Markus says that he was hit on the head if you listen to the whole clip on Aftonbladet - "The Schulman Show". Very mildly though, he says. He also says that he has no intention of sueing him (Keith). A journalist union has made a couple of sharp statements on the subject though (they dont't accept violence or threats against any journalist).

.

HMN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 04:42 by Honestman.

Quote
NICOS
search on IORR with your name Hansie, including abuse, dick, stupid, idiot and fool but the result was zero

LOL NICOS, thanks for going through all that trouble

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

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
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.

I think this very well sums up what I think of the issue(s).

First of all, it is a different issue altogether whether we think Keith's reaction to the original review by Larsson was appropriate or not. I think not, someone else - like my countnry fellow Bärs - thinks yes. But that is a debate of its own.

Secondly, no matter what we think of the first issue, nothing scandalous happened in the interview. It was just reported via typical tabloid bullshit. I don't know if the intention was to make a "peace" with Larsson and Keith as is hinted here. Why not? I'd love to think that way. But it is still ethically questionable. Namely if that was the plan why to take so many riskies? Why to bring the issue to Keith from out of blue who is there discussing his book? Why couldn't they tell to Keith's people that here is the reporter who wrote the story, and who would likes to settle the thing now, and even apologize (as was Keith's original wish). Were they sure that Keith will refuse?

Anyway, whether there was a plan or not, it didn't work out. And they made the story out of next to nothing - because that was all they got. (Seemingly, normal Keith's interview was not enough - they wanted some "journalist' point of view" as is suggested here). But as far as Keith's reaction is concerned, I think it was basically okay. I can understand why he felt that the interview considering his book was just an excuse or a fake for the old Gothenburg thing to be settled. He surely felt like the whole thing was set up (as it was). No need to repeat his cool and calm behavior again - it goes like sweetcrarmedlife describes here.

As far as Keith's language goes, one must be idiot to take it literally. I think the correct response to Keith would be - to use Amsterdamned's insight - "Hi, man, you have watched way too many John Wayne movies". No one can take those western lines seriously if one has any common sense. I think the most telling and important lines are (1) "Let's say goodbye now" meaning that the interview is finished, and no more crap-talking on the issue; this is not leading anywhere. Then Keith's last remark which says it all: (2) "And now you can make a Big Thing in a Gothenburg newspaper". It says that Keith had exactly understood the nature of the interview.

I can't say anything of the physical part - but like suggested, if there would have been a hit or something truely aggressive or violent, this journalist wouldn't hesitated to sue Keith.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 11:14 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
if there would have been a hit or something truely aggressive or violent, this journalist wouldn't hesitated to sue Keith.....

..... and his face would have looked quite differently

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

Quote
bv

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, you are ABSOLUTELY on the right track here. In order to get a good interview out of an interviewee, something that is both interesting and revealing for "us the audience", the interviewer surely has to have a reasonable amount of interest in and familiarity with the subject of the interview. This clearly is not the case with Larsson. There are some people on here that seem to think the only people who are "qualified" to interview Keith or the likes of Keith are sycophantic ass lickers. That's wrong. As an interviewer, you can maintain perfect objectivity, but you do have to be slightly familiar with your subject and exhibit an interest, and I for one don't think that Larsson meets any of these criteria. It is an interview that simply shouldn't have happened, the entire purpose of it was completely overridden and overshadowed by Larsson's peculiar particular agenda, or that of the newspaper he worked for. It had little if anything to do with the contents of the bloody book the man has just spent two and a half years writing, that's pretty obvious. Also, as other posters have pointed out, Larsson appears to have been raised in an era of very different music, and not only is unfamiliar with Stones music, but doesn't appear to even like it. What more do you need for disqualifying him from the list of candidates for interviewing a 66 year old Rolling Stone - one has to ask ? How the hell did he slip through the net ? Who messed up ?

Anyway, I can hardly imagine KR or the Stones camp would lose a minute's sleep over it. Larsson and the paper he worked for have had their proverbial ten minutes in the spotlight, sold slightly more than their customary fourpence worth of tabloid shit, and meanwhile the Stones continue to roll. And so it ends ........

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 11:19 by paulywaul.

>> to be upset and hold a grudge for such a long time <<

it wasn't Keith who brought up old news - it was the tabloid guy. Keith was there to talk about his book.

what Keith was reacting to in this scenario was discovering he had been misadvised by his and his publishers' staff -
misled into treating this prat cordially, and then completely unexpectedly finding himself confronted by a jerk with an agenda
who was basically going "nyahh nyahh - fooled you!" (and practically pissing his pants at the same time)
and Keith stayed calm enough not to give the creep what he hoped for.

