Strider Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Peter Grant put them up at the Bath Festival instead during the weekend of Woodstock. Would have been interesting today, to see Zeppelin in the Woodstock film. They weren't at Bath the weekend of Woodstock; Bath was in June. Here is where they played the weekend of Woodstock August 15-17, 1969: 8.15.69 San Antonio, Texas 8.16.69 Asbury Park, New Jersey 8.17.69 Wallingford, Connecticut As for Woodstock, I think in the long run it helped that they didn't play Woodstock. Think about it; just about every act that supposedly got a "boost" from appearing at Woodstock and in the film, either was dead shortly after, or "Woodstock" remained their peak and they never stayed popular or relevant. It was like the acts that appeared in the movie were frozen in amber, forever destined to be remain tied to that whole "hippie thing" and stuck in the 60's. Jimi Hendrix, dead. Janis, dead. Canned Heat? Never amounted to anything after Woodstock...same goes for Ten Years After, John Sebastian, Country Joe McDonald, Jefferson Airplane, Joe Cocker. None of these bands went on to do much in the 70's and I think part of the reason is that people looked at them as "Woodstock" bands, bands of the past, not the future(the decade of the 70's). So, in a way, it was a blessing that Zeppelin was playing elsewhere that weekend. Because of that, I think it helped them be perceived by the kids as something fresh, new and exciting...not your father's or older brother's hippie music. This reminds me of one of the inane things written by Jon Bream in that new book, "Whole Lotta Led", which if you want to look at pictures is okay, but it is filled with factual errors and bullshit opinions by Mr. Bream. In fact, the only redeeming factor is that it reprints in its entirety the famous William Burroughs-Jimmy Page interview from the 1975 Crawdaddy magazine(a copy of which I have buried in my archives), conducted while the band was playing their New York shows that February. Anyway, back to Bream...in the book he states that Zeppelin didn't want to play Woodstock because they feared not being able to stand out from the crowd. PLEASE...what utter bullshit. First of all, they played other festivals that year, often with many of the same bands that played Woodstock. And seriously, do you really think Led Zeppelin thought they couldn't distinguish themselves from the likes of Sha Na Na and John Sebastian and Jefferson Airplane? Give me a break. The Who and Grateful Dead were pretty much the only ones to survive Woodstock and go on through the 70's with their integrity and popularity intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms_zeppelin94 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 As if Woodstock wasn't crowded & crazy enough.... I just don't know how they would've 'fit in', I suppose...They would've got in trouble for having a setlist too long again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 As if Woodstock wasn't crowded & crazy enough.... I just don't know how they would've 'fit in', I suppose...They would've got in trouble for having a setlist too long again.... Everyone fit in at Woodstock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 As if Woodstock wasn't crowded & crazy enough.... I just don't know how they would've 'fit in', I suppose...They would've got in trouble for having a setlist too long again.... The Who performed and were well received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Anyway, back to Bream...in the book he states that Zeppelin didn't want to play Woodstock because they feared not being able to stand out from the crowd. PLEASE...what utter bullshit. First of all, they played other festivals that year, often with many of the same bands that played Woodstock. And seriously, do you really think Led Zeppelin thought they couldn't distinguish themselves from the likes of Sha Na Na and John Sebastian and Jefferson Airplane? I agree (great post btw, except you forgot to mention my presence at Bath ) (and Jefferson Airplane's), but didn't Peter Grant say something to the effect that he didn't want them to play Woodstock because they'd just be one of the many bands that played, and he wanted them to stand out more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZepFanatic Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No, its a matter of opinion. But most of the hippies I have talked to don't like Led Zeppelin. they like the flower power stuff and lighter rock. Its not that my view is "amusing," its a generalization. The Who was more punk rock than anything i.m.o. Pete Townshend's stage movements were punk rock. Its just my opinion. If people thought Zeppelin was too hard and heavy when they first started, I think some people at Woodstock would still thing so. The Who were just as heavy and brutal on stage, especially in the 1969-71 era (listen to Young Man Blues or Shakin' All Over from Live at Leeds)... Those two bands would have OWNED Woodstock together... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virginia Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No, I'd leave well enough alone. Things happen for a reason, and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigledzepfan1963 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 no. they would have shown up jimi hendrix! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Think about it; just about every act that supposedly got a "boost" from appearing at Woodstock and in the film, either was dead shortly after, or "Woodstock" remained their peak and they never stayed popular or relevant. It was like the acts that appeared in the movie were frozen in amber, forever destined to be remain tied to that whole "hippie thing" and stuck in the 60's. Agreed, it would've frozen them in time. Some even at the time considered it Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young's "gig" in a way - one of their first performances. And they benefitted greatly from it. But it did freeze them in time as "the Woodstock band." Neil Young refused to be filmed for exactly that reason - he didn't want to be pigeon-holed as this Woodstock guy. Santana is another band that benefitted from playing the gig. But I think Led Zeppelin has more in common with Neil on this in that they were moving fast in those early years and so was he. By the time the film and the Woodstock album came out, Zep was light years beyond the summer of '69. Grant probably would have fought to keep them out of the movie, just as he did with the Rolling Stones Rock & Roll Circus project. "Won't be going back to Woodstock for a while." - NY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothy5151 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 No, I'd leave well enough alone. Things happen for a reason, and all that. I have to agree with you on this. Leave everything as is, as it all worked out in the end. As the saying goes "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farph Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I wasnt there, but from what i've been told by people that were is pretty much what most people say, "No, too heavy for the hippies". But then again, it seems that whenever I play some ZEP, they seem to groove to it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercurious Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 The more I look at it, the more I wonder whether it would have mattered. There was a context that was created by Woodstock that Led Zeppelin existed in whether they were there or not. If you look at the bill, they would have been fine playing Saturday sometime before the Who [Mountain, Sly and the Family Stone, CCR] or on the last day playing sometime before Hendrix -- how about on the 3rd day in between CSNY and Hendrix? - Dazed and Confused and a bent Babe I'm Gonna Leave You for a tired, wasted and muddy crowd. It would've been interesting, though it seems Peter Grant's concern was that they could have just as easily been in between Blood Sweat and Tears and The Band or Johnny Winter, who all played before CSNY the third night. Those bands, CCR, Sly, Blood Sweat and Tears, who did play didn't see their careers damaged by being there at all, or necessarily helped. Nobody even knew what to call what Hendrix was doing - was it the Electric Sky Church or the Gypsy Suns, Moons and Rainbows? Mountain is another one -- "Theme from an Imaginary Western" is one of the coolest things recorded there (it's on the Woodstock II record, as is some of Hendrix's Electric Sky Church stuff, Jam back at the House and Isabella). That stuff wasn't released until three or four years after the fact. It all probably would have been different for LZ b/c Atlantic was CSNY's label as well as Led Zeppelin's, and I think Zep would have been able to control what was put on the record and what wasn't -- they might've benefitted more than the others, and Grant would have had a say in the matter. Neil Young was able to (he was on Warner-Reprise) to keep himself separate and handed over a throwaway song, "Sea of Madness" which wasn't even recorded there (it was from a Fillmore show) and was never released on anything else until he anthologized it. They wrote and released LZ III in the context of Woodstock and the film and the Woodstock album, and the CSNY phenomenon. It was unavoidable in a way. Critics misread the record as part of that context, and already hated Zep as part of Atlantic's hype machine, which Woodstock/CSNY was also a big part of. Later on, Plant's use of "Woodstock" in Dazed and Confused was almost like their stamp on the whole thing, a "what if" - a recreation of a memory that wasn't theirs but might as well have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I wasnt there, but from what i've been told by people that were is pretty much what most people say, "No, too heavy for the hippies". But then again, it seems that whenever I play some ZEP, they seem to groove to it!!! I was a hippie in those days, which included being a Zep fan, and a Who fan, and a fan of numerous other "heavy" bands. Jefferson Airplane, who were certainly hippies and played at Bath on the same bill as Zeppelin, were pretty damn heavy. I think people these days imagine hippies were only into "San Francisco flower music"--which is just part of what they were into (and so were all those heavy bands, including Zep--Plant, anyway). It's crazy to say Zeppelin were too heavy for hippies. (My friend who was at Woodstock was a Zep fan, too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I wasnt there, but from what i've been told by people that were is pretty much what most people say, "No, too heavy for the hippies". But then again, it seems that whenever I play some ZEP, they seem to groove to it!!! But think back to Bill Graham's concerts prior to Woodstock happening - he