Talk:Altamont Free Concert

Band promotion
The section about the Black Cab CD Altamont Diary that was added recently seems tangential to the article. If it's not just someone trying to promote their CD, perhaps it would be better included on a page about the band, with a link to this page. Szarka 15:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Article title
I think the title of this article needs to be clarified. Initially it seemed to be about the speedway, but it is mainly about the music festival.
 * Even "Altamont Raceway Park" is dubious for the content. Why not "Altamont Rock Festival"? 66.190.72.225 14:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think this article should have another title, and it looks like this article is written by a gratefull death fan. Not that it's wrong to like their music, but at the end the article becomes too much an article about how they handled with the incident.
 * Retitled to Altamont Music Festival, checked for Double Redirects, believe I got them all. --Atechi 20:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

''Again, accusations have arisen by Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead and others, that this was to   ensure better lighting that would be available in an evening performance. '''Two of the deaths were caused by a hit-and-run car accident. Another death was the result of a person drowning in a drainage ditch.'

The final two sentences seems out of place and should probably be placed immediatly after the first mention of three people being killed.

Also, someone please change the title of the article.

--Laggard 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is confusing. However, it's difficult to know what the most accurate might be. I don't believe "Altamont Rock Festival" or "Altamont Music Festival" (as it's named on the disambiguation page), for example, were the name under which the event was promoted. (Seems unlikely, since the venue was changed to Altamont at the last minute.) A google search turned up multiple images of two purported "tour posters". Both are headed with "The Rolling Stones present", the date, a mention that the concert is free, and "Altamont Raceway". If these are authentic, then "Altamont Raceway" might, in fact, be the best title for this page. (Popular usage seems to be simply "Altamont" to refer to the event, but of course that title would be ambiguous.)

It looks like this page was changed from "Altamont" earlier, and links to this page seem to point to the redirect page at Altamont rather than directly. So, if a change is to be made, it would be good to make the change to the title first and then update the links from other pages. Szarka

I've changed it to Altamont Free Concert, since that was what the bold part in the intro said and I think it is most descriptive and accurate. It was not intended as a music festival per se, really, but rather a free concert at the end of the Stone's 1969 American tour as a gift to their fans.

I've also created an Altamont Motorsports Park article for the racetrack itself, and changed all the racetrack names to redirect to there. That should eliminate some of the present confusion with odd redirects. I've tried to fix up wlinks but may have missed a couple here and there. Wasted Time R 13:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article title references in the "American Pie" article, Wasted Time R. --Dkwong323 01:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Stage height
"The stage, which was only four feet high..." The article at http://www.echoes.com/rememberaday/altamont.html reports that the stage was only one foot high. Can anyone settle this question one way or another? Szarka

OK, I found a better source: the commentary at http://www.loc.gov/film/lund.html and especially Stanley Goldstein's response at http://www.loc.gov/film/lund.html. Based on this source, I'm going to make some changes:

Szarka
 * Change "four feet high" to "one foot high".
 * See the discussion in this source re: the legend that the Angels were hired for $500 worth of beer. The article currently repeats this legend with the qualification "reportedly"; I'll try to clarify.
 * Every source I've read, including this one, suggests that the change of venue was finalized only one day before the event. (The permit for holding the event at a public space in SF was either revoked or refused, depending on which source you believe, days before the event; but the Altamont Raceway as the venue wasn't finalized right away, first they attempted to negotiate the use of another venue.) I'll reword appropriately.

CrashJet555
 * I recently read a book about Altamont, it states that the stage is four feet high, I'll get the source soon. Also, how can the stage be "three to four feet high"? It's either one or the other, and it was four feet. I'm going to correct it.


 * I came to this Wikipedia talk page (I'm a frequent contributor) because I was writing to a friend about another subject, wanted to refer to Altamont, and remembered that the victim's name had been mentioned.

I don't have time to do any research, but I was there, up front, through perhaps the first half hour of the violence, which really started I believe, during the Jefferson Airplane set. I'll ask mutual friends about the Dryden comments, as they may be able to find out from a direct source.

When I started reading the main article, the stage height estimations interested me because my impression was that it was about four feet above ground level. The business about a steep slope to the stage is just nonsense. It was very gradual, almost unnoticeable as you got closer to the stage, though the event was in a natural amphitheater. I'm guessing that the maximum seating height of the audience, above and well removed from the stage, might have been 50 feet, or so but people might have sat higher after it got dark.

I also would like to confirm the crowded highway comment of another poster below, who was quite young at the time. I left San Francisco with my wife and my bike in a '61 VW transporter (no rear seats or side windows). When we got to Castro Valley at the 880 and 580 interchange, we started picking up some hitchhikers and climbed the hill toward Pleasanton. On the way down, as we got close to the 680 Interchange, my motor blew up, thanks to an oversight by a friend who had recently rebuilt it. I unloaded the hitchhikers, my Triumph 500cc motorcycle, and proceeded to tow the bus with the bike, with my wife steering the van, to the Santa Rita Garage's wrecking yard. I dropped it there and asked them if they would R&R the blown engine for a motor out of a wreck and they agreed. Then we proceeded past Pleasanton toward the Altamont racetrack.

By the time we got past Livermore, still well west of the track, the right shoulder of the highway was filling with parked cars, then the left shoulder, until as we got very close, the entire road was blocked. We took a side road from the Speedway exit, I think, and drove south, then circled around north on a dirt road. We came onto the track spectator area where I left my bike and my wife on a knoll with trees south and a little east of the stage. I walked to the front of the stage. I got there before the Airplane played, but don't remember who was on before them. Not long afterward, the Hells Angels who were on the stage were joined by numerous other Angels, with their biker babes, who drove up around the south side of the stage and parked about 20 feet from the stage, just in front of where I was standing. Things had already been heating up as I think Balin got punched by an Angel in the chaos while on stage.

After the Airplane finished their set, dusk was falling and the Stones road crew was setting up. The crowd pressed closer. When they first began to play, the crowd rushed forward, knocking over some of the Angels' bikes, and then it really got nuts. It was like standing at the edge of the ocean, with waves of spectators successively rushing forward, only to recede when the Angels began lashing out at them like riot cops. I pulled Angels off a few hapless hippies, in the ebb and flow, but realized I wasn't going to fix anything and retreated back to the knoll before I got my own ass kicked. I'm guessing I stayed through less than half the Stones set before I moved, and before Hunter got stabbed. I never heard any gunshot, but it was pretty noisy. I heard later they had kicked a hole in his back, but that was probably from someone close enough to see the body. I watched the rest of the set from the knoll and then drove away easily, since I could drive between cars and on the shoulder.

I thought bringing the Angels there was sheer insanity. I always thought Bill Graham had something to do with it, and I'm glad he didn't. I recall vividly that the concert was originally scheduled for Golden Gate Park, then it was changed abruptly to the Sears Point raceway, and then to the Altamont Speedway. Though they had some affection for the Dead, and there was an outlaw biker rock band, "Blue Cheer," and were heavy into drugs, they were no great fans of hippies. There was an old drug store, converted into a coffee shop, at the corner of Haight and maybe Ashbury, I think, where the Angels would hang out. They played Merle Haggard's "Okie from Muskogee," endlessly on the juke box. They interjected a line, singing, "We don't macrame our nose hair," before "...like the hippies out in San Francisco do." Then they would whoop and holler and jeer at the hippies.

While hippies were preaching peace and love and trying to embrace the Angels in the Haight, I warned them they were often very bad people and had been used by the cops in Oakland to attack anti-Vietnam war marchers. The hippies got the picture at Altamont.

I just noted a poster below claims that the Hells Angels parked their bikes as a "barrier" in front of the stage. I think they just were bogarding their way up front from a sense of entitlement.Activist (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a page of photographs by Robert Altman that contains a photo that clearly shows the height of the stage: http://www.altmanphoto.com/altamont_2.html. The exact photo I'm talking about is this: http://www.altmanphoto.com/cutler_lang-altamont_001.jpg. I have no idea how tall that guy on the right is, but I'm 5'11" and my hip joint is just over 3 feet high, in sock feet. That confirms Chip Monck's "one meter high" quotation that's currently in the article. Nohojim (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Security
Someone else might want to research the security arrangements in more details and rewrite further. (See Goldsteins discussion in the endnote's to his response, which suggests that the Angels didn't normally manage the crowd, just protect the equipment.) I left the part about "suspected that their involvement was motivated more by a desire to manage drug distribution at the concert" in, for example. But what is the source for this? Who, exactly, suspected that? It doesn't defy logic, or stretch credulity, by if I were making that claim, I'd want to be more specific. Szarka

I Herd that the hells angels use their bikes as a barrier and when the crowed knocked them over that the hell angels broke loose.

