Can someone please post an English or French translation of the review?

Quote
Addicted
I saw what happened, I saw Keith sober as a priest. We talked.

Take it easy girl, but I dont care with what you think you saw. Many other people saw the opposite, including Ole Tingvall for instance, who knows Keith certainly better than you and said he was drunk.

Just before the show, OT was at the Meet and Greet. He was totally wasted (very drunk) and had to use Ronnie as support.
"Keith was leaning againt Ronnie, he couldn't stand up straight"
"I have seen him so many times - never like this, so very drunk".
"I don't have words for it, it was just so sad"

Wow !
I haven't read yet the whole thread but the initial post .
I must say I was speechless at 1st sight and thought that Keith's behaviour was only the next step to the bullshit he wrote about Jagger.

Now I am thinking :"Could all this just be a kind of publicity /advertizing for a new album &/or new tour ?"
Like "the return of the bad boys " ?
If not,it means that only Keith could hardly play guitar ,but he is just screwing up the "last" chance the Stones had to play again.

What do you think ?



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

Quote
praline

Quote
Addicted
I saw what happened, I saw Keith sober as a priest. We talked.

Take it easy girl, but I dont care with what you think you saw. Many other people saw the opposite, including Ole Tingvall for instance, who knows Keith certainly better than you and said he was drunk.

Just before the show, OT was at the Meet and Greet. He was totally wasted (very drunk) and had to use Ronnie as support.
"Keith was leaning againt Ronnie, he couldn't stand up straight"
"I have seen him so many times - never like this, so very drunk".
"I don't have words for it, it was just so sad"

There are other people who saw Keith back stage, in his Camp X-ray. I was one of them. Keith's version is the correct one. He was NOT drunk.

>> Ole Tingvall for instance <<

.. and Tingvall said he was misquoted. (he was videod saying something like "Keith was wasted"
so it's hard to see where the misquoting came in, but he did "disavow" the statement.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-10 18:56 by with sssoul.

Quote
with sssoul
>> Do I have to remind you that many stadiums were half-empty ? <<

and that doesn't make it ok - or even reasonable - to write that someone is drunk when they aren't.
were you at the show in question, praline, or are you just bitchin about things that you've never seen?

this is exactly what is going on now .people that were not there and do not have first hand knowledge of this incident talking out of there you know what (trolls).either you love the glimmers (warts and all ) or you dont.it's that easy to me . i got keith's back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the IORR review page of the Ullevi show:
IORR Comments:

Keith was great through the show and spend most of his time on "Keith side", which means the show was at the same or may be even higher level than the show in St Petersburg. Ronnie delivered his usual sharp solo playing which have been his trademark on this tour. Mick was running and singing through the show and even if his voice now must be pretty stressed it does not seem like he is saving it any way for the next show. Charlie kept the double beats thundering out at this excellent fully sold out venue - he did not really miss Keith not being close to him as much as he use to. The Gothenburg crowd is known for being a great crowd. The previous Gothenburgt show in 1998 was among the best then too.

Midnight Rambler was as great as it use to be, with the crowd enjoying the bluesy raw riffs, Mick's harmonica, Charlie's hard beats, singing along and responding to Mick as the song developed. And as before Keith saluted Mick at the end of the song by walking over, placing his arm on Mick's shoulder, as saying thanks for yet another take of Rambler.

This is what the press says:
The reporter Dan Backman in Svenska Dagbladet use the title "Better than expected" in his report about this show. This is what this "rock journalist" is writing: "The Stones have never been any real great rock band. If you ignore a bunch of great hits they have written, the fact that they have an iconic status, and the fact that a sold out show made 57,000 fans pay top prices to see this show, (all with great smiles on their faces and very happy with the show - iorr remark), then the Stones are nothing but a shitty little rock band from the 60's." Well that is how the world looks like for Mr. Backham wen he is sitting on his reserved journalist desk at Ullevi writing rock reports rather than leaving his laptop behind and joining the rest of the crowd watching how real people enjoy a rock show. Lars Johansson writing for GT Expressen is using superfan eye witness Ove Tingvall to state the fact that Keith was totally drunk and needed to be supported by Ronnie Wood at the meet-and-greet before the show. Markus Larsson in Aftonbladet states the fact that Mick worked hard but at no use as it did not pay off - the band sounded and acted like amateurs. Thomas Anderberg of Dagens nyheter states the "fact" that Keith needs Ronnie as support on stage in order to be able to perform. All in all a miracle the Stones were able to perform their show at Ullevi Gothenburg, according to the press.


