Some asked who did the translation for Keith in Gothenburg. It was Thomas Johanssons staff at EMA Telstar (Now Live NAtion), the local promotor.
The journalist claimed that Keith was drunk and delivered a lousy performance. Neither was true. He was sober as a born again Christian pastor.
And his and the band's performance that night was well above average on the ABB tour. That's the background for Keith's anger. He takes criticizm when there's something to it. Here one jerk of a tabloid reporter told lies.
And now the reporter's even lied about Keith hitting him in the head...
Isn't slander quite an expensive hobbby, particularly if you have US attorneys?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 18:00 by Addicted.

Good for you Keef!!!
Too bad he didn't toss Markus the Sod out the window...

It's only rock'n'roll...

Some of you seems to be offensed or amazed by these "news", if one could call this headlines a news ! I don't think Keith's behavior is particulary wrong in this case, it's rather the political correctness that strike back in force once again .
We're all livin' in a world , where now we should ask for everything we want to do and finally it's a come back to the great "conservative" years where one couldn't do
anything we want.
"Smokin' can Kill" must be written in the stores, same for booze and so on, soon it will be better to make war and not love...
What about the suckers ???
If all the suckers of the world could fly, it will be dark everywhere you go!
Some years ago , we used to call that kind of behavior "Rock'n'Roll"

The times they are a changing
Bob DYLAN

HMN

Quote
The Worst.
[www.vgtv.no]
Listen to the interview here!

Thank you very much

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

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
The Worst.
[www.vgtv.no]

Listen to the interview here!

thanks for the link - that makes things abuuundantly clear

Is this were all the fuzz is about!!!!!!!!!!!

__________________________

Quote
Doxa
By the way, I'd like to know what is the story behind Keith's reaction to this guy's article. Keith sounds certain that "it wasn't the first time" and that he "hates him", etc. As fas as I knowm Keith doesn't speak much Swedish - so I don't think he has a direct access to Swedish papers or a discussion culture. Someone has translated the article to him, or a given a sketch of it, and maybe talked a bit more, etc. Something wrong with Keith's informants? It is an odd incident over-all. Keith's reaction (demand for a public apology).

- Doxa

D0xa (are y0u back n0w?)
I agree, Keith seems t0 have said in an interview that the same guy wr0te ab0ut him negatively bef0re he saw any perf0rmance. (S0rry ab0ut my typing--keyb0ard issues.)

Here he says t0 the interviewer, y0u hate me and this is n0t the first time. The guy denies all that.

Keith s0unds quite calm, as 0thers have said.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 18:16 by angee.

Quote
Doxa
Now listened to the evidence I need to say that I give Keith all my respects in regards to this incident.

Thanks for this post Doxa.
It shows you are a great man to change your previous judgement.
I admire that.

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

Quote
Addicted
Some asked who did the translation for Keith in Gothenburg. It was Thomas Johanssons staff at EMA Telstar (Now Live NAtion), the local promotor.
The journalist claimed that Keith was drunk and delivered a lousy performance. Neither was true. He was sober as a born again Christian pastor.
And his and the band's performance that night was well above average on the ABB tour. That's the background for Keith's anger. He takes criticizm when there's something to it. Here one jerk of a tabloid reporter told lies.
And now the reporter's even lied about Keith hitting him in the head...
Isn't slander quite an expensive hobbby, particularly if you have US attorneys?

"Some "is me,Addicted .
Actually ,I was the one that asked for the link of the "infamous" review.
What show ?

I would like to read it .
See,I am not trying to bash Keith & defend the journalist ,since I don't have the ins & outs of the whole story.
I know you" know" Keith & I know I don't know him but to be honest with you,I feel like you always and will always" risk your life "on his defend .
And now that's not fair.
No offense, Addicted OK?,it's just the way I "feel" you on iorr .I am not saying you are like this in the "real life" ,but I had the same feeling on my thread " Keith is in Paris "
It might be a "language" thing,but I already had the same feeling about a photo you posted some months ago ,that showed a handsome family -a photo you edited the same way you edited the pics from Keith with two guys (fans ).....
Post edited for grammar mistakes purposes .