Speedway name
Also changed an occurance of "Altamont Speedway" to "Altamont Raceway" to reflect usage elsewhere in the article, usage on the previously-mentioned posters, and the current whois registration for altamontraceway.com (now unavailable; they appear to have changed recently from doing business as "Alamont Raceway and Arena" to "Altamont Motorsports Park"). Szarka

Sonny
Sonny Barger WAS NOT the founder of the HAMC.

please correct height of stage
I just finished watching the actual 'Gimme Shelter' movie, and looked up Altamont on Wikipedia for more info on the murder shown in the movie. While the article as written is very informative, the height of the stage is clearly closer to chest high, not shin level (as 1 foot high would be).

You can review frames in the movie of fans attempting to climb onto the stage   at many points; one clear example is at the beginning of 'Sympathy for the Devil' near the end of the movie. Note also when the female fans are pressed against the stage, everything below mid-chest is hidden by the stage.

I recommend you adjust the height of the stage to four feet as suggested by earlier contributors, and disregard the 1-foot height quoted from the article at http://www.loc.gov/film/lund.html

65.78.8.202 08:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)M.G.

to clarify height of stage
The article at http://www.loc.gov/film/lund.html says, "The stage was only a foot above the audience which made security even more difficult. Things started to get violent during the Jefferson Airplane's set."

So, it appears the source article for the 1-foot high stage quote, was quoted imprecisely in the Wiki. The source does not say the stage was 1-foot high, it says the stage was "a foot above the crowd."

I looked for a screen capture online, but found nothing from the actual movie, which shows fans pressed against the stage at chest height.

65.78.8.202 09:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)M.G.

phot showing stage height from filmmakers website
AH-ha! See the photo in black and white here: http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/44/images/Albert.Gimme.jpg

Correction this pic is the Stones Auburn 69 gig not Altamont!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slakka07450 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fans are leaning on the stage, it is clearly neither "a foot above the crowd", nor is it "one foot high."

http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/44/docu.html The Legacy of Albert Maysles

65.78.8.202 09:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)M.G.

Nice to see more info on the height of the stage. Hmmm... Maybe instead of "one foot" the article should say something more ambiguous, like "a few feet" or "low"? Szarka 06:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your reply
Yes, either a "low stage" or a "few feet high" is better than the inaccurate "one foot high."

IMO it would be best to describe it as "between 4 and 5 feet high"; the height of the stage contributed to the problems during the concert (fans climbed up onto the stage in droves; Marty Balin of the Jefferson Airplane was knocked unconscious during one brawl) and calling it "low" or a "few feet high", while not inaccurate, leaves too much to the reader's own interpretation of what that would look like.

Of course, the point is moot if one has seen the movie, but the article should to attempt to make a clear visual through language for those who do not have the movie on hand as reference material.

65.78.8.202M.G.

Good discussion here. Since the stage height in the article is clearly incorrect, I have edited the article to read "three to four feet high" based on the footage from Gimme Shelter. If a better consensus is reached here, please feel free to change. My personal preference is "approximately four feet high.". Satori Son 13:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

In Depth
It is absolutely ridiculous that you have to read down an entire paragraph to find out WHERE this thing took place...It should be in the first sentence. And then all it says is "Northern California".


 * Fixed. Wasted Time R 13:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stage height - additional source
Hi, this is my first contribution so apologies if there's any mistakes.

I'm currently reading Philip Norman's book 'The Stones' and he lists quite a bit of information about this event. With regard to your discussion about the stage height, Norman states (on page 388) that:

"The stage-rim was, inexplicably, only four feet or so from the ground."

Reference is: Philip Norman, 2001, The Stones, London, Sidgwick & Jackson

Johnnyboy101 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Security - further discussion
Philip Norman also writes on the security arrangements regarding Hell's Angels, of interest may be the following paragraph on page 389:

"Santana's performance had been punctuated also by a fusillade of full beer cans, thrown from the Angels' school bus commissariat thirty yards away. Cutler (Sam) sent an emissary to the Angels in charge of the bus, offering to buy their entire beer supply for $500.  The beer could thus be put on the stage, preventing its use as random missiles.  This was the origin of one powerful Altamont legend: that the Hell's Angels were hired by Rolling Stones people for $500 worth of beer."