Review by Kjell Carlsson
Hard working Jagger lead his forces to another victory at Ullevi last night. The Stones are still the greatest R’n’R band in the world, although Keith is looking quite a bit tired.
The first part of the show was a bit of a stumbling, the crowd was hesitating in their response. Mick changed it all when he invited the audience to sing-a-long to You Can’t Always Get What You Want. A real heavy Midnight Rambler followed and the audience was now totally in the hands of Mick. Jagger is marvellous in his role as crowd pleaser, this time he even pronounced Göteborg correctly ;-)

Keith started to move and made a surprisingly strong You Got the Silver supported by Ronnie on acoustic guitar. The rest of the show was like a heavy freight train unstoppable rolling down the tracks to the inevitable final Jumping Jack Flash and Brown Sugar as encore, Mick still bouncing around full of energy.

The highlight of the show was when Keith started up Paint it Black, this is the greatest track in the Stones archive. I have seen the Stones in Göteborg every tour since 1970, which adds up to 6 shows now. In ranking this was close to the outstanding 1998 performance.

Maybe this Was the last time, I don’t know.

this one time....i saw keith smoke a cigarette...and i was like "whoa".

Quote
with sssoul
>> Ole Tingvall for instance <<

.. and Tingvall said he was misquoted. (he was videod saying something like "Keith was wasted"
so it's hard to see where the misquoting came in, but he did "disavow" the statement.

Yes, the "I was misquoted"-trick only works if you're not taped/videoed while saying it. Tingvall understood he'd made a mistake, and he's no longer a friend, after what I read here on the board not long after the show...
I still stick to my version, and Keith's. This version can also be confirmed by Blondie Chaplin, who was in the Camp X-ray, too.

Quote
Addicted

Yes, the "I was misquoted"-trick only works if you're not taped/videoed while saying it. Tingvall understood he'd made a mistake, and he's no longer a friend, after what I read here on the board not long after the show...

Ah, he also got hi Fatoua for blasphemy !

Surprising that Keith is so sensitive and defensive over a review, not to mention many of the fans here...

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Hey you, little chocolate praline! That's normally a sweet thing!
In my vocabulary blasphemy is a totally meaningless word. I don't have a religion, I don't believe there's a god - or even a little Virgin called Mary (if the's over 16).
Fact is, he (Ove) knew he'd screwed up and tried to save his ass. With very little luck.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-10 19:13 by Addicted.

... claiming someone is drunk when they're not is slander, not blasphemy

Since when is is name Ole? thought it's Ove - ah yeah, things get mixed up in time, tabloids & trash.

how about delving into the original gig report?
[www.iorr.org]

Quote
Baboon Bro
Date: August 14, 2007
The Ove T-"affair"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~¨

Crucial here is the translation and the interpretation
plus the use of info by the hungry tabloid Expressen.
Talked to Ove yesterday nite, he is devastated
how his words has been twisted and exaggerated
by his former employer (thou he was never a writing labor man
on the paper, he had other duties) the tabloid.
When demanding a denial; they just, basicaly, laugh him off
("who'd care about that?"). He said drunk, not totally sober,
a little unsteady on his legs; but not "dead drunk".

I want to dig deeper in this before I say much more.
One thing is perfectly clear: Ove T would never do
nor say anything on purpose that was intented to hurt his life-long
m e n t o r , as Ove titels Keith.
Bad luck, no incoming big headline news,
the big time tabloid bosses blew up it out off proportions
and made up a story. "And the rest is history". At least two human beings
and a whole musical trust is hurt thou: Ove, Keith & the whole
management, record company etc.

As we can see above, Sohoe and lots of lots of others stood
close by Keith and could not see any sign of anything which could
have been influencing his playing. He was normally drunk, as I got it.
No big deal.

I can see o n e good thing evolving from this: the lads did shape up
even more after the media-bashing, and they have now reached a day form
which exceeds most of what we have seen sofar; I really envy all of you who'
re going to Hamburg & 02. And I sure hope for a US tour next year.

NOTE on Ove: He met the Stones back in 1965, 1966, 1967; had them in
his own home in 1970, and so on. He wrote a book "Stones in Sweden".
Keith has referred to Ove as "My rock 'n roll friend in Sweden".
I have myself interviewed Ove for hour and hours for radio shows.

And Keith was sober! I stick to that! And those who said he wasn't are not telling the truth.

Haha, Keef's still the man!

Really bad behaviour though, I think he could have been nice and not act like a baby on this one, would be better if they could discuss the whole thing.

Quote
Addicted
Hey you, little chocolate praline! That's normally a sweet thing!
In my vocabulary blasphemy is a totally meaningless word. I don't have a religion,

Yes sure, but words have been invented for human beings to communicate. So "blasphemy" has a meaning, whether you have a religion or not, and "children" has a meaning, whether you have children or not.

I personally think an artist has every right to hold a grudge and expect, if not demand, honesty in reporting. It is great that Keith realized who he was dealing with and ended the interview.

