I think his performance would have been watched as a curiosity. As if Sinatra had appeared. He might not have been booed, but I can imagine some snarking taking place.
Something like: “Oh c’mon man, what is that old geezer doing up there?” ??? 
Actually, his 1969 material (the From Elvis in Memphis album and the singles released that year and in early 1970) was the most successful he’d released, both commercially and artistically, since 1962.
And Elvis’s so-called “Comeback Special,” which aired on TV six months before Woodstock, had improved his overall stock dramatically after years of awful (though still somewhat commercially successful) movies and movie soundtrack albums.
Now how many of the Woodstock crowd had watched the Comeback Special is an open question. Those who did would have seen a re-energized Elvis who kicked ass, especially in the jam segment. In that one, he appropriated his Sun guitarist Scotty Moore’s electric guitar after just one song and played in the rest of the time, acquitting himself quite well.
I suppose the power of this segment has grown greater in hindsight, as the concept of roots rock gained more respect in the years that followed. On the other hand, Creedence Clearwater Revival had had tremendous success in the year leading up to Woodstock using the basic template that Elvis helped create.
I believe that IF Elvis had taken the stage with most of the personal dynamism he displayed in his early days as a stage performer, and IF he had assembled a crack band of Memphis stalwarts who played tightly and authentically, and IF he had avoided the cheese that quickly infected his performances once he went to Vegas…then he easily could have won over the crowd at Woodstock.
This was not in any way held against Janis Joplin, Blood Sweat and Tears, Joan Baez or Joe Cocker, who also played Woodstock and had considerable commercial success.
Depends on how you define “popular.” It’s true that “underground” FM stations didn’t play Elvis’s music…but the very fact that they were known by this name points out that theirs was still a niche audience — although of course, they were very popular within Woodstock’s general demographic.
But on the Top 40 radio stations, which still commanded the bulk of the radio listening audience, Elvis’s singles from late 1968 through early 1970 charted at #12, #3, #1, #6 and #16 — by far his best showing since 1963.
This might have generally been true of a portion of the Woodstock audience.
However, being in the middle of that cultural revolution (and I was too, believe me), it was easy to think that ALL of youth was caught up in it.
You really have to remind yourself that, for great numbers of young people in that era, the 60s never even happened.
If he had gone with the leather jacket of the Comeback Special instead of the Las Vegas jumpsuit, it would have worked.
Some of his contemporary material — “Guitar Man,” “U.S. Male,” “Clean Up Your Own Back Yard,” “Suspicious Minds” (recorded by the time of Woodstock but not yet released as a single) — was worthy and would have gone over well, I think.
For the rest, he could have reached into his back catalog — hopefully all the way back to the Sun recordings — and acquitted himself admirably.
It may be a foolish hope on my part, but I’d like to think that if the cheese parody presentation of the 50s promulgated by Sha Na Na went over at Woodstock, there might be a chance that the real deal might have too.
zombie or no
they would have all gone skinny dipping.
Having been part of the audience, I think this is a ridiculous suggestion. There wasn’t a distinct element of Elvis fans vs fans of other performers there, and the crowd was very much into the whole “peace and love” vibe (as well as much of it being stoned and/or tripping). It would have taken a lot more than a performance by Elvis to disrupt that.
Otis Redding and Albert King were major influences on the artists of the day, though. Hendrix owed a stylistic debt to King, for starters, and King also did what he could to adapt his music for a hippie audience. (White kids made a lot of aging blues guys rich for the first time.) So there was some mutual appreciation there and a reason those audiences appreciated guys like that. Would that have been the case with Elvis? I couldn’t say.
Elvis was tightly controlled by Colonel Parker. He never toured internationally. I’ve read Parker only let him use songs that he had a piece of. Which explains all the filler dreck on those later albums.
I posted a thread last night about any collaborations. Imagine a Elvis/McCartney single or a Elvis/Stevie Wonder single. It would kept him connected to the newer generations of music.
Attending Monterey Jazz festival or maybe Woodstock would have been smart too. Monterey was established and better organized.
Pretty much. It was all those crappy movies he made that really hurt his coolness creds. On the other hand, Carl Perkins would probably have had to do an encore if he had appeared there.
I was there, but don’t really remember much. My gut feeling is that Elvis represented the past. There’s a sharp divide between people who came of age in the 50s and those of us who came of age beginning with the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. I know people just 3 years older than I am, and even now it’s like we’re from different generations. I appreciate Elvis now, but wouldn’t have back then.
More than anything else, the entire IMAGE of Woodstock would have been compromised if he’d been there.
Elvis seems to have come from a time where respectable musicians got drunk and abused pain killers, uppers, and downers. I can’t imagine him and his Memphis Mafia having much truck with the long hairs who were using hallucinogens. It was a generational thing.