In relation to the decision to hire Hell's Angels as security, Norman writes on page 384:

"Exactly who first had the idea of hiring Hell's Angels as a security force, no one can remember now. Some say it was Rock Scully, the Grateful Dead's manager; others remember Emmett Grogan of the Diggers."

And also:

"They were not hired as bodyguards for the Stones, as all subsequent reports would allege. What happened was that Stones people - notably Sam Cutler, the concert compere - went along with the plan to invite them."

As stated in the article, it seems that the role the Hell's Angels were to play at the concert was unclear.

Reference is: Philip Norman, 2001, The Stones, London, Sidgwick & Jackson

Johnnyboy101 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Young and inexperienced" reference. I've read this quote before and take issue with its veracity. "Their leaders weren't there"- in the film, the arival of Sonny Barger can clearly be seen. He was the consummate leader of the Hells Angels. He states in his recorded interview with KSAN that "We got there about 4 PM". He did say he was late due to his attendance at an Officers meeting, however citing "young and inexprerienced is ludicrous as NO ONE had ever had any sort of experience with an event of this magnitude. In addition we know that at least 3 charters had members present: San Francisco because you can see their flag so stating. Oakland because that is where Mr. Barger was from, and San Jose because you can see the words on the vest of a prospect.

Also, the guy with the wolf's head seemed neither young nor inexperienced. The individual who climbed on stage and spoke into the microphone after Marty Balin got clocked sure looked like a leader to me. I would ask that this be removed as unfounded, irrelevant and inaccurate. Further, the source cited has a link which leads to a page advising its contents are no longer avilable.

I did remove the reference to "young and inesperienced". I also delted the section abut Marty Balim being knocked out onstage. It was NOT onstgae, nor was he ever airlifted from the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.59.40 (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * re "I did remove" and "I also delted": it seems you neglected to save the edits you made, but i've made those changes now. the film documents that those assertions were inaccurate.  i've read that (coincidentally) some kind of Angels' "orientation meeting" going on nearby in the same timeframe, which meant a lot of fresh "recruits" were at the concert, and maybe that was what the witness was talking about - but that's just speculation.  Sssoul (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction - contradictory claim regarding number of births
The introduction to this articles states that four births occurred over the duration of the concert. Philip Norman writes that this claim was made by Sam Cutler to the San Francisco Chronicle and cited in their article on the concert the next morning (page 397). Later Norman writes:

"It further emerged that no babies at all had been born during the festival. The nearest approximation was a youth who announced he was pregnant, just prior to jumping from a traffic flyover and sustaining serious multiple injuries."

WIth regard to medical tents, apparently only nineteen doctors were available to help during the day.

Reference is: Philip Norman, 2001, The Stones, London, Sidgwick & Jackson

Johnnyboy101 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Medical Facilities
I just recently read a book about Altamont, it states that there was sufficient number of medical staff, but no paths for emergency vehicles to come and go. I won't change until I have cited the source. - CrashJet555

The two souls who were killed when they were run over in their sleeping bags were Mark Feiger and Richard Savloy. --Subvent1 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fired
A film shows clearly that Hunter drew and fired his pistol before he was stabbed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) The "Rolling Stone" edition of Jan.,1970, said "an unmistakeable orange flash" was visible from Hunter's gun, before he was stabbed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) An autopsy showed that Hunter was under the influence of methamphetamines when he died. At least twice, Hunter had charged on to the stage. This may have given him the impression that the Angels were his enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus on what the film shows. Here's the 'orange flash' quote in context.
 * In one frame, just before he is jumped, there is an unmistakable orange flash at the end of the pistol, Bibb adds. It lasts only for this one frame. Bibb is not saying this is a gunshot, and he's not saying it's not. It might be, say, a reflection off someone's watch or glasses. "The Angels say there was a shot fired," says Bibb. "I can't tell you. It's impossible, really, to tell what it is. None of us heard a shot."


