?

"I't's really not all it was cracked up to be."

Powder Ridge was worse.....so they say.  

You meant Ruby Ridge, no?

I'm just guessing, but the acts for Woodstock were established in the spring of 1969 and at that time the Stones were still dealing with Brian Jones' status and possible legal problems in getting into the states. They simply weren't ready to commit to playing at that time.

i doubt the promoters expected the turnout it got.  i heard there was lack of water and food.  the movie is great.

the ny state truway is closed man.

:wtf1

wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2008 at 3:32pm:

awesome film but not as good as Gimme Shelter, is it?

i don't think its possible to compare the to movies.  

:interestingstuffronnie

wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2008 at 3:32pm:

awesome film but not as good as Gimme Shelter, is it?

I think both movies are boring as hell, except for the musical performances of course.

Holden wrote on Aug 24^th, 2008 at 3:20pm:

wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:32pm: awesome film but not as good as Gimme Shelter, is it? I think both movies are boring as hell, except for the musical performances of course.

how could you not like the part where keith is lying behind some equiptment  tripping balls and listening to wild horses.

:wtf1

wrote on Aug 24^th, 2008 at 3:31pm:

Holden wrote on Aug 24th, 2008 at 3:20pm: wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:32pm: awesome film but not as good as Gimme Shelter, is it? I think both movies are boring as hell, except for the musical performances of course. how could you not like the part where keith is lying behind some equiptment  tripping balls and listening to wild horses. :wtf1

I dunno. I mean I enjoy watching clips of it, but as a whole I just find it too long and boring. I feel that way about almost all documentaries, actually.

They were not asked to perform at Woodstock. I am kind of doubting they would of played there even if they were asked or could of made it. It just wasn't them (needless to say...).

Mick said in 94 when asked if they were possibly going to play at Woodstock II "we weren't asked to play at the first and were not going to the second".


Ian

cabledogg2 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2008 at 8:04am:

I just got done watching woodstock and am curious why mick & company didn't play the festival?

Surely Jagger would still have been in Australia filming 'Ned Kelly' at the time?

I think he eventually flew out on July 6th (the day after Hyde Park), having caused delays due to previous postponements.

Woodstock took place August 15-18. I doubt that Ned Kelly would have been finished by then, or if it had have been, it wouldnt have given them much time to prepare for it.

I think Ian is right. I'm unaware that they were even formally asked.

wrote on Aug 24^th, 2008 at 3:13pm:

wrote on Aug 23rd, 2008 at 3:32pm: awesome film but not as good as Gimme Shelter, is it? i don't think its possible to compare the to movies.   :interestingstuffronnie

Quite the reverse. Gimme Shelter was pretty much conceived as a competition to Woodstock and there was great urgency to get it released first. That, plus the fact that the Altamont festival was designed with the movie in mind and was portrayed as a west coast version of Woodstock.

The two movies dovetail perfectly as flip sides of the whole 'hippie dream'

The whole mindset was different back then. The Rolling Stones weren't exactly out of the loop. In 1969 I was still listening to an AM transistor radio under the sheets at night.

wrote on Aug 24^th, 2008 at 3:11pm:

i doubt the promoters expected the turnout it got.

Thats quite evident in the film. The concert wasnt free, and they put 200,000 tickets on sale (you could buy in advance or 'on site'). Only when it became obvious that the number of attendees was going to be more than double what they had estimated did the festival become 'free'

Gazza wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 10:51am:

wrote on Aug 24th, 2008 at 3:11pm: i doubt the promoters expected the turnout it got.   Thats quite evident in the film. The concert wasnt free, and they put 200,000 tickets on sale (you could buy in advance or 'on site'). Only when it became obvious that the number of attendees was going to be more than double what they had estimated did the festival become 'free'

Crowd control tecnology was in its infancy back then. Nowadays we don't have those problems.

http://www.earthfilms.org/gallery_wto/images/riot-police-armored.jpg

I always believed they were never asked. Jagger was asked if the Stones would play at the (i think) 25th Woodstock and he said "They didnt ask us the 1st time, so i doubt it" - or something to that effect.

Ten Thousand Motels wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 10:24am:

The whole mindset was different back then. The Rolling Stones weren't exactly out of the loop. In 1969 I was still listening to an AM transistor radio under the sheets at night.

Me too!

wrote on Aug 27^th, 2008 at 5:50pm:

Ten Thousand Motels wrote on Aug 26th, 2008 at 10:24am: The whole mindset was different back then. The Rolling Stones weren't exactly out of the loop. In 1969 I was still listening to an AM transistor radio under the sheets at night. Me too!

now all of a sudden you and ttm are buddy buddy's?


everybody say owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
ow

:wtf1

You were concerned? We're both mourning the loss of the Couch, if you care.

Lives, money, reputation saved if they'd checked their egos and gone to the fucking thing?

Additional reputation saved if Ned Kelly had never been made?


:wow  Another spin of "The Wild Colonial Boy," anybody?

A new version with unseen footage and almost all of The Who's set will be released for Christmas on Blu-Ray.  The Who's 77 Kilburn show is also coming soon on Blu-ray.  Kins will no doubt be very excited and shaking all over!

Gazza wrote on Aug 26^th, 2008 at 10:51am:

wrote on Aug 24th, 2008 at 3:11pm: i doubt the promoters expected the turnout it got.   Thats quite evident in the film. The concert wasnt free, and they put 200,000 tickets on sale (you could buy in advance or 'on site'). Only when it became obvious that the number of attendees was going to be more than double what they had estimated did the festival become 'free'

WITH YOUR HAND ON YOUR WILLIE,NO DOUBT!