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 18:55 by SwayStones.

Quote
Addicted
Some asked who did the translation for Keith in Gothenburg. It was Thomas Johanssons staff at EMA Telstar (Now Live NAtion), the local promotor.
The journalist claimed that Keith was drunk and delivered a lousy performance. Neither was true. He was sober as a born again Christian pastor.
And his and the band's performance that night was well above average on the ABB tour. That's the background for Keith's anger. He takes criticizm when there's something to it. Here one jerk of a tabloid reporter told lies.
And now the reporter's even lied about Keith hitting him in the head...
Isn't slander quite an expensive hobbby, particularly if you have US attorneys?

Thanks for the translator info. But still it is a bit odd. If the basic claim of the article was that Keith was drunk when he actually were not and that upsetted Keith, well...Odd... Namely, let us remember the gig that took few days prior to Gothenburg, Helsinki that is. I didn't attend but that was the gig Keith felt down etc. I remember reading in every Finnish tabloid about Keith being drunk. (I guess this Swedish journalist heard about it, too). But what I have now heard from "insiders" that this wasn't the case. Keith was just sick. Why not to react then? No Finnish translators? Or was it better for PR reasons to let Keith to behave like according to his image (being drunk) than admitting having real problems with his health????

Could it be that the Helsinki happenings and Gothenburg gig and this particular review had something together? Is this a way to explain Keith's really surprising reaction? Could it be that this Swedish journalist dick got all the anger due the Helsinki happenings?

I just don't know.

I mean, it is just odd. A guy who has been in business for 45 years, and knows by heart that 'any publicity is a good publicty', and is, for god sake, Keith Richards, suddenly feels like needing a public apology from a random review writer being accused for being drunk, written in a language that about 10 million people in the world can understand... no matter how justified his demand is, I just don't get it. It's almost absurd.

- Doxa

Quote
Honestman
If all the suckers of the world could fly, it will be dark everywhere you go!
[/b]

Hey,HM!

I loved your translation !
This is another 'point en commun " we have, apart from the Stones
Audiard,Lautner etc
Ventura, Gabin & Delon were at their best/peack .Our "French cinema "was really great ,what do you think ?

Quote

A travers les inombrables vicissitudes de la France, le pourcentage d'emmerdeurs est le seul qui n'ait jamais baissé.

I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
Rolling Hansie

Quote
Doxa
Now listened to the evidence I need to say that I give Keith all my respects in regards to this incident.

Thanks for this post Doxa.
It shows you are a great man to change your previous judgement.
I admire that.

Yeah, I made too hasty judgement over the incident. I've been really down due the personal disappointment of LIFE in which, among other things, I was so sick and tired of reading these ridiculous machismo tales and knives and guns and whatever "tough guy" bullying. Then I read a headline of Keith Richards. 67, hitting a journalist who made a bad review of The Stones three years ago. It just fitted to the ugly picture I had just got of this guy (who I once though was the coolest guy in the world). And I saw people here just hurraying this behavior. That was just simply too much for me. The last drop. I felt I'm out. Not literally of this forum but tired of Keith Richards and The Rolling Stones and idiotism related to them. I write here because I love doing it. It is my hobby and I love discuss of my beloved band with alike souls (and I consider any Rolling Stones fan as one). But if it starts get me too much negative vibes, I better stop it. This suppose to be fun, right?

Anyway, luckily the incident wasn't so bad as it first looked like, so I felt it is also my duty to admit making a wrong judgment.

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa
It just fitted to the ugly picture I had just got of this guy (who I once though was the coolest guy in the world). And I saw people here just hurraying this behavior - Doxa

who I once though was the coolest guy in the world

You took the words right out from my mouth, Doxa.

It's no big deal,you know.
It's just about the" best Rock'n Roll band of the world "

<<I love discuss of my beloved band with alike souls (and I consider any Rolling Stones fan as one
Well said .



I am a Frenchie ,as Mick affectionately called them in the Old Grey Whistle Test in 1977 .