 * Here's what Albert Maysles, one of the directors of Gimme Shelter, said in a Sunday Times article


 * He spoke of scenes that seemed to show Hunter taunting the Hell's Angels and of another shot that showed an orange flash, perhaps the flash of Hunter's gun being fired. Whether or not he had fired the gun is an enduring puzzle. 130.156.30.172 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen the film "Gimme Shelter"countless times since it was released.It can be clearly seen that Meredith Hunter had a gun in his hand and was pointing it at the stage.Mr.Passaro attacked Hunter to prevent what could have been a tragedy to the rock world had he shot one of the Stones.He could 've killed innocent bystanders as well.Hunter was the villain in the drama not Alan Passaro.jeanne (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagger assassination attempt as retribution from HA

 * Jagger 'escaped gang murder plot' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

the "planning" section
i've removed the following from the "planning" section because it doesn't hang together coherently:


 * This was a result of Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones announcing in a press conference that the band would be making a surprise appearance at the event (their American Tour of 1969 had recently concluded.) With the public revelation that the Stones would be performing, San Francisco officials feared a repeat of the crowd control problems that had occurred at the Woodstock Festival. Accusations have arisen that Jagger made this announcement to ensure a large crowd for a planned concert movie.

the problems i see are:


 * the Stones publicly announced their intent to hold a free concert in early November 1969, so the whole chronology of the passage above makes no sense;


 * calling it a "surprise appearance" makes no sense, since it was announced at a press conference (and since the Stones' organization was involved in the planning of the concert from the beginning);

Sssoul (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * sources need to be cited for the allegations that it was because of a Stones press conference that the original permits for the concert "were not issued or revoked"; for what "SF officials feared" and for "accusations [that] have arisen" regarding Jagger's alleged intentions.

Sam Cutlet Road manager for the Rolling Stones 1969 US concerts describes exactly the involvment of the Rolling Stones organisation and certain other characters in the organisation and to throws light on the selection of the venue in his book "You Can't Always Get What You Want" published Randam House 2008 why don't you ask him to contribute. He was there and has a valuable view. He can be contacted at www.gimmiecutler.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclebun (talk • contribs) 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

in the current sections on background narrative there is a number disagreement. one says $100,000 was asked to be payed, the other $300,000. this should likely be clarified. --ritanauman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritanauman (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Spencer Dryden
Under "Reactions" I see this statement: "Jefferson Airplane drummer Spencer Dryden was disillusioned by Altamont and left the group two months later." That's misleading. Here's how Jeff Tamarkin describes Dryden & Altamont in *Got A Revolution* (New York: Atria Books, 2003):

On page 212 we hear that Dryden initally didn't want to play at Altamont; "the event smelled wrong to Spencer, and he refused to go." But Dryden was ultimately persuaded to go along by the Airplane's manager. On page 213, we get a quote form Dryden, who describes his reaction on arriving at the site: "It was just a horrible, pink-sky Hieronymus Bosch dustbin, not a tree in sight, just a hellhole.  It was the beginning of the end. No, not the beginning, it *was* the end."

Then Tamarkin describes the Airplane's set at the concert and some other stuff about the show.

Later, on page 216, we are told that Dryden was fired from the band around February 1970, mostly because the guitarist, Jorma Kaukonen, wanted a louder, more powerful drummer.

So here's how I see it: although the statement that I quote in the first paragraph isn't actually false, it hints that Dryden's departure from Jefferson Airplane was somehow a reaction to Altamont. But it wasn't. He was simply fired (as was the band's original female vocalist, back in 1966, to make way for Grace Slick -- but that's another story).

I suggest deleting that statement entirely. But if somebody wants to include Spencer's actual quoted reaction (or more likely an excerpt -- I'm fond of the Bosch metaphor), it might belong either in the Reactions section -- OR -- somewhere earlier in the article. (BTW, Jeff Tamarkin's book is probably the best source available on all things Airplane) Thuvan Dihn (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

circus performer?
"A huge circus performer weighing over 350 pounds and hallucinating on LSD stripped naked and ran berserk through the crowd toward the stage, knocking guests in all directions, prompting a group of Angels to leap from the stage and club him unconscious".

if this is referring to the person during the performance of "Sympathy For The Devil" in the "Gimme Shelter" documentary, it was a woman; streaking and hassling two hippie girls trying to climb up the stage, although the scene didn't show what happened afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackercultparade (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * i don't know what the "350-pound circus performer" passage refers to, but until further notice i see no reason to assume it's the female who tried to climb onstage during "Sympathy for the Devil" - a lot of stuff happened at the concert that didn't make it into the documentary. (by the way, there's more about that female in Stanley Booth's book The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones.)  Sssoul (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a popular misconception
(discussion transplanted from Sssoul's talk page, since it belongs here)

