|
So the concert was thrown together by a loose collective, but someone close to the Dead's organization told me that the blame falls partially on Jerry Garcia and Mick Jagger. Do you agree? Well, um, yeah, there's some truth in that. But the biggest single reason why Altamont was a disaster -- let's get this straight, right? -- was the fact that the stage was a hundred centimeters high. It came up to your knees. It was meant to be on the side of a hill at Sears Point . They moved it to Altamont and they made the mistake of putting it at the bottom of the valley. If it had been a stage that was, let's say, 10 feet high, no one could've climbed it. There would've been no security issues. See what I mean?
I think the San Francisco community has been in denial about the thing for God knows how long. Everybody shared in the f--- up, from the Grateful Dead to Santana to Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, all those people, all the hippies that were involved with trying to get it together. It was a complete stuff-up, organizationally, and it proved that it was beyond the capabilities of the San Francisco community, at that time, to put something together on this kind of epic level.
But the San Francisco community had put on free concerts in Golden Gate Park, within the city limits, that ran smoothly. And the Grateful Dead were a group of hippies, whereas the Rolling Stones were a brash rock band from England. If the Rolling Stones hadn't been on the bill at Altamont and it was just the Bay Area bands, do you think the disaster was still inevitable?
That's a hard one to say, isn't it? A hard one to answer. There's no question that everybody lost their heads, in a way. The Rolling Stones were involved and everybody just went loopy. But the fact of the matter is it was called "the Rolling Stones' free concert at Altamont," but it wasn't the Rolling Stones' free concert -- it was the Grateful Dead's, Santana's, Crosby Stills Nash and Young's, Jefferson Airplane's, the Flying Burrito Brothers' and the Rolling Stones' free concert at Altamont. I think the Rolling Stones have unfairly been labeled with the disaster when nobody else has ever took their fair share of the blame. It's nonhistoric. It's inaccurate.
When you started working for the Grateful Dead, you were seen as doing business in a hard-handed manner that was almost in contrast to the Dead's public image as hippies.
One of the things was that the Grateful Dead, when I joined them, were about four or five thousand dollars in debt. And in order to continue to be the Grateful Dead, they had to make money. This was a new thing for them, you know what I mean? A lot of people relied on them, they had a big family of people to support, the band to support, equipment requirements, all that stuff, you know? But they didn't really have any idea how to do it.
So when Jerry asked me to be involved in the Grateful Dead, it wasn't because he thought I was a wonderful person, necessarily. I think it was primarily because he felt I had the skills necessary to get the Grateful Dead on the road and make some money. Well, when I joined them they were only making $3,000 a night, and when I left them the figure that they got was $187,000 for Watkins Glen .
You were raised in postwar England by card-carrying Communists. Do you think that played into your role with the Grateful Dead, in trying to make this band some money while retaining their free communal spirit?
The thing is, the Grateful Dead never operated on the kind of principle of naked greed. They never operated like a major corporation.
http://www.spinner.com/2010/03/29/sam-cutler-rolling-stones-altamont/
|