Across the border in Toronto, just a month after Woodstock, there was a festival that featured both early rock acts and the latest rock. So perhaps we should not think that the divide between the two was that huge. If Alice Cooper, the Doors, and John Lennon (with Yoko’s vocals!) could share the stage with Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard, maybe Elvis would have had a great reception at Woodstock.
Toronto was billed as a “Rock and Roll Revival”, so older acts like Jerry Lee, Little Richard, and Chuck Berry would have been expected. Woodstock wasn’t billed as a revival. And as for the Toronto crowd listening to Yoko, I think of that part of the show as an opportunity to go take a piss and buy some refreshments, as I’m sure most of the audience did too.
LMFAO.
At least Elvis didn’t take Priscilla everywhere he went (including the loo) and didn’t give her a mic to scream into. One has to give him credit for that.
On the other hand it’s unforgivable he didn’t take pictures of her naked like John did with Yoko :smack:
Sorry for the double post, but you have to see this:
You wouldn't be able to take a leak Ranger_Jeff... you might try squeeze it but nothing would come out. It's that horrendous :eek:Where there any groups at Woodstock whose music was like that of Elvis? Besides Sha-Na-Na, which has never (as far as I know) been seen as being a serious musical group?
There was a single soul act at Woodstock, no country groups, no Latino acts (Joan Baez was folk and Santana was rock) and no traditional singers (Sinatra, Martin, Sammie Davis,etc) It was a rather monochromatic affair. To presume that a music festival which specifically featured acts tailored to a younger would have somehow embraced a singer whose popularity had faded earlier in the same decade seems rather ludicrous.
Elvis fans probably wouldn’t have been “tripping.” Drunk perhaps, and that alone wouldn’t have made things pleasant for an assembled crowd. Also, most Elvis fans would have been supporters of the war and if I remember Woodstock correctly supporting Vietnam wasn’t high on the agendas of “positives.”
I wasn’t at Woodstock, but I have been to music festivals where dissimilar groups played. The dissonance that this caused was often palpable and this is without this serious social issues which were occurring in the US in 1969. I can imagine that it would have been greater at Woodstock given the times and the social issues involved.
A minor nitpick here, but I think this shortchanges Santana a bit. Santana was Latin rock. I’m not sure there was such a thing before Santana put that band together, but their music definitely combined rock music and Latin music.
And all of the festivals you attended doubtless post-dated Woodstock. I don’t need to remind you of how quickly the vibe at rock festivals turned around between Woodstock and Altamont.
However, at Woodstock — despite certain very real physical challenges that might have caused a far smaller crowd to turn unruly — peace prevailed, with very few incidents of ANY kind.
So you’re telling me that the simple act of putting a non-compatible musical artist on the bill would have caused a huge, ugly uproar? More so than lack of adequate sanitation facilities, possible food shortages, popular acts going on at 5:00 a.m. and a deluge that turned the grounds into a sea of mud?
Remember that as of August, 1969, Elvis had begun his first engagement in Las Vegas and kicked off his jumpsuit/karate routine just a few weeks before. Word of the cheese factor inherent in these shows had not reached public consciousness.
Nor, as far as I’m aware, were there any specific indications that Elvis had begun airing any widely known right-wing or pro-war sentiments at that time. Really, outside of the Comeback TV special and a sudden return to success on the Top 40 charts earlier in the year, Elvis had probably been pretty much of a non-entity for many of the Woodstock crowd for several years.
Nevertheless, I’d like to believe that a substantial part of the crowd at least had some knowledge of Elvis’s importance to the acts that were appearing at the festival (without whom…). Certainly the other acts themselves would have made certain of that with announcements from the stage, as the majority of them had guitars in their hands in the first place at least in part due to Elvis.
And after all, the entire “The Beatles are the biggest thing since Elvis” meme was only 5 1/2 years old at the time — well within the memory of most in attendance.
I believe the crowd would have given him every chance. They certainly didn’t display any ugliness on any other front, so why this one? And if Elvis had delivered in the way I outlined in an earlier post, I believe he would have been well-received.
If by cheese factor you were referring to those extravagant and kitschy jumpsuits, that was still 3-5 years in the future. When he opened in Las Vegas in July 69 his outfits were so unassuming that most Woodstock acts looked flamboyant in comparison:
I can well believe that. If Beatles were itching to meet Elvis even as late as 1965 and Led Zeppelin took time off touring just to see him in Vegas, I imagine other acts would have had similar feelings toward him.
Well, here is the final word on Elvis’s wardrobe from 1969 onwards. The truth is somewhere in the middle of what we posted.
To me, a couple of the late 1969 ones were already getting a little out there, and by 1970 I’d say things were in full flower! So it took considerably less than three years, let alone five, for the cheese to set in.