[www.aftonbladet.se]

Response from Aftonbladet:

”Småpåvar”
– Vem som än ligger bakom detta, Keith Richards eller några småpåvar på Ema Telstar, är det en fantastisk komedi.

– Av respekt till det Rolling Stones har gjort tidigare kunde jag inte ge dem ett annat betyg. Att säga att konserten på Ullevi var bra är ett hån mot bandet självt.

Hur ser du på att Keith Richards kräver en ursäkt?

– Jag tänker inte be någon om ursäkt för min subjektiva åsikt. Det är Keith som borde be om ursäkt. Det kostar trots allt runt 1?000 kronor för att få se en rockstjärna som knappt klarar av riffet till ”Brown sugar” längre.

LA FORUM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Of course its bad if the tabloids give 2/5 based on that.


I should point out that the grading system the tabloids use actually starts from 0 - (överkorsad geting/minus). So 2/5 could be translated into descent/okay.

[www.aftonbladet.se]


the review. I have to say it's pretty fair, he gives 4/5 to Midnight Rambler. The encore horses get 2/5, "tired versions". Start me up 3/5. It's not that bad if you look at it. He praises Jagger. Richards is the weak link and I cant really argue with that.

I was very surprised when i read the papers this moring.
It just dont fit with my picture of Keith,why should he care about the swedish papers.

One of the journalist(Markus Larson,aftonbladet) who wrote down the Gotenburg gig is saying" I am not gonna beg for forgivness,i´ts Keith who is the one too beg forgivness too his fans who paid 1000 swedish crowns too see him who couldnt play the riff too brown sugar"

Yes,I was at the gig.
It was a good gig seen Stones better seen them worst(my 7 Stones gig)

The Stones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LA FORUM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Of course its bad if the tabloids give 2/5 based
> on that.
>
>
> I should point out that the grading system the
> tabloids use actually starts from 0 - (överkorsad
> geting/minus). So 2/5 could be translated into
> descent/okay.

True. BTW, isnt it obvious that some songs like Shes so cold are great althoguh not like in 1981 (impossible to match) while some warhorses, encore horses, are tired and gems like YGTS great but maybe not for the majority of fans?

Besides Ronnie seems to have been great, I just heard the boot from St Petersburg and it's really really good.

Keith's an emotional person and he probably
flet he needed to get back to these papers
to tell them that they didn't write the truth.

To be honest one of the papers put in a picture
of Keith with a look on his face that could interpreted
as he was very drunk.

He looked rather sad in that pic, maybe a moment full of emotions
and maybe a quiet goodbye to the swedish fans.
Papers here in Sweden have a tendency to exaggerate things especially
when it comes to celebrities and rockstar. It looks they decided to
make a big affair about Keiths accident with the palm tree and a year later
still try to point out to fact that he has had his moments with drugs and alcohol.

The story is that when the Stones was in Finland, Aftonbladet was heavily critisising the Stones, while Expressen was overwhelmed of the quality of the show.
In Gothenburg both papers aimed at Keith and his playing and was yet again very
very critical.
When the Stones played in Copenhagen the papers there were all agreeing that the Stones still are the greatest rock and roll band in the world and gave them the highest mark. At that time both of the Swedish papers didn't write anything about the Stones. Very curious I think. I wrote them an e-mail asking why they didn't do that. They haven't had the decency to answer my e-mail.

In my opinion the Swedish papers try to make a scandal of the Stones visit to Sweden just to sell editions of their papers. So I think Keith is doing just what he should do, critizise the articles about him and the Stones.

Surely the rest of the band should support him in this matter too.

Been Stoned since 1964 and still am!

Keith demands that they should write the"truth". Now that´s a tough one. The truth according to him, the band, the whole crowd, the press? There´s no truth when it comes to a subjective experience of a live performance, so that´s a rather pathetic thing to write.

This isn't Keith. He would never do such a thing/act this way. He gives a @#$%& about such things. Who can have written this open letter?

if he starts answering all shit written in the world, it's a long way..

Of course Keith has good and bad moments. I am not surprised. Years of absuses, you have to pay one day. But this is a RR way of living. So many disappeared; Keith is still here.

The band had reacted to a press article in Der Spiegel in 95 pretending one show in Germany was partly played in playback (!) with frequency analysis to prove it...
The Stones denied. At last Der Spiegel made an apology later writing that they had made a mistake.
It was much more important in term of image than a tabloid opinion on a behaviour on stage.

Again, is there a video footage of Keith falling/stumbling on stage this summer ????

I'm also interested in finding out if there is a clip showing Keith falling on his butt at the Helsinki show.
He was supposed to be drunk and fall down during She's So Cold.[www.iorr.org] It's in the review by Topi.

>This isn't Keith. He would never do such a thing/act this way. He gives a @#$%& about such things. Who can have written this open letter?>
I totally agree. Keith probably never reads the reviews after shows and no way would he act like that. By the way, I can only agree with most people who were at that show: It was a really good show, much better than the one before in Helsinki. I was quite shocked when I read the newspapers the day after the show and thought I (or the reviewer) must have been to a different show.

>> It's in the review by Topi. <<

i think a few people made note of Keith falling at the Helsinki show, no? or were they all quoting Topi?
but whatever happened at the Helsinki show doesn't mean Keith was "OD'ing on alcohol" at Gothenburg,
which is what this letter to the press is about. it's not a question of rating the show 2/5 or whatever;
claiming someone was too drunk to stand when that's not the case is slander, and a retraction/apology is appropriate.

