Keith Richards Demands Satisfaction

The Rolling Stones are picking up a little more moss than usual, with a dustup in Sweden over guitarist Keith Richards' performance, and some static in London over a photo of Richards and bandmate Ron Wood smoking on stage.

Smoking is banned in enclosed public places in England under legislation that came into effect July 1. Companies that allow the ban to be breached can be fined up to $5,000.

Looks like the Stones and the O2 Arena, site of Tuesday's smokier-than-legal concert, will be able to duck the fine - this time.

Greenwich Council, the local authority for the southeast London neighborhood where the concert hall is located, says the venue has been warned not to let it happen again.

The problem in Sweden is a little harder to handle.

Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards has demanded an apology from Swedish newspapers for their scathing reviews of the group's performance in the country earlier this month.

Tabloids Expressen and Aftonbladet gave thumbs down to the Aug. 3 concert at Ullevi stadium in Goteborg, with Expressen suggesting Richards was "superdrunk" on stage.

"This is a first!" the 63-year-old rock star wrote in a letter published by Stockholm daily Dagens Nyheter. "Never before have I risen to the bait of a bad review... But this time ... I have to stand up ... for our fans all over Sweden ... to say that you owe them, and us, an apology."

Dagens Nyheter said it received the letter from concert organizer EMA Telstar. Company head Thomas Johansson told The Associated Press that Richards wrote the letter and gave it to him after reading translations of the Swedish reviews.

"There were 56,000 people in Ullevi stadium who bought a ticket to our concert - and experienced a completely different show than the one you 'reviewed,"' the letter said.

"How dare you cheapen the experience for them - and for the hundreds of thousands of other people across Sweden who weren't at Ullevi and have only your 'review' to go on.

"Write the truth. It was a good show."

In his review, Aftonbladet's music writer Markus Larsson gave the concert a score of two on a five-point scale, and said Richards appeared "a bit confused."

"I am not going to apologize for my subjective opinion," Larsson told the paper's Web edition on Wednesday. "It is Keith who should apologize. After all it costs around $145 to see a rock star who can hardly handle the (guitar) riff to 'Brown Sugar' any more."

[cmp271]

I am sure the Stones performed impeccably. There are some reviewers who should not be allowed to review a group they do not like. We have one here who puts his own attitude in the article. He is about 50 and writes bad reviews as he sees it, which is usually biased. The reviewer was probably a young person who never understood who the Stones are.

I have seen them too, and the show was good. I also saw them on the Superbowl and felt they were stifled with what they could do. They did the best they could with what they were allowed to do.

They are also not too old to rock. I am old enough now and I still crank up the stereo.

No more depends jokes either-
WE ALL ARE GOING TO GET OLD ONE DAY!!!

[thisandthat1]

You tell ''em, Keef! Probably some little ABBA loving, snot nosed punk who wouldn''t know real rock n'' roll if it came up and bit ''em in the arse!

[sjw1253]

This article sounds to me as though Mr. Richards is an arrogant bloke (the only non-curse word I can think of) who thinks he is above everyone else.

The very idea that he is smoking on stage demonstrates the exact behavior that makes non-smokers angry - as though the smoker does not need to demonstrate any control over their filthy, dirty, respiratory invasive "?Pleasure"...

The smoker has all of the rights and the non-smokers can just go somewhere else if they don''t like it...

Selfish... arrogant ... UGLY...

[georgew1956]

writers opinions are not worth noting
i''ll make my own opinion on things in life.
columnist , juornalist, sports writers ext.
want to brain wash readers into thinking what
they write is gospel they get paid to write
its just ink on paper to them

[woodsyblues]

B.B. King isn''t the artist he once was, neither is Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, nor many other black musicians who rocked and played the blues far into their golden years and far past their prime (John Lee Hooker, James Brown, Muddy Waters). Who clamored for any of them to hang it up? Like Keith has said, it''s reverse discrimination, white rockers aren''t allowed to actually age and keep performing without ridicule and "dinosaur" comments. People resent that these geezers had the audacity to survive into their 60s and still feel the music and still have the gumption to perform. I saw the Stones in this tour, along with my 15-year-old son who loved the show; I''ve seen them numerous times over the decades; they''re not as hot as ever, but they''re still more real and carry more bona fides than any self-important music critic from Sweden, trendy pimply pop group or lip-synching diva or judgmental nobody from Podunk. To those prone to Stone-bashing, I say %u201CIt''s only rock and roll%u201D -- Either try to feel it and understand it and those who play it, or accept that it''s beyond your comprehension and sensitivity and move on to something else (I hear Britney%u2019s got a new release).

[woodsyblues]

B.B. King isn''t the artist he once was, neither is Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, nor many other black musicians who rocked and played the blues far into their golden years and far past their prime (John Lee Hooker, James Brown, Muddy Waters). Who clamored for any of them to hang it up? Like Keith has said, it''s reverse discrimination, white rockers aren''t allowed to actually age and keep performing without ridicule and "dinosaur" comments. People resent that these geezers had the audacity to survive into their 60s and still feel the music and still have the gumption to perform. I saw the Stones in this tour, along with my 15-year-old son who loved the show; I''ve seen them numerous times over the decades; they''re not as hot as ever, but they''re still more real and carry more bona fides than any self-important music critic from Sweden, trendy pimply pop group or lip-synching diva or judgmental nobody from Podunk. To those prone to Stone-bashing, I say %u201CIt''s only rock and roll%u201D -- Either try to feel it and understand it and those who play it, or accept that it''s beyond your comprehension and sensitivity and move on to something else (I hear Britney%u2019s got a new release).

[cgeek]

I have been a Stones Fan since they first came to the US during the "British Invasion" (yes, I''m old too, 61). I was embarrassed for them during their half time show at the super bowl and felt that they should have ridden their fortunes into the sunset then. I didn''t see this performance but from their incredibly sad "Super Bowl" performance, with Mick''s voice breaking, being out of breath and the bands missed licks and overall shoddy showmanship this performance must have been second rate at best. Knowing what the likes of Cosby, Stills, Nash and Young used to sound like and what they sound like today, same with the Stones, just horrid. Holding those sad performances up against the Eagles porfessional performances and the absolutely outstanding Royal Albert Hall performance of "Cream" makes it clear the kind of extensive rehearsals they put in to sound better (modern equipment and incredible sound men) than they did "back in the day". Give it up Rolling Stones....

[brianbwb-2009]

The Stones are legends, but their music is quite dated, almost two generations behind the current times. They were heroes to a crowd that now averages fifty years of age, so they will have to get used to more and more of the audience hearing the songs on their current merits, and not affected by fond memories...

[jetlizhan]

oh for goodness sakes - yes, smoking is nasty, but ole richards has smoked on stage his entire career. he puffed away constantly when i saw them in the early 90''s. leave the old man alone.

[olebd]

I think you have to be a big Stones fan to enjoy their concert. Their "free expression" on stage is loosely based on the studio version of their many songs. I wasn''t too impressed when I saw them many years ago but I do like a few of their albums.

It''s a very successful business franchise for them.