>> so sick and tired <<

Doxa, me too. just not of the same things [turning up the Can't You Stop Moaning Blues, way loud]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 15:44 by with sssoul.

Quote
paulywaul
And so it ends ........

........ wishful thinking ?

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

" ... and NOW (pretend clip round the ear) you can make a Big Thing in a Gothenburg newspaper ..."

And didn't he just do exactly that! The paper certainly picked Markus Larsson for his potential to cause a newsworthy rumpus - they weren't interested in getting just one more good, balanced interview about the book among many other similar ones.

Quote
ablett
I take it Doxa's made a return?

Do I have a choice? Gazza says he will show his blade if I don't write so who am I to argue with it?

Seriously. Like I said earlier, I did over-react which was based on a false judgment on my side. But I still don't like the childish bullshit Keith writes in LIFE but that is totally different case what happened in this review.

Keith used two years or more in his tropic island to reflect his life from his own will, and he had all the best premises and time to really say something worthwhile and reflective. And a splendid friendly co-writer to spar him and articulate his thoughts in fine form. But he ends up collecting the same old shit, one-liners, myths, stories as his interviews along the years. In some cases the stories are just got more childish and one-dimensional - for example, reflecting his personal relationships and judgment of people. The juvenile "wanna-be tough guy" element is purely ridiculous (I have started to laugh it now - after the shock).

But if the man is put under the circumstances like in this Larsson "interview" case, I am not going blame Keith for his intuitive and instinct reactions. That was a set up, and I think Keith survived surprisingly well. His reactions were natural (and from the base of his book - almost surprisingly calm).

But the sad case is that one cannot separate Keiths instinct reactions from his deeper reflections (as an autobiography supposed to be). They sound the same bullying.

Bet there is one thing I need to add: I actually feel empathic to the guy I heard in Larsson set-up. But I don't feel that at all when reading LIFE. Strange, isn't?

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 12:02 by Doxa.

Doxa, I think it might be something to do with what was said earlier in this thread - what looks dreadful on paper can sound very different when you actually hear it.

ROCKMAN

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

Incorrect.
The reporters got between 15 and 45 minutes. Those who got 30 minutes were in general those taking part in the round table interview, with from 6 to 9 people. Then there were a frw separate interviews. Varying from 20 to 45 minutes.
The 45 minute interview was with radio reporter and TV-host Bård Ose, who wrote a book in 1993(?) "30 years with The Rolling Stones".
(I have the complete list of press, interview schedule and how many minutes each reporter got to spend with KR)

Quote
Addicted

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

Incorrect.
The reporters got between 15 and 45 minutes. Those who got 30 minutes were in general those taking part in the round table interview, with from 6 to 9 people. Then there were a frw separate interviews. Varying from 20 to 45 minutes.
The 45 minute interview was with radio reporter and TV-host Bård Ose, who wrote a book in 1993(?) "30 years with The Rolling Stones".
(I have the complete list of press, interview schedule and how many minutes each reporter got to spend with KR)

Addicted, do you know have any info of possible Finnish reporters making interviews? What I have striking here in Finland that Keith's book hasn't had any publicity yet (or very formal or minimal). It is strange. Do you know anything of Finnish PR work considering Keith's book?

An example. In the morning the book was released I straightly walked to the biggest and most important book store of this town (Akateeminen Kirjakauppa). I thought it should be well presented there - but nothing. Not in a show window, not even under the section of "new releases". I thought "well, maybe it is not yet published here". But it was, and I finally found it from the music section, hidden next to other music books. And the next day when I walked front of the store, I saw an (old) Eric Clapton autobigraphy on a show window...

I haven't seen any review of the book in any major newspaper yet (correct me Finnish fellows if I'm wrong.). It is just this bloody Larsson incident that has made the (tabloid) news.

- Doxa

I'm so sorry, Doxa. I couldn't find Finnish media on my lists. Should there be a more updated list somewhere - that I don't have... Well - then there might bemedia from Finland scheduled to interview him. But unfortunately, I don't think so.
When it comes to the PR work - my experience is that if you put some work and money into the PR bit, that pays off very well in sales and attention. We got a lot of press on the big launch party on the night of November 25th. We made posters for bookstores and shop material so they could make nice exhibitions inside the stores. And we gave away lots of books to radio and TV-stations who would like to run competitions. (Not the signed books! The signed copies are for the competition we're going to have on iorr.org, of course) If you put a lot into it - you get a LOT out of it. So you can say PR work's a bit like a friendship or a marriage...

