For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Beast
Hint - perhaps look at Rolling Hansie's post above. It's one thing to be called dead drunk, whether you're drunk or not, when you're in good health - you'd no doubt just laugh it off. But I doubt anyone appreciates being called dead drunk and generally dissed if the reason for any drunken-like actions was related to recent cranial surgery and/or post-op medication.
Quote
Doxa
We know he was not drunk but sick.
Quote
alimenteQuote
Doxa
We know he was not drunk but sick.
Do we?
I think we dont even know that for sure.
Quote
sweetcharmedlife
So what are the chances of the Stones playing Goteborg on the next tour. I'd say slim and none.
Quote
Bärs
Good points Doxa, the "dead drunk" thing was actually written in another swedish tabloid Expressen:
[www.expressen.se]
Keith was angry because of the hostile "review" in Aftonbladet and the personal attacks he suffered by Markus Larssons "vicious pen". That's what I've always believed.
That IS proof that Keith really tries to perform as well as he can. He DOES care.
Quote
The Greek
fyi, keith was recovering from the brain surgery and was on anti seizure medication and his wife had a issue with the BIG C(cancer).that is why keith reacted to this bloke that calls himself a journalist.that's the rub in a nutshell .
Quote
DoxaQuote
Bärs
Good points Doxa, the "dead drunk" thing was actually written in another swedish tabloid Expressen:
[www.expressen.se]
Keith was angry because of the hostile "review" in Aftonbladet and the personal attacks he suffered by Markus Larssons "vicious pen". That's what I've always believed.
That IS proof that Keith really tries to perform as well as he can. He DOES care.
Thanks for clarification. Agree eith the last point. The scenery is then more like: "you can call me drunk, junkie or whatever but if dare to say I don't do my thing well at stage, you better run, boy!"
"Hmmpphh.. Is that Larsson there..."
Foto: Wiriden Jan
- Doxa
Quote
stargroover
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.
very perceptive Doxa, that you knew exactly where i was coming from .you get points for that !!!Quote
DoxaQuote
The Greek
fyi, keith was recovering from the brain surgery and was on anti seizure medication and his wife had a issue with the BIG C(cancer).that is why keith reacted to this bloke that calls himself a journalist.that's the rub in a nutshell .
I also have thought that way that there was an unusual reason - the whole context of his life in that moment - why Keith suddenly appeared to be so sensitive. Because - no matter how much people here see his reaction "natural" now - I think it was not usual Keith Richards or Rolling Stones behavior at all. I think they have always been famous for their arrogant and "can't care less" attitude towards their critics, like with a healthy self esteem being a bit above criticism or untouchaed by it; "Everything's alright in critics' section?", etc.
- Doxa
Quote
Addicted
They were looking for scandal. They thought they'd found one when they interviewed some people, well connected Stones fans in Sweden, who said (on camera) that Keith was drunk in Gothenburg. The well connected fans have later said they were mis quoted, that Keith wasn't drunk, but that doesn't sink in with the low life tabloid.
Quote
DoxaQuote
Beast
Hint - perhaps look at Rolling Hansie's post above. It's one thing to be called dead drunk, whether you're drunk or not, when you're in good health - you'd no doubt just laugh it off. But I doubt anyone appreciates being called dead drunk and generally dissed if the reason for any drunken-like actions was related to recent cranial surgery and/or post-op medication.
Where does Larsson actually sates that Keith was "dead drunk" or even drunk at all? My knowledge of Swedish is limited, but I didn't find any direct references to that in the original review. I find some indirect references like being "confused" etc. and I don' know how clear the "being drunk" connotation is. Maybe Swedish folks here could clarify this?
Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, the Finnish tabloids actually were claiming Keith's being drunk because he, for example, felt down on stage in Helsinki. But that didn't bother Keith enough to ask public apoplogies. (We know he was not drunk but sick). Seemingly Keith got upset because he just didn't like the negative tone in Larsson's review. He felt hurt.
I think this claiming Keith "being drunk" being the biggest crime Larsson did, is just a myth created here at IORR. Reading the original review, Keith's response o it, and the Swedish discussion afterwards, I don't find this theme talked at all. It is just an interpretation created by someone else.
Of course, now Paulywail and other "true fans" will go after me again because I don't defend our hero here but let's say I always value the sense of justice and truth over my Rolling Stones fandom, and as long as I contribute here, I can not make compromises in that.