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Addicted
Some asked who did the translation for Keith in Gothenburg. It was Thomas Johanssons staff at EMA Telstar (Now Live NAtion), the local promotor.
The journalist claimed that Keith was drunk and delivered a lousy performance. Neither was true. He was sober as a born again Christian pastor.
And his and the band's performance that night was well above average on the ABB tour. That's the background for Keith's anger. He takes criticizm when there's something to it. Here one jerk of a tabloid reporter told lies.
And now the reporter's even lied about Keith hitting him in the head...
Isn't slander quite an expensive hobbby, particularly if you have US attorneys?

Thanks for the translator info. But still it is a bit odd. If the basic claim of the article was that Keith was drunk when he actually were not and that upsetted Keith, well...Odd... Namely, let us remember the gig that took few days prior to Gothenburg, Helsinki that is. I didn't attend but that was the gig Keith felt down etc. I remember reading in every Finnish tabloid about Keith being drunk. (I guess this Swedish journalist heard about it, too). But what I have now heard from "insiders" that this wasn't the case. Keith was just sick. Why not to react then? No Finnish translators? Or was it better for PR reasons to let Keith to behave like according to his image (being drunk) than admitting having real problems with his health????

Could it be that the Helsinki happenings and Gothenburg gig and this particular review had something together? Is this a way to explain Keith's really surprising reaction? Could it be that this Swedish journalist dick got all the anger due the Helsinki happenings?

I just don't know.

I mean, it is just odd. A guy who has been in business for 45 years, and knows by heart that 'any publicity is a good publicty', and is, for god sake, Keith Richards, suddenly feels like needing a public apology from a random review writer being accused for being drunk, written in a language that about 10 million people in the world can understand... no matter how justified his demand is, I just don't get it. It's almost absurd.

- Doxa

Enough and correct info always makes one see things in a different light, you are right, Doxa.
The Helsinki show, where Keith fell over on stage - he was sick. As some have written in this thread - he was dehydrated, and some people write her that it was due to the medication he had to take after the accident.
Yes, Doxa, your theory about there being a "connection" here between the Helsinki show and the Gothenburg show might have something to it. I think the Swedish tabloid scum bags had decided the angle of their reviews and reports from the show in advance. 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.
And here we are... The same scandal seeking tabloid wants more scandal and attention, since they were quoted world wide on their first "scandal" review. Now they deliberately and provocatively sent the same reporter who wrote the lies in Gothenburg to interview Keith in Paris. Again - he tells lies. In the first report he claims Keith hit him in the head. Now it's "he pushed his head" away to be able to exit the room. The tabloid is again being quoted world wide, and bragging about it.
I'm not the only person who's tried to get the correct version through here, so I just suggest you read the entire thread, listen to the interview on The Worst's link and just let everything sink in.
And I have nothing further to say about this matter. It's just sad that the Swedish reporter managed to get the attention he was seeking again, and that he, for the second or third time chose to use KR in his desperate search for fame.

If someone was always telling what was in heart, no matter how unconventional that was,is Keith Richards (remember the ashes from his father story).
If he says that he was not drunk,then I believe him 100%,and that is supported and witnessed by Addicted,
So the all story from that so called "journalist" is falling apart from day that he wrote the chronicle, God only knows with what intention!
Then it comes the story from the kick in the head, that he is changing everyday.Its only BS from that guy! probably he is only after attention and perhaps some money!
I lived in Sweden for a couple of years,and I quite familiar with the front pages from that so called "newspaper" and in my humble opinion that are very good to start the firewood. They are an embarrassment to the real good press that exist is Sweden , like DN, SD or GP
I believe in Keith all the way.

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

Here is the link to the original article:

[www.aftonbladet.se]

I would say the review hasn't be any particular "false" claims that might have driven Keith mad but over-all the negative 'tone' the review has. It sounds like it has a mild agenda in it, and the Stones - or the particular show - is pre-judged. But as far as judging the performance go, there is nothing as critical or 'bad' as we hardcore fans are not able to come up with. If our Mathijs had been in the show, and written to Aftonbladet, he would be a dead man now. Over-all, I can not see there anything else but quite a critical review. No false accusations or anything like that. Just a review based on reviewer's judgements and opinions. And I've seen worse.