The various publishing houses in the different countries who published the book in their local language, had to pay part of the expenses in connection with setting up the press facilities, renting interview rooms etc in Le Meurice hotel in Paris. If they were not willing to help share the expences, then that country's reporters could not come to Paris and do the interviews.

The Norwegian publisher paid 20 % of the entire costs, because we sent 20 % of the reporters. So that's fair.
I hand picked the reporters, because of their knowledge of music history and their ability to do a great job and come up with something interresting. I also wanted them to be able to get a good chemistry with Keith, so I wrote mini bios on each one of them and sent them to Keith's book staff. Today, I'm very happy I took that little extra trouble.
If the Swedish publisher had taken the trouble, the little Swedish twat would never have come close to interviewing Keith. Someone else should have. Someone who could actually SPEAK English and have a great knowledge of the era the book is dealing with. That could have given the Swedish readers something interresting to read.
Now I gotta go shopping. Several people are comming over for dinner tonight, so I'll not have the time to log in on iorr until Sunday...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 14:12 by Addicted.

Thanks, Addicted, for clearing this out. You seem to do a wonderful work in PR section, and thanks (again) for open up the nature of your work.

Seemingly there is - as I thought - something wrong with the publing house or media here in Finland. Are those journalits we have so bloody lazy bastards that cannot be bothered if there are no free lunches and drinks available, etc.??? Not to mention needing sharing the costs... My picture of Finnish media is not a very high generally. Probably the book is way too long for typical music reviewers (Larssons of Finland) to read and "grasp" and say something intelligent. And the more intelligent people who review books, the real book "critics", are so oriented that they don't bother to give a low-culture figure as Keith Richards any room for a serious treatment. Not their "level". Also WSOY as a publing house is such an old institution that they don't seem to bother to make any effort to push the sales. The old bastards seemingly are doing well enough without needing to realize the potential LIFE sales.

But nothing new unfortunately. This strange Rolling Stones year 2010 never took place here in Finland. Even the much hyped EXILE re-issue was almost totally ignored here. That was strange - I hear wonderful stories how much coverage and PR the release got all over the world: stories, interviews, ads... but here: nothing. It is almost a miracle that the release made the lists after-all (as it barely did - nothing compared to the chartings in, say, USA or England).

Sounds like there is some bloody plot here to against the Stones...

Okay, now that national anger is thrown out of my system. I feel better. Thanks.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 14:47 by Doxa.

To Addicted

It's great to see that you take time to answer to some member's question , and on the other hand, it's strange that you didn't take time to answer to the same question for some other member
Don't feel offensed, it's just not fair, that's all.
Now I got my answer, French JOURNALIST for sure didn't pay enough to get some footage
that's right ???

HMN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 15:09 by Honestman.

Thanks again Addicted for all the info we wouldn't normally hear about during Keiths' book launch schedule.

HMN is right !

I think all the forum is to enjoy these great contributions !

Thanks !


Fabio

Quote
Honestman
To Addicted

It's great to see that you take time to answer to some member's question , and on the other hand, it's strange that you didn't take time to answer to the same question for some other member
Don't feel offensed, it's just not fair, that's all.
Now I got my answer, French JOURNALIST for sure didn't pay enough to get some footage
that's right ???

So, while we're making dinner here...
I have a home to run and a business and employees to take care of. I try to answer as many questions as I can. Lately there's just been too many.
Anyway - you've misunderstood most things in my post I think. We do have a serious language problem.

1) the publishing house means the company in France who bought the rights to release Keith's book in France. The European publishing houses shared the costs of setting up press facilities in the hotel in Paris. That's normal - it's what publishing houses always do for this kind of event.
2. The media don't pay anything for interviews. Here - media means TV, radio, printed and online press. French press had people present, but I have no idea why they didn't publish anything. I didn't have anything to do with the French press. Every country has their own PR and press officer who works for the publishing house. I don't know who's responsible for press and PR for the Frensh publishing house.
3. Now if you read my post again - and the posts in this thread - you'll get the picture. (Which in this case does NOT mean that you will get a photograph, but hopefully you'll understand the way things were organized.)
4. About your insults - please. Just go ahead. If it gives you joy and happiness, come on! "Don't Stop"!
5. I have to take care of something in the oven, and clean the floors and won't have time to check in here until tomorrow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-13 15:33 by Addicted.

