Guitarist Keith Richards has demanded that two Swedish newspapers apologize to the Rolling Stones and their fans in Sweden for stinging reviews of the band's performance at a concert in Gothenburg.
"Never before have I risen to the bait of a bad review," the veteran rock star said in a statement released on Wednesday.
"But this time ... I have to stand up for our incredible Gothenburg audience and for our fans all over Sweden ... to say that you owe them, and us, an apology."
A review in the newspaper Expressen said 63-year-old Richards, renowned for his haggard looks and tales of excess, appeared "very drunk" during the August 3 performance in Sweden's second-largest city.
The Rolling Stones ended the two-year "Bigger Bang" world tour last Sunday in London.
Earlier this month, Richards toppled over on stage at another show in Helsinki.
In a statement sent to the newspapers Expressen and Aftonbladet by the group's promoter in Sweden, the British musician said the press had abused its power.
"You have a duty to wield the power of the press with honesty and integrity. 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'."
He added: "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."
The statement, a copy of which was provided to Reuters by the promoter, concluded: "Write the truth. It was a good show."
First, what the hell are the Stones reading their reviews for? Ego tripping?
Second, they are demanding an apology of someone's OPINION? Even as a music snob, I believe you have the right to your own opinion - but if you don't agree with me, you're an IDIOT. But you can have your opinion.
Third, what happened to THE STONES WITHSTAND: Divorce * Slander * Rip-Offs * Slagging * Under-Age Sex * Alcohol * Drugs * like it says on the Voodoo Lounge tees and
posters?
One More Thing On My Mind
I was thinking about how many people were disappointed by the ending of The Sopranos - as in the final show. You know, how it really wasn't an ending, no shootouts, no one knowing if Tony survives to be king of New Jersey or whatever. It's just kind of "and they went on with their lives.
People want stories they invest their time into to have a neat little wrapped in a bow like a present Ending. Whether is be "And the lived happily ever after.." or "Meadow identified the two burnt bodies pulled from the SUV as her parents." But why should our stories have a nice neat end when life doesn't have a nice neat end? People get divorced, die in car crashes, become alcoholics or addicts and some live a nice quiet happy life 'til their end. It's an unknown and that's what makes life precious, right? We don't know how much time we get, so make every minute count.
I will say this -I watched The Sopranos until the season became shorter and it took a year and a half between seasons. I walked away in the middle of the story. And I didn't drop dead from not 'knowing' how it ended. People walk away from ball games [baseball, football, etc] not knowing the final score. Why should this be any different?