The Stones Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm also interested in finding out if there is a
> clip showing Keith falling on his butt at the
> Helsinki show.
> He was supposed to be drunk and fall down during
> She's So
> Cold.[www.iorr.org] It's
> in the review by Topi.

I was there and can only confirm everything Topi wrote.
Don´t know anything about clips, though

wesley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm also interested in finding out if there is
> a
> > clip showing Keith falling on his butt at the
> > Helsinki show.
> > He was supposed to be drunk and fall down
> during
> > She's So
> > Cold.[www.iorr.org]
> It's
> > in the review by Topi.
>
> I was there and can only confirm everything Topi
> wrote.
> Don´t know anything about clips, though

I can confirm that too.

In London someone told me he saw it on YouTube, but I didn't find anything...
Maybe he was just boasting

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> It's in the review by Topi. <<
------
> claiming someone was too drunk to stand when
> that's not the case is slander, and a
> retraction/apology is appropriate.

I agree 120%. And: Would this be a US justice system,
Keith or Ove would have been able to sue the paper.
Maybe it would be worth it even here.

I know Ove well and I know Topi. I trust the judgement of them both.
But Helsinki is Helsinki and Göteborg is Göteborg.

To Erik S: this is not the question of the tv4-interview:
its the Expressen interview which is exploited in the
was headlines that followed. I must say he went a little
too un-careful in the chosing of words with tv4; yet
the issue is how the media use or not use the information.

I happen to know Ove very well; and I trust what he says
about the interview.

Anyone here who still doubts Oves judgement ought to call him;
since he doesnt post here. He told me so: he prefer
people talk to him in person instead of speculating.

>> he prefer people talk to him in person <<

... it's a little late for that.
Ove T did newspaper and TV interviews that he knew would be made public
and if he was misquoted, then it's not okay for him not to clarify that in public.
besides which, the TV interview wasn't a misquote: he said Keith was "OD'ing on alcohol"
shortly before the Gothenburg show, and he said it for public broadcast, and it deserves public clarification.

>> Anyone here who still doubts Oves judgement ought to call him <<

fine. what's his phone number?

"How do you dare reducing/lower their experience - and for all of the hundreds of thousands people of the entire Sweden; which were not present at Ullevi and therefor only have a "reasoning" to base their judgement on. Write the truth! It was a good show."

Perfect, Keith!

C'mon he should try to be better and not attack the reviews. He's not serious and only reminds me of some old fart who's lost contact with reality. Fact is Blondie covers a lot of space. Fact is Keith can be so much better and focus more on playing.

[jeezus christ]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-29 19:50 by Erik_Snow.

That´s it, I was there way up front on Ronnie´s side, and I thought the concert was good, I had a good time. The band did swing, the crowd liked it, not just first timers and tourists but even us seasoned Stones´ fans. The next day I read in the newspapers that concert was a drag. Ok, that makes me doubt my own personal Rolling Stones experiences. I still claimed, I had a good time the band was very good. I´d like to tell that Expressen reporter to showe it up his... I actually saw him outside the restaurant the night before the concert. He looked like he had never seen a decent rock band in his life. I guess he was pissed off cos Mick and Ronnie snubbed him on a comment.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> he prefer people talk to him in person <<
>
> ... it's a little late for that.
> Ove T did newspaper and TV interviews that he knew
> would be made public
> and if he was misquoted, then it's not okay for
> him not to clarify that in public.
-----

Of course he has tried to get correction articles etc;
but they just laugh him off. As they laugh Keith off.

> fine. what's his phone number?

I will unhide for a short while; I will
supply the number to those of the established users here,
that want to have it.
Remember he is not that sharp in English.

I will not answer Erik S. I dont know you;
you are fresh on the board in my eyes. You seem
to mainly be after my scalp. You can have that pleasure.


Chrissake; show some respect and empathy!
Ove tied connections
with the Stones which we have been enjoying collectively
- nation-wise ever since 1965.
He is worth more respect than all people on these boards altogether.
He is today a destroyed man.
He told Keith was drunk,
because he was - as far as I understand. Oves crime:
he was honest.
But how honest are the tabloids? I mean they seem to have
instructed the young reviewers to slaughter the show.

The vultures that set the headlines shouldnt get away with this.

There are two people's honour at stake here: Oves and Keiths.

But how honest are the tabloids?

That's the real question here. In the US, not very honest. Keith (and most other celebs) should just ignore them.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Crucial here is Mr Tingvall's past on one of the tabloids;
that very tabloid and a radio station within its group has,
one can say, lived in a symbiosis with Tingvall.

But today it shows they prefer him to express dubious quotes,
which they can misuse and exploit. When he tries to correct
their untrue articles, he is no longer welcome.

To deal with the tabloids is to ally with the devil.

Baboon Bro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will not answer Erik S. I dont know you;
> you are fresh on the board in my eyes. You seem
> to mainly be after my scalp. You can have that
> pleasure.


How nice of you. Yes you're 2 months older than me, I forgot. Not after your scalp, Baboon - I thought this was a discussion board.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-08-29 18:24 by Erik_Snow.

Ok, 2 months back or forward wouldnt be that important ...
Still we havent met. Surely would like to. Honestly meant.

Sorry for badly chosen word in the heat of the battle.
I apologize, Erik!

I also, like you, found it strange with that tv4-interview.
That what really makes this complex and complicated.
But the night Ove phoned me, made me put on new spectacles,
I now have a possibility to view this issue from various sides.
I certainly wish ya all here that privilege.

What also strengthens Ove's thing, is that he was NEVER a writing
journalist when he was on that tabloid.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-31 04:00 by cirrhosis.