When a reporter inserts him/herself into the story, they are no longer doing their job and should prepare for the consequences.

Thanks for clearing things up Addicted! Your imput is very much appricated.

Quote
praline
We used to have such a brilliant exhibition of stupidity in France on the French forum. It's over now that the forum has died.

That's why I am glad to witness that phenomenon again here - no wonder why fan derives from "fanatic". We have here a handful of silly people who are ready to go tomorrow to the headquartes of that Swedish tabloid, with an explosive belt - just like for Mahommet's cartoon actually !

Eeeeerrrrrrr.

You're French, Mademoiselle Praline,arent' you ?
Say your thing ,come on .

people,people,
whats all this swearing and bickerin all about.
So, Keef was not drunk at the gig, falling over because of his medication.
i believe it.
i only think he should have acted as a grown up man to the interviewer Ove.
This way all the commotion starts.
I think why a lot of the wars and agression in the world starts.
Just think and then react.
Maybe Keefs reaction should have been... yeah well @#$%& you. i wont talk to you and walked away.
I love Keith, but hey have respect for your follow man and just ignore someone if you dont like the attitude some people have.
agression only asks for agression. Just a shame.
one love Jeroen

Quote
Kurt
I personally think an artist has every right to hold a grudge and expect, if not demand, honesty in reporting. It is great that Keith realized who he was dealing with and ended the interview.

When a reporter inserts him/herself into the story, they are no longer doing their job and should prepare for the consequences.

Full ack

[www.pcc.org.uk]

1.Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

as opposed to:
[en.wikipedia.org]

Yellow journalism or the yellow press is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension "Yellow Journalism" is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.

Campbell (2001) defines Yellow Press newspapers as having daily multi-column front-page headlines covering a variety of topics, such as sports and scandal, using bold layouts (with large illustrations and perhaps color), heavy reliance on unnamed sources, and unabashed self-promotion. The term was extensively used to describe certain major New York City newspapers about 1900 as they battled for circulation.

Frank Luther Mott (1941) defines yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:[1]

1. scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
2. lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
3. use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudo-science, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
4. emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips (which is now normal in the U.S.)
5. dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-10 20:16 by open-g.

Thank goddness somebody has the guts to tell a journalist to @#$%& off.

Journalists normally think they can do whatever in the name of "what's in the interest for the public". (Funny enough, a journalsit doesn't like when they get investigated).

Who's drunk or not drunk. Journalists are known for being drunk at work. More drunk more rude they are to people. If a journalist doesn't like somebody, they'll do whatsoever to pull you down in to the drain. Journalist from gossip newspapers / low quality newspapers are the scum of the society.

I am quite sure that Markus Larsson tell's much more than the truth. A journalists role is to turn whatever story in to what they want to see as the truth instead of what in fact is the truth. I am quite sure that the story about Keith is over exaggerated. And why should he focus on what happend in Sweeden 3 years ago instead of talking about the book.

Markus Larsson, a provinsial hillbilly journalist from countryside Sweeden, probably wanted to make a case out of his review 3 years ago and correctly got puched by Keith. Keith, you are a champ - go kick him in the ass.

I was at the meet and greet. Neither Keith or Ronnie were drunk, maybe they had one or two, but not drunk. Period.

Vilhelm
Nordic Stones Vikings

Quote
open-g
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

Nice words, but newspapers (if you can call it a newspaper) like Daily Mail, Mirror, Aftonbladet, Expressen, Ekstra Bladet, BT etc. don't respect it. If they don't like you they will put up with a lie / fake histories just to put you down.

Quote
corriecas
people,people,
whats all this swearing and bickerin all about.
So, Keef was not drunk at the gig, falling over because of his medication.
i believe it.
i only think he should have acted as a grown up man to the interviewer Ove.
This way all the commotion starts.
I think why a lot of the wars and agression in the world starts.
Just think and then react.
Maybe Keefs reaction should have been... yeah well @#$%& you. i wont talk to you and walked away.
I love Keith, but hey have respect for your follow man and just ignore someone if you dont like the attitude some people have.
agression only asks for agression. Just a shame.
one love Jeroen

Ai ai - you got it all wrong here. Just to clarify:
No, Keith did not fall over at the gig in Gothenburg.
Ove was not the guy who interviewed him or wrote the review. Markus Larsson did.
That's all.

mtaylor, I agree and had edited my post at about the same time.

Quote
open-g
mtaylor, I agree and had edited my post at about the same time.

Exactly, so nobody here should cry for Markus Larsson.

boy i wish i was in sweeden right now .i have so much anger and would love nothing more than to beat this writer so black and (not joking)blue and take care of his little bitch fingers for keith.

Just great!lol
There's still a bit of Keith in him!
I just wished he really smacked him . .