Okay here is the part where Keith Richrards is discussed:


Keith Richards är kanske inte lika vilse i pannkakan som i Helsingfors, men han verkar fortfarande vara lite förvirrad.

Han spelar lite på måfå och har inte en lika central roll på scen längre.

Keith brukade vara gruppens motor. Men i kväll är han bara en trasig och gammal rockmaskot.

My translation (please correct me Swedish speakers):

Keith Richards was not so lost as he was in Helsinki, but he tends to be all the time a bit confused.

He plays a bit haphazardly, and he doesn't have such a central role in the scene.

Keith used to be the band's motor. But last night he was tired and old rock mascot.

All I can say that Keith over-reacted. Of course, he has all the rights to feel hurt but the demand for a public apology is a bit too much. Be as big he is, he can not force the people to not judge according to their own jugment. The Rolling Stones or Keith Richards are not beyond criticism.

- Doxa



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 21:38 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
written in a language that about 10 million people in the world can understand...

Even danes and norwegians understand swedish, which makes the correct sum 21 million people.

"Vilse i pannkakan" is a Swedish expression that means being lost. So the translation of the first part of that particular sentence would be - "Keith Richards might not be as lost as he was in Helsinki.....

Doxa wrote:
"All I can say that Keith over-reacted. Of course, he has all the rights to feel hurt but the demand for a public apology is a bit too much. Be as big he is, he can not force the people to not judge according to their own jugment. The Rolling Stones or Keith Richards are not beyond criticism".

Totally agreed. I can't believe Keith is such a drama queen. He ought to play his guitar and stop bitching about a darn review.

Quote
The Stones
"Vilse i pannkakan" is a Swedish expression that means being lost. So the translation of the first part of that particular sentence would be - "Keith Richards might not be as lost as he was in Helsinki.....

.

Ok. Thanks! I thought it was a specific expression but I wasn't familiar with. I will correct it!

- Doxa

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 21:33 by Doxa.

Quote
Bärs

Quote
Doxa
written in a language that about 10 million people in the world can understand...

Even danes and norwegians understand swedish, which makes the correct sum 21 million people.

- Doxa

Just to compare how Keith's performance was judged in Finland (regard to Helsinki show).

I have the copy of ILTA-SANOMAT (2nd of August, 2007). the biggest tabloid in Finland.

In front cover: little separeated photos of Mick and Keith, and the headlines: "Mick is still the rock!" and "Keith felt down on stage".

Then the 5 page story. The tone over all... well, the first line tells it all: "It was a perfect Rolling Stones gig!"

On Keith Richards: "Keith Richards was drunk, of course. Or at least that what his staggered performing looked like". ,

Well, this was as it was supposed to be for a "perfect Stones gig"... it is also mentioned, after addressing how important Keith is for The Stones, that "closer shoots on the big screen showed that how worried the other members were what will happen to Keith next". But the tone of the review is that this was, again, as it supposed to be: Keith is drunk and behaves always like this. Rock&Roll!! Yaeh Yeah Yaeh!

So I guess the thing that really upset Keith in AFTONBLADET review was its critical tone over-all. If the totally uncritical tone of ILTA-SANOMAT - that is total hype and even crap - is the standard Keith and the rest are used to, then maybe hearing such a critical one was a shock.

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 22:20 by Doxa.

Don't take no Shit Keef!

If this guy wants to write crap like he did, he needs to remember that when he comes up against Keith in the future.
He made his bed now Lay in it.
I have not read this entire thread so I do not know what all has been posted her about this subject but I don't believe his opinions was the general concensus of the show by most people.
How was he expecting Keith to respond to him once he found out this was the guy who had pissed him off so badly back then? Hug him? I think not!
That's not Keith's style!
Fred Hardin
Pleased to meet you........

If you read the whole review, also the comments on the individual songs, you'll find that the journalist basically enjoys thrashing the entire performance to pieces. That's not a review, and a band, also the Rolling Stones, has the right to be fairly and objectively valued and treated with som kind of respect. Since this paper is potentially read all over Scandinavia, and in Finland, I can understand that this kind of hostile slaughter can become an "issue", specially because it might spoil the positive experience many thousends of listeners might have had.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 22:42 by Bärs.

The article was absurd, the demand for an apology is entirely understandable.

Quote
Bärs
If you read the whole interview, also the comments on the individual songs, you'll find that the journalist basically enjoys thrashing the entire performance to pieces. That's not a review, and a band, also the Rolling Stones, has the right to be fairly and objectively valued and treated with som kind of respect. Since this paper is potentially read all over Scandinavia, and in Finland, I can understand that this kind of hostile slaughter can become an "issue", specially because it might spoil the positive experience many thousends of listeners might have had.

I think you are right in the sense that the function of these kind much read tabloids like AFTONBLADET or ILTA-SANOMAT is not to offer "critical" reviews but to join the hype and party. And it would be unfair to spoil the party from all those people who bought the expensive tickets and enjoyed the show. If you look the Finnish tabloids considering Stones gigs they do not have any kind of critical tone in them. The word "objectivity" has no any relevance there. So maybe AFTONBLADET somehow broke some kind of unspoken rule or code how the "reviews" should be proceed. I don't think Keith and the rest give a damn what some "serious" music papers say because that doesn't mean anything to the business. Their BIG audience from where the BIG money comes from to fill the stadiums is caught by media like AFTONBLADET. Keith and the guys are so pro that their audience is guaranteed to read nice reviews next day after the concert. Part of the deal.

Should I consider asking from Keith Richards a public apology because his LIFE book spoiled my 29 years experience of being a Rolling Stones fan... I have put a lot of money to that.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 22:57 by Doxa.

If you try to write an objective critical review in the tabloids then go ahead and write a serious one. I read critical concert reviews almost every day and I NEVER read things like "a confused mascot playing a shit song with his desperate amateur band. And I hate it, hate it, yes I do." Clearly his aim was neither to write a serious review nor to "join the party", but to attack the band. And that's not acceptable.

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.

PS. I just listened to the Norwegian P1 radio 45 minutes interview with Keith, done by serious journalist and fan Bård Ose. So very different! And so much more interesting. Filled with my favorite tracks. Interesting talks about interesting Stones related matters in history. Makes me think: What on earth did the petite journalist from Sweden do in Paris? He might interview Take That but why Keith Richards?

Bjornulf

Quote
Bärs
If you try to write an objective critical review in the tabloids then go ahead and write a serious one. I read critical concert reviews almost every day and I NEVER read things like "a confused mascot playing a shit song with his desperate amateur band. And I hate it, hate it, yes I do." Clearly his aim was neither to write a serious review nor to "join the party", but to attack the band. And that's not acceptable.

Yeah, harsh and funny metaphors - wicked for sure but I don't think the terms like "confused" or "rock and roll mascot" are not so far from the truth and I think appropriate ones to a tabloid shit to make a colourful point. In fact, I will take add the "mascot" into my vocabulury from now on. Catchy. And as far "amateur" goes, it is not the first time something the Stones do is referred by that term. Quite approriate to use some times.

But beyond some nasty remarks and over-all negative tone, it still amazes me how this article upsets people so much. From when on, The Stones are declared as untouchable? This band has been "attacked" way more harshly in the past.

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? Going to their level? Shit: did they learn anything in 1967 (Mick and THE NEWS OF THE WORLD)? They, of any people, should know better. They cannot win. This all works for Larsson and AFTONBLADET. Those bastards are laughing on their way to bank. Just look at that @#$%&'s face when he is listening to the tape of the interview. My god...

Like I have written before, this stupid episode - supposed hitting - was the bloody first thing that made news in regard's to Keith's book here in Finland, and it surely doesn't make Keith to look any good (because his side of the story - the truth - will not ever make any headlines). That Larsson guy and AFTONBLADET got what they were looking for.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-12 23:29 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
...That Larsson guy and AFTONBLADET got what they were looking for.

- Doxa

More papers sold this week , a total mess on the main board since a few days
but the main target is safe so they failed

HMN