[It is a popular misconception] that permits to hold the Altamont Free Concert in Golden Gate Park were issued and then recinded. That's why it was included in the article. Carptrash (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * stating that permits were never issued takes care of that misconception - adding that they were never revoked is redundant at best. Sssoul (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So I guess that you are a minimalist, and I'm a maximalist, because (opinion) sometimes things need to be stated several different ways to get across to different readers. Just different styles. Carptrash (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

the Jagger murder plot
i've rephrased the addition about the reported plot to murder Jagger because that former FBI agent seems to have a lot of the story quite garbled: if the boatload of conspirators is supposed to have gotten even remotely near Jagger, the incident could not have taken place in 1969 (Jagger left the US a couple of days after the concert); and it could not have been related to a supposed "firing" of the Angels, since they were only "hired" for that one event. if the Long Island part is right, it was probably Andy Warhol's residence there, where the Stones rehearsed for their 1975 tour.

also, i moved the story to the "reactions" section because it's only marginally related to the topic of this article - i hope that makes sense to people. thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reactions
Regarding the first sentence in this section, "The Altamont concert is often contrasted with the Woodstock festival that took place less than four months earlier. While Woodstock represented "peace and love", Altamont came to be viewed as the end of the hippie era and the de facto conclusion of late-1960s American youth culture." Contrasted by whom? Viewed by whom? The one reference you cite? Altamont was attended by suburbanites living in the Bay Area, like me. People milling around on a brown, dusty patch of land. Everyone I saw during the entire day simply minded their own business. I was one of the few who stayed to the end. Like me, the people around me just wanted to hear the Stones. So a few idiots got out of hand at the front of the stage. This is the death of an era? (An era which probably never existed anyway outside the pages of Time Magazine.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamesh (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some more reliable cites that Altamomt is perceived that way and added a theory by Robert Christgau as to why that is. That does not mean the perception is fair, but that is what happens when something becomes a symbol. If it is widely perceived that way then it has to be included in the article Edkollin (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just Altamont. The_Manson_Family murders also played a role in the "end of an era" meme.Jemiljan (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Free?
Did the Stones really play for free? Or why was the festival named thus? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * no admission was charged and the Stones didn't pay themselves a performance fee (or charge themselves one, as the case may be). this isn't a forum to discuss the topic, though - try watching the documentary film about the concert Sssoul (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ike and Tina Turner
The video Gimme Shelter has Ike and Tina Turner performing at the concert, they should be added to the page, it is just a matter of what order, the video is at night. And to answer FREE? yes it was totally free, I went when I was 11 years old we had to walk 17 miles because the roads and I-580 were parking lots all the way to the base of the hills east of Livermore.


 * Gimme Shelter includes their performance from Madison Square Garden, not Altamont. they didn't perform at Altamont. Sssoul (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Petruzzo Photograph Series
I am curious as to what appears to me to be a pointless and rather absurd addition mentioning a series of photographs by Michael Petruzzo which are supposedly related to, inspired by, or somehow relevant to the Altamont Free Concert. Examining the photographs in the link provided shows a series of photographs of questionable artistic merit, and arguably not at all related to events at Altamont, i.e., any relation to the events seems purely subjective; the photographs make no apparent statement or accurate portrayal of events at Altamont. I suggest it be removed due to its irrelevancy. There are collections of photographs available made at the actual concert, and the inclusion of Petruzzo and link to the photographs seems highly questionable when considering the wealth of Altamont photos that could be linked or displayed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.67.127 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Any Recordings Available?
Was this concert ever recorded? Looking to purchase a CD/copy of these performances. Any guidance would be appreciated!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.52.26 (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This sentence
Scrolling through this article, I found a sentence with the NonSpecific template at the end. I have fixed (I think) the sentence now. Here's the revised one,

Don McLean's song "American Pie" alludes to Mick Jagger at the Altamont Free Concert calling him Satan.[not specific enough to verify]

Please give me heads up on whether I can remove that template or if I need to fix something. Thnkas!  I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message  05:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

setlist: why only stones
83.117.96.177 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC) I wonder why the set lists only mentions the stones' songs.. It wasn't a Stones-concert and I think Santana, Jefferson Airplane, The Flying Burrito Brothers and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young's songs should be included.

the opening paragraph
states that:
 * "Headlined and organized by The Rolling Stones" followed by "That's the way things went at Altamont—so badly that the Grateful Dead, prime organizers and movers of the festival, didn't even get to play. "

So I am wondering, who were the organizers, the Stones or the Dead? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Death of Meredith Hunter
In this article it is written that the footage of stabbing was shot by Eric Saarinen, but in the Gimme Shelter (1970 film) article it says the following:

Baird Bryant, one of the many cameramen in the film, caught Meredith Hunter's stabbing on film.