used to book three or four completely different sounding bands on the same bill and people loved it. It wouldn't be far fetched that people who were into the hippie movement would also like Zep and the Who etc. While this was before my time, I grew up listening to all sorts of different music from Zep to Bach to Joni Mitchell and everything in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachman Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 they would have blown people away with dazed and confused and immediately would get peoples attention..... they would have blown hendrix out of the damn water.. bonzo on drums fricking pounding the toms.. woo wow i could only imagine the cheer if they were there..... i heard grant was the reason they didnt go....wanted more money for appearing idk if thats true however.. anyone know the answer to that???? if u do it would be greatly appreciated.. or like someone said it may have just been they didnt want to get overshadowed but the truth is they wouldnt have.. they were the new hot thing at that time when zeppelin 1 dropped in stores Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 What's with this "blowing Hendrix out of the water"? If they'd played Woodstock, they'd undoubtedly have been great. Hendrix was great. Why does it have to be a competition, where they're only great at someone else's expense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachman Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 wow did i say it was a competition? u are dead wrong.. thats not what i meant.. thats how great zep was.. hendrix was amazing from everything i hear and listen to and still woulda been swept away by the mighty zeppelin.. just the truth.. not knocking hendrix one bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 wow did i say it was a competition? u are dead wrong.. thats not what i meant.. thats how great zep was.. hendrix was amazing from everything i hear and listen to and still woulda been swept away by the mighty zeppelin.. just the truth.. not knocking hendrix one bit Well that's an opinion as to Zep being better than Hendrix. Hard to say what the audience would have thought. Some would have likely agreed, others not. I get the impression all the bands that were there were pretty well equally received. It doesn't matter really as it's a moot point since they didn't play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachman Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Well that's an opinion as to Zep being better than Hendrix. Hard to say what the audience would have thought. Some would have likely agreed, others not. I get the impression all the bands that were there were pretty well equally received. It doesn't matter really as it's a moot point since they didn't play. good point was just projecting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 By the time Hendrix played(Monday morning) there were only about 30,000 people left from the half-million on Sat-Sun. If it wasn't for the movie that came out, most people wouldn't have known about Hendrix's "Star Spangled Banner" performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonTelecaster Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I only wonder if Hendrix would have thrown a fit about not being able to close the show had Led Zeppelin demanded it? But, in a word, "No", Led Zeppelin didn't need Woodstock, and vice-versa. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Hartman Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The second Woodstock yes. I would have loved to see them play. The first Woodstock? My time machine says no... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The second Woodstock yes. I would have loved to see them play. The first Woodstock? My time machine says no... But the second Woodstock was held long after Zep existed as a band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I've heard that they want to do a 40th anniversary of Woodstock show this summer. Quite possibly in New York's Central Park. Not sure about this. How many more of these do we need? Supposely, The Who and Santana are signed on. This was just a little news item are heard the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoso2112 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm not really bothered by the idea of it, to be honest. Would it have made them anymore successful? Probably not. They didn't need Woodstock, they didn't need Isle Of Wight, they didn't need any of that. The fact that they became so massive without any of those festivals, tells me all I need to know. And, it never hurt their career. I reckon if they had performed at Woodstock they may have been 'dwarfed', so to speak, by the bigger acts, or just lumped in the bill with the smaller ones. Some of those acts were amazing - others seem to have faded into oblivion. There was a very wise man that once said, 'We were asked to do Woodstock and Atlantic were very keen, and so was our US promoter, Frank Barsalona. I said no because at Woodstock we'd have just been another band on the bill'. Never underestimate the powerhouse that is Papa Grant. Bands didn't play those festivals to get famous. You usually had to be famous before hand. It is not a matter of needing to play them. Do you imply that other bands that played those shows did need those festivals in order to get famous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.