Quote
Addicted

4. About your insults - please. Just go ahead. If it gives you joy and happiness, come on! "Don't Stop"!

Show me where ???
I've just asked you some questions...that you try to clarify now
Thanks

HMN

Quote
with sssoul
what Keith was reacting to in this scenario was discovering he had been misadvised by his and his publishers' staff -
misled into treating this prat cordially, and then completely unexpectedly finding himself confronted by a jerk with an agenda
who was basically going "nyahh nyahh - fooled you!" (and practically pissing his pants at the same time)
and Keith stayed calm enough not to give the creep what he hoped for.

Yeah the guy was so nervous you could almost literally hear him pissing his pants.

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
with sssoul
what Keith was reacting to in this scenario was discovering he had been misadvised by his and his publishers' staff -
misled into treating this prat cordially, and then completely unexpectedly finding himself confronted by a jerk with an agenda
who was basically going "nyahh nyahh - fooled you!" (and practically pissing his pants at the same time)
and Keith stayed calm enough not to give the creep what he hoped for.

Yeah the guy was so nervous you could almost literally hear him pissing his pants.

I guess he was a bit afraid of the Keith showing him the blade scenario.

'Dont mention the blade!'

Mr Addict: Thanks for your (inside?) information, I stand corrected. I was just quoting Mr Larsson though. He said that his bit was intended to last 30 minutes but he only got 17. Can I make some comments about what's been said here and , maybe, straighten something out? 1. Markus didn't decide to go to Paris, his boss sent him there. 2. Markus never had something personal against Keith, he wasn't "after him" as Keith seems to believe. 3. The intention from Aftonbladet (as Markus tells in the "Schulman interview" was not to make war with Keith, on the contrary they wanted Markus to "make peace" with him, laugh about it and take a picture. It didn't turn out that way though... . 4. I, personally, think that keith has exaggerated this matter, perhaps he has been poorly informed by someone? I'm sure Mick would have just laughed about it... .

Quote
Stoneage
Mr Addict: Thanks for your (inside?) information, I stand corrected. I was just quoting Mr Larsson though. He said that his bit was intended to last 30 minutes but he only got 17. Can I make some comments about what's been said here and , maybe, straighten something out? 1. Markus didn't decide to go to Paris, his boss sent him there. 2. Markus never had something personal against Keith, he wasn't "after him" as Keith seems to believe. 3. The intention from Aftonbladet (as Markus tells in the "Schulman interview" was not to make war with Keith, on the contrary they wanted Markus to "make peace" with him, laugh about it and take a picture. It didn't turn out that way though... . 4. I, personally, think that keith has exaggerated this matter, perhaps he has been poorly informed by someone? I'm sure Mick would have just laughed about it... .

Stoneage, I hear and respect you. And I can easily accept all those points you made. But like I said earlier I think still the whole plan of AFTOBLADET - I can as well point to Larsson' boss as to the guy - was ethically questionable, They used the situation that was supposed to be nothing but an interview considering Keith's book to an aim of their own. Keith wasn't there to make "peaces" with anyone - he was there to promote and talk about his book. If they have had moral they should have asked beforehand a permission for that. But they didn't do that but instead they seemingly wanted to "surprise" him. Better word is an "interruption" or "attack" or "insult". It is very difficult to understand how they ever were thinking that their plan is going to work out. I can't think them being so idealistic really. They were looking after a dirt. Or the boss left the naive employee to the lions. Maybe Larsson is as big victim or "a pawn in the game" in this as Keith is. To make a dirty headline.

- Doxa

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.

After listened to the interview I have to agree!

2 1 2 0

Quote
Stoneage
A journalist union has made a couple of sharp statements on the subject though (they dont't accept violence or threats against any journalist).

Does "journalist union", or any other relevant instance, in Sweden have made any comments considering the ethical procedure of AFTONBLADET like in regards to "good journalist manners" etc. in this case? Sweden if any country is a country of justice, so I hope if this case is more discussed, these kind of point of views are also brought up.

- Doxa

It seems plain to see that Keef was set up.Sadly his guys didn't do their homework.This no mark journalist deserved all he got.I think Keef handled the situation perfectly.He kept his cool and had the last word on the matter.Pity he didn't have a fender handy to chop the mother down with.Keep rocking Sir Keef.

I'm sure Mick would have just laughed about it... .


Absolutely. I've read so many awful articles and reviews full of personal attacks about Mick, and he has never overreacted like Keith. Talk about primadonna