When I think about Originality (cf. ILE), I often think about things that combine existing cultural features in ways that no-one had thought of - and succeed in pulling off some kind of unlikely synthesis. The Smiths seem to me a major case of this:
a) folk-pop jangly guitar tradition
+
b) Northern English camp tradition
= major incident in pop history.
The thing that is hard to understand is why or how those two things (Roger McGuinn and Alan Bennett, so to speak) came together. Just by sheer chance and contingency? What strange alchemy was going on? How much of the improbable synthesis was carefully planned? etc.
― the pinefox, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
The duality you point out is an apt one, but I'd even add a few things to that. First is the fact that while Marr is overshadowed by Moz as the source of oddity, it's worth noting that Marr was pretty interesting as well. He tends to get defined as some sort of godfather of indie jangle, but listening back through those records, you realize how all-over-the-place he tended to be, from those funky little instrumentals he'd play live (funky in the sense that, say, "Rubber Ring" is funky) to the occasional rockabilly turn ("Vicar in a Tutu") -- leave alone the wide swath of pop/rock he cut through.
And then you pair that with Morrissey, whose inclinations were even more unusual and in a completely different fashion. This is what fascinates me about Morrissey -- the fact that he seems to be essentially a social deviant, the sort of person who would be sitting creepily in a flophouse or hanging around libraries scaring people had he not been given a near-magical opportunity to be odd for a living. The fact that his pre-Smiths life was allegedly so creepily sheltered explains quite a bit -- the camp mentioned above seems a direct result of the only two musical influences he claims from his youth, those being (a) sixties British pop of the Lulu / Twinkle / Sandy Shaw variety, and (b) glam, e.g. his New York Dolls obsession. (That background also explains his least appealing traits: (a) his gynophobia, common to pretty much all sheltered, awkward, creepy boys, and (b) his homoerotic attraction to hypermasculinity in the form of hooliganism. This all makes so much sense if we believe the stereotypical accounts of his youth that have him basically sitting home reading Wilde and being terribly, debilitatingly awkward and sickly and etc.)
Add to that the funkiness of Andy Rourke and the perpetually shuffly drumming of Mike Joyce. It's hard to tell, though, how much of this was Marr's doing, as both of those traits seem to be intended to work with his funky/shuffly guitar leanings.
But maybe someone who is older than me and was living in the U.K. in the early 80s can offer a better take on exactly how odd they sounded at the time. Surely "Hand in Glove" was a big surprise when it first hit the radio?
― Nitsuh, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Billy Dods, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Dr. C, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Arthur, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
Dr C: great answer - but Why, Dr C? Why?
Billy Dods: I have never ever heard rockist *except* as an insult. (Funnily enough, I think I first encountered the word in Reynolds, re. Marr, Sept 1989.)
NItsuh - thanks for the answers. Weirdness: yes. Humour: of course - it's not a hint or a subtext, it's a big aspect of the schtick. I agree with you, of course, re. Marr's diversity - this was one of the reasons he stands out so much; he seems to have *seen further* than most musicians - and also, had the technical capacity to put what he had in his head onto vinyl. But the jangle (Byrds, if you like) think is still central - was still the default setting - so I think it remains central to my (bemused) question.
I like your details on Morrissey's identity too - BUT are you sure about the 'gynophobia' thing? (I take it this means something like misogyny - is that right?) I mean, he was also interested in feminist texts, as far as I can remember. A conflicted character in this regard, maybