Robert Redford said: “All critics are fueled by their own failed ambitions. I can’t tell you the number of critics who slip me a script on the side. Then, they rip you apart as an actor because you haven’t responded to their screenplay”.

It holds true in the music business, too. Read KILLING BONO by Neil McCormick, a high school classmate of Bono's who failed in his attempts at rock stardom. The book is about how it scorched his soul to see Bono skyrocket past him. (McCormick is now a music critic for the Telegraph.

Haha, just heard the interview, brilliant..
I mean you can say that it was perhapse a bad concert, but to say that the Stones are amateuers is showing disrespect for the band that has been playing for 50 years and disrespect for their lives and carieers. What was he especting from Keith : "Oh, that's OK my friend"...come on..

So Keiths plays a crappy show and a reviewer does his job and critiques it as lousy. So Keith... hits him. like a child. Did he take his lunch money too? This is not a man of class, wealth and taste... but of a spoiled baby.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
Doxa
I still find this whole episode absurd. That Markus Larsson person is nothing but shit. But taking him and his crap paper so seriously is odd to me. To me this is so absurd: how The Rolling Stones (or Keith) is so small that they should be bothered by people like Larsson?

It's odd only of you believe that the Stones are cynical people with no love at all for their art or audience. If you believe the opposite about the Stones the reaction is quite understandable.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
So Keiths plays a crappy show and a reviewer does his job and critiques it as lousy. So Keith... hits him.

Not really.

Quote
jamesfdouglas
So Keiths plays a crappy show and a reviewer does his job and critiques it as lousy. So Keith... hits him. like a child. Did he take his lunch money too? This is not a man of class, wealth and taste... but of a spoiled baby.

No. Keith did a great show and some hack writer bashes him just for the heck of it.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
jamesfdouglas
So Keiths plays a crappy show and a reviewer does his job and critiques it as lousy. So Keith... hits him. like a child. Did he take his lunch money too? This is not a man of class, wealth and taste... but of a spoiled baby.

Read the ENTIRE thread, LISTEN to the relevant part of the interview (a link has been posted), and then possibly you might be less inclined to make an extremely misinformed comment ... ?

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Quote
bv
I think some people here forget one major factor:

Keith Richards is a human being, just like you and me!

He did one of his best shows on that tour. Worked hard, as the rest of the band did. Then some petite journalist guy (we have quite a few in the word( try to sell some extra newspapers by making a scandal. So sad. Nobody likes lies. Nobody likes to be scandalized. Keith had just survived a serious brain surgery, with his family around the hospital bed. Then some petite journalist makes a joke about him, makes he like a drunk clown.

Keith did the only right thing. He told that petite journalist he did not like him, his dishonest stories, then Keith left the room. If the journalist saw a finger or a swing in the air from Keith, well that was probably enough to make another story. Like the editor of that crap paper said: The story was picked up all over the word. News! News! Read all about it! We have a journalist who can't speak normal with normal people.?

With all respect. I still can´t understand how a review can be a lie. And what´s a scandal? That an artist gets only 2 of 5 stars? Big deal, happens all the time. Ok, Keith had been seriously ill prior to the tour. What does that mean? That you can´t write a critical review about his performance? Please enlighten me.

Björnulf: To answer your question on page 11. The pop-journalists on Aftonbladet (or Expressen, probably Verdens Gang too...) are born in the late 70-ties or the 80-ties. They don´t care about The Rolling Stones or classic rock at all (Springsteen is an exception though, for some reason...). Markus Larsson was brought up on hardrock (heavy metal etc) and never listened to classic rock. These days he likes indie-acts, especially Håkan Hellström and Kent. You must have heard of them in Norway too? From that point of view it's a moral imperative to criticize "old" rock and roll-bands like The Rolling Stones. On Aftonbladet they have one of Swedens biggest Keith Richards-fans -Tore Börjesson. But they didn't send him to Paris, they sent Markus Larsson. The intention was to make a journalistic angle on it; they really wanted Markus and keith to sort the old arguments out and become "friends" and take a picture of it. That didn't happen though... .

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Doxa
I still find this whole episode absurd. That Markus Larsson person is nothing but shit. But taking him and his crap paper so seriously is odd to me. To me this is so absurd: how The Rolling Stones (or Keith) is so small that they should be bothered by people like Larsson?

It's odd only of you believe that the Stones are cynical people with no love at all for their art or audience. If you believe the opposite about the Stones the reaction is quite understandable.

Perhaps I'm not so romantic as you are but I find it a bit odd that it took about 2000 gigs and 45 years in show business that this act of sudden solidarity to their audiences took place. Or that they are so "hurt" if their art is not rightly appreciated. I guess it needs to be then the first bad unjustified review they ever got.

Funny what one can learn in a Rolling Stones board: if a bad review is written, it is almost a moral duty of the artist to ask from the reviewer a public apology so that artist's fans are not hurt. From a goddamn mr. nobody tabloid journalist.

This band used to be a proud rock and roll band. The Rolling @#$%&' Stones.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 00:57 by Doxa.

From a goddamn mr. nobody tabloid journalist.

__________________________

Quote
NICOS
From a goddamn mr. nobody tabloid journalist.

Ok!

- Doxa

This is a recording of the actual interview. I am surprised that Keith do in fact spend so much time on that "litte" journalist, sailing on false flag. Also, the fact that the "journalist" say "I am sorry" so many times. He was in fact asking for a scandal by telling Keith he is the one and he is expecting Keith to freak out, but all he gets is Keith asking him out why he wrote such crap.

[www.vgtv.no]

Bjornulf

Ok!

- Doxa
_______________________



__________________________




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 01:21 by NICOS.

Every journalist got about 30 minutes. Markus only got 17... .

Quote
Stoneage
Markus Larsson was brought up on hardrock (heavy metal etc) and never listened to classic rock.

So why on earth does he interview Keith and report on their shows? I have just listened to professional Norwegian journalists who interview Keith in Paris with a heart and a soul and get close with him and they get lots of great talks and stories. Then I have seen this Markus Larsson crap interview and report which does not make sense. I would get more info about the Stones by talking to my dog. Is he some kind of celebrity in Sweden? And is this the only paper people read in Sweden? I just don't understand.

Bjornulf

Keith says: "Every time I try to find you, you run away".
So he's been out hunting for that Larsson character?
Keith IS the king of cool.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
bv
This is a recording of the actual interview. I am surprised that Keith do in fact spend so much time on that "litte" journalist, sailing on false flag. Also, the fact that the "journalist" say "I am sorry" so many times. He was in fact asking for a scandal by telling Keith he is the one and he is expecting Keith to freak out, but all he gets is Keith asking him out why he wrote such crap.

[www.vgtv.no]

Well bv, with all due respect to you,no matter how much you try to spin it,its my believe that Keith overreacted,for someone of his stature to be upset and hold a grudge for such a long time,its silly, and he comes across as a primadona.
Its like he thinks that he is above being criticize for doing a bad show , well a few of the people that saw that show,also agree that on that night he was lousy.Big Deal,it has happen before and if they play again, l am sure on some nights he won't be great.Or from now on is he going to keep a score of who writes stuff that he don't like?.
If anyone should be blamed for this fiasco is not the reporter,but Keith's handlers,who did a lousy job of screening who this guy was,or maybe it was done on purpose to create the scandal and Keith could sell a few more books.
Anyway, that s my take on this matter.

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

The clip is hilarious though! I couldn't help myself laughing. Look att the expression from Jonas Gardell (a well known swedish writer and comedian)! Markus even laughs at himself (he's ashamed of his "swenglish" pronunciation). This was only the last question. I have read the whole interview and it wasn't that bad att all. He asks Keith why he hardly mentions Bill in the book and if Charlie was the only one dared to take at punch at Mick. Furthermore he asks about Gram Parsons, "Brenda" and Keith's fascination for weapon (especially Smith & Wesson and big knifes).

Björnulf: Perhaps it's a different situation in Norway. You are lucky then. In Sweden we have very few pop/rock (or even film or entertainment)-journalist who are +40 years old. Pop/rock/entertainment are supposed to be for kids or adults. It's a sign of the times. As I said earlier: they could have sent Tore Börjesson (who is about 50 years old [my guess]) and a living Stones-encyclopedia - but they didn't.

Correction to my last post: I mean young adults (not adults).

For me there is no scandal here, just a disagreement in which Markus was unable to come up with substantial facts to reinforce his criticism.Markus is a lightweight rock critic. Keith Richards is protective of his band. What is wrong with criticizing a critic ? Nothing
Rock and Roll,
Mops

I take it Doxa's made a return?

Quote
Rolling Hansie
That's what I expected. Just wanted to make sure.

You know, I could discuss this if I wanted to. But I don't feel that you want that. It's no secret that you're pro-Keith thinking that he was 100% right on this matter- wich is fine - so why should I bother to explain what I had in mind? It's not going to change your opinion and I don't want to argue about something so simple. In the end we both agree that Markus is an idiot and deserved to get kicked out.
It's too easy to call each other idiots and flame each other on the internet because of different standpoints and I have had my fair share. I don't go there anymore if I don't think it's worth it. Sorry.

Quote
Doxa
Finally there is some kind of use of all my Swedish lessons back in school...

Lär de fortfarande ut svenska i finländska skolor? Din svenska är bra!

Quote
Doxa
I still find this whole episode absurd. That Markus Larsson person is nothing but shit. But taking him and his crap paper so seriously is odd to me. To me this is so absurd: how The Rolling Stones (or Keith) is so small that they should be bothered by people like Larsson?

That sums up what I think about it! Who cares about Markus? Every swede knows he is a moron.

We can all have opinions on how good a journalist Markus is, but to call him a moron or an idiot is just - idiotic!

Quote
tonterapi
It's too easy to call each other idiots and flame each other on the internet

In all the many years that I have been a member on this board, I have never done a thing like that, as far as I can remember.

-------------------
Keep On Rolling

MadMax: That kind of language (your first sentence) is simply improper on this board (or any board).

Dedicated to Markus Larsson:

I did just a search on IORR with your name Hansie, including abuse, dick, stupid, idiot and fool but the result was zero...Keep On Rolling Man!!!

__________________________

Just listened to the audio clip that BV posted. First of all I will say that this Markus Larsson had a great deal of guts to actually show up for this interview himself. Listening to him squirm and apologize profusely to Keith and tell him how good the show in Stockholm was is great. He has some guts. He may be a terrible writer,but it takes nerve knowing the subject you are interviewing hates your guts and doesn't know you are the subject of his wrath. For his part,Keith stays pretty cool. Once he finds out who this twerp is,he tells him what he thinks of him in a pretty calm,collected manor. The "Your lucky to get out here alive" is just Keith BS. Didn't sound like much of a scuffle to me. You can argue whether or not Keith has thin skin about a bad review. But people saying Keith is a thug or a punk or whatever because of what he did in this interview are just wrong. It's pretty clear he didn't hit the guy. If he did,you can bet the little pussy would have filed charges. In the end I think the whole think is actually much ado about nothing.