Which version is a correct one then? --Wayfarer (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In other media.....In music
Industrial Group, The Electric Hellfire Club, has a song loosely based on, referring to and/or drawn from this event, including audio samples from news reports at or after the event. Night of the Buck Knives (Altamont remix), off the album Satan's Little Helpers Collision-Shift (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Bootleg
The bootleg (good quality audience recording) is available, contact me for details. "Can you cats please calm down?!" Basket Feudalist 19:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

category add
I've been bold and added this article to the category, though I'm not 100% sure whether it would qualify. The concert was certainly described in the press and is thought of in popular culture as a disaster, but it could be that there is some strict definition of disaster which it does not meet. If so, feel free to undo the addition. Grutness...wha?  11:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Altamont Speedway is in no sense a stadium, so it was correct to remove that category. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I just cut this out
and moved it here because, let's just wait until it is out and deal with it then. " In August 2016, Joel Selvin was expected to publish the definitive history called "Altamont: The Rolling Stones, The Hells Angels, and the Inside Story of Rock's Darkest Day" by Dey Street Books. " Carptrash (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That sentence does indeed come across as promotional. Nonetheless, most reviews I've seen are hailing this as a definitive history of the topic, and this article should be considered incomplete until it's incorporated as a source. Among other things, it debunks the myth that births took place at the concert, and I'm removing that statement from the article. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the book being referenced, it probably should be, but let us wait until the book comes out before incorporating it into the article. Carptrash (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Altamont Free Concert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/08/in_the_wake_of_1.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428064145/http://archive.salon.com/ent/col/srag/2000/08/10/gimme_shelter/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/ent/col/srag/2000/08/10/gimme_shelter/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Altamont Free Concert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161116164203/https://theravenreport.com/2016/10/31/rock-and-rolls-worst-day-this-1969-concert-ended-in-death/ to https://theravenreport.com/2016/10/31/rock-and-rolls-worst-day-this-1969-concert-ended-in-death/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Link to Woodstock Festival may be to wrong article.
I've just found a link to the Woodstock Festival that I think is pointing to the wrong article; but I'm not quite sure enough of my pop history knowledge to be sure, so I am mentioning it here for someone better informed than me to look at, instead of correcting it myself.

In the very first line in the section "Reactions" (towards the end of the article, but above "Set list"), there is a reference to the Woodstock Festival; but the link for it points to "Pol'and'Rock Festival", which seems to be a much more recent event in Poland inspired by the original Woodstock festival, and I suspect that either the link has been corrupted somehow, or that someone has mistakenly made the link point there - or possibly someone has even done it deliberately to promote the Polish festival.

Actually, the link behaves a bit strangely: if you hover the mouse pointer over the link, it gives the link as pointing to "Woodstock festival", which seems to be correct; but if you actually click on that, it seems to be redirected to the other article. If I look at the actual code in the "Edit" window, it gives "Woodstock festival" in double square brackets, and so looks correct - so I can't imagine how this redirects to something else. I would normally expect "Woodstock festival" to go to the main event in 1969, rather than to some much lesser-known, much more recent event.

Is "Woodstock festival" *meant* to redirect to the Polish festival? If so (and if the link is intended to go to the main Woodstock festival), then perhaps the link text should be changed from "Woodstock festival" to just "Woodstock"; but, as I say, I'm not quite sure enough of my pop history knowledge to know for sure if this was intended anyway.

Perhaps someone who knows the technicalities of editing more than I do could please look at it. Thank you. M.J.E. (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * An IP had changed the redirect for Woodstock festival to target the Pol'and'Rock Festival, so I reverted the change per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Mojoworker (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Poster did not mention Hells Angels
The original promotional poster did not say “SECURITY BY HELL’S ANGELS”. The presence of Hells Angels would not have been something anyone would want to advertise, Hells Angels was not a security organization, and Hells Angels does not have an apostrophe. They were hired originally to guard equipment, not to serve as security. Rrhea2 (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)