- Doxa
Quote
paulywaulQuote
DoxaQuote
Beast
Hint - perhaps look at Rolling Hansie's post above. It's one thing to be called dead drunk, whether you're drunk or not, when you're in good health - you'd no doubt just laugh it off. But I doubt anyone appreciates being called dead drunk and generally dissed if the reason for any drunken-like actions was related to recent cranial surgery and/or post-op medication.
Where does Larsson actually sates that Keith was "dead drunk" or even drunk at all? My knowledge of Swedish is limited, but I didn't find any direct references to that in the original review. I find some indirect references like being "confused" etc. and I don' know how clear the "being drunk" connotation is. Maybe Swedish folks here could clarify this?
Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, the Finnish tabloids actually were claiming Keith's being drunk because he, for example, felt down on stage in Helsinki. But that didn't bother Keith enough to ask public apoplogies. (We know he was not drunk but sick). Seemingly Keith got upset because he just didn't like the negative tone in Larsson's review. He felt hurt.
I think this claiming Keith "being drunk" being the biggest crime Larsson did, is just a myth created here at IORR. Reading the original review, Keith's response o it, and the Swedish discussion afterwards, I don't find this theme talked at all. It is just an interpretation created by someone else.
Of course, now Paulywail and other "true fans" will go after me again because I don't defend our hero here but let's say I always value the sense of justice and truth over my Rolling Stones fandom, and as long as I contribute here, I can not make compromises in that.
- Doxa
<<< Of course, now Paulywail and other "true fans" will go after me again because I don't defend our hero here >>>
Doxa old sport, don't flatter yourself. You appear to have mistaken me for someone that gives a rat's arse about what you have to say on the subject ....
Quote
DoxaQuote
paulywaulQuote
DoxaQuote
Beast
Hint - perhaps look at Rolling Hansie's post above. It's one thing to be called dead drunk, whether you're drunk or not, when you're in good health - you'd no doubt just laugh it off. But I doubt anyone appreciates being called dead drunk and generally dissed if the reason for any drunken-like actions was related to recent cranial surgery and/or post-op medication.
Where does Larsson actually sates that Keith was "dead drunk" or even drunk at all? My knowledge of Swedish is limited, but I didn't find any direct references to that in the original review. I find some indirect references like being "confused" etc. and I don' know how clear the "being drunk" connotation is. Maybe Swedish folks here could clarify this?
Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, the Finnish tabloids actually were claiming Keith's being drunk because he, for example, felt down on stage in Helsinki. But that didn't bother Keith enough to ask public apoplogies. (We know he was not drunk but sick). Seemingly Keith got upset because he just didn't like the negative tone in Larsson's review. He felt hurt.
I think this claiming Keith "being drunk" being the biggest crime Larsson did, is just a myth created here at IORR. Reading the original review, Keith's response o it, and the Swedish discussion afterwards, I don't find this theme talked at all. It is just an interpretation created by someone else.
Of course, now Paulywail and other "true fans" will go after me again because I don't defend our hero here but let's say I always value the sense of justice and truth over my Rolling Stones fandom, and as long as I contribute here, I can not make compromises in that.
- Doxa
<<< Of course, now Paulywail and other "true fans" will go after me again because I don't defend our hero here >>>
Doxa old sport, don't flatter yourself. You appear to have mistaken me for someone that gives a rat's arse about what you have to say on the subject ....
No, I take you to be the guy who took the right to talk in behalf of all the rest here in your comment considering my departure ("You won't be be missed here", etc.) I do read posts even though I don't respond them always So that comment - instead showing the blade - was my terrible revenge. But now I feel even.
Seriously... it's alright now, Paulywaul. Shit happens. Let's live on and dig the Stones .
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowderman
What's with you guys anyway?? Two of the greatest posters here - fighting. Hmm, did I miss the humour or the irony here?
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Don't mention the blade... Ooops!
Quote
Thommie
The Gothenburg show wasn't one of Keith's best one. No of his worst either.
But I don't buy this talk about Keith that he was sick at this show. Has anyone really said that? And if he was, should he really perform in that case?
With those high ticket prices it’s unfair to perform if he/they, already from the beginning, know that he isn't able to deliver.
So if he was sick, I understand why we don’t get any explanation to his performance.
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
Don't mention the blade... Ooops!
Well, after I decided ´not to show the blade, I was about to ask from Paulywaul a public apology but then I thought that a little bite will do... Now I'm extremily satisfied and self-content.
I sense that the big drama is over,and everyone can now breath freely.
And a bit of irony and sarcam will never do bad here either...
- Doxa