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.

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-15 18:10 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
We know he was not drunk but sick.

Do we?

I think we dont even know that for sure.

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.

So what are the chances of the Stones playing Goteborg on the next tour. I'd say slim and none.

Quote
alimente

Quote
Doxa
We know he was not drunk but sick.

Do we?

I think we dont even know that for sure.

Well, I don't know it. But because there seems to be insiders who quite convincinly claim so (plus there is one other indications for that) so I didn't find reason to doubt it.

But if you ask those 30-40 000 people in audience I think 99 % will say Keith was drunk... And most of them think that was cool...

- Doxa

Quote
sweetcharmedlife
So what are the chances of the Stones playing Goteborg on the next tour. I'd say slim and none.

yeah, quite possible he spoilt it for many others.

but what are the chances of doing another interview with Keith around the next tour for larsson?

I'd say nill, zero, nada in the next 300 years.

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.

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

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
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

I think that this has been a case of mis- or disinformation. Markus never said that Keith was drunk. Keith even wrote Markus a letter claiming an apology. Markus answered the letter (as can be read in Svartmers link above, in swedish though). Basically I think someone at EMA-Telstar got angry with the luke-warm reviews (in many papers), remember this is big business ( 56 000 x approx 500 SEK (50 Euro - for the cheapest seats). EMA-Telstar needed a whipping-boy, they found Markus. Keith seems to believe that Markus is "after him" - that has never been the situation. Markus just wrote a review claiming that the Gothenburg (Ullevi)-concert wasn't that good and that especially Keith underachieved in some parts of the concert. Nothing else.

I agree with Doxa here: I think there must have been some special circumstance on that day which made Larsson's criticism particularly painful for Keith - and we probably won't find out exactly what it was for years, if ever.

Quote
Doxa

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.

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

Remember also that in the recent interview" Keith, when he found out who he had been talking to, asked "What did you base your review on" and later said "Funny nobody else had the same experience like you" or something like that. It's clearly the basis for the negative review Keith targets.
Keith's reaction could in fact have been due to his soberness during the tour. His earlier "I don't give a shit" attitude might have been a behaviour caused by drugs and alcohol that made him emotionally distanced.

Personally I don't say that his reactions was appropriate, that is not up to me to judge. I simply say that it's understandable for a normal, sober, emotionally intact person to react when a review, potentially read by hundreds of thousends, is personal, offensive and openly hostile. A rock'n'roll show should be about coming together and having a good time with your friends/family and/or the band. It's not more serious than that. If a critic really hates the show and the performance that critic was perhaps at the very wrong show from the very beginning. Critics should not be above criticism either.

In the end Keith Richards is the winner. As Jean Sibelius said: Nobody ever erected a statue of a critic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-15 21:59 by Bärs.

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.

Let's look at it this way:

If you cannot refute musical criticism in decent way,even from a no mark journalist, either you plea guilty or need some mediatraining.

Maybe the interviewer didn't want to beat up a 67 old man.

Quote
Doxa

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 .

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

very perceptive Doxa, that you knew exactly where i was coming from .you get points for that !!!

I heard the sound recording of this on Tv the otherday, pretty fun. Keith sounded pretty mad. Haha.-

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.

The use of plural form, as in "fans" and "they" etc, seems to indicate that there were more than one saying those things. As far as I know we were 2 fans whom the press concentrated on. I was interviewed in different medias before and after the meet and greet, and the show. What I saw and heard at the meet and greet has been stated here numerous times, and it´s a well known fact who we 2 fans are. So using plural form could make people believe both had the same opinion. Which is not true.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-16 01:11 by mickijaggeroo.

Hi there. mickijaggeroo! As far as I remember you and Ove T had contradictory information about Keith's "status" or well-being at the time. Both of you were at the "meet and greet" before the concert. Did Ove T change his version (someone here mentioned that) later on? (If you think this matter is to sensitive - do not answer!)

I have no problems answering it, but I feel like I´ve been through that a 100 times or so...
Just use the search function..

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Quote
Doxa

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.

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 ....

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

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
Doxa

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.

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
Doxa

Quote
paulywaul

Quote
Doxa

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.

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

<<< But now I feel even >>>

Well I'm positively delighted for you, I'll even go so far as to drink a glass of champagne to celebrate your joy that this dreadful imbalance has been addressed to your satisfaction.

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

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
What's with you guys anyway?? Two of the greatest posters here - fighting. Hmm, did I miss the humour or the irony here?

Seems like they gave each other bad reviews in this thread. Extremely risky these days...

Don't mention the blade... Ooops!

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
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

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.

Fair points. Knowing the circumstances and being glad (a) Keith is alive (b) the concert actually took place, we tend to be very empathic to Keith. Remember that summer was a hell of process all in all, and it was almost a miracle that the tour finally happend. So we "forgive" his bad performance for "natural" reasons. I think something like that was the psychological process with which we tended to rate Keith's performances. At least I did.

But it is a fair question indeed if it right to ask such huge sums for a performance that may go below the standard if one of the main performers is not in a condition to perform. From one side it might sound "heroish" to attempt do the show even know one is sick, but from other side it is a bit under-estimating the audience (the "customers" in business terms.)

A clarifying note: because I don't know anything direct from Gothenburg show, and the testimony seem to be non-coherent, I would say that the "being sick" claim should apply to Helsinki concert. Everyone seems to agree that Keith's performance was awful - or below his usual standard - in that show (due whatever reasons).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-16 13:52 by Doxa.

The problem is that whenever he played bad earlier (and there is plenty of evidence that he now and then played sub par even in the 70s) he is "forgiven", probably because he was this (relatively) young, slim, black haired, good looking king-of-coolness counter-culture junkie. Now when his old, not so good looking, has a beer belly, grey haired, a bot bald, a bit ill, has finger problems etc. he is brutally slaughtered by his own fans and the critics. I really don't like that. In sports you are compared with athletes in your own age, why not the some degree in music? Every musician and singer gets only worse when you've passed a certain age, but you can still improve in interpretation and maturity. That is exactly what Keith has done with his singing, and the songs he's choosed to sing reflects that maturity also (Nearness, Silver, Learing the game, All about you etc.). I really don't need new rock songs from the Stones with cocks and tits and jello. They are past that stage.

And Keith was not THAT bad all the time in Helsingfors. After the show I spoke with a couple who hadn't any previous experience at all with the Stones, and they said that Keith's numbers (and Charlies drum solo) was the best part. He played great on several tracks, for example Can't you hear me knocking, which isn't very easy. Since everybody, even the notorious Markus Larsson, thinks he was better in Gothenburg he cannot have been so extremely bad there that he deserved the criticism he got.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
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

<<< Now I'm extremily satisfied and self-content >>>

Thank heavens for that, I'll be able to sleep so much better tonight knowing this ... the question of your self contentment has been keeping me awake at night.

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

Thats one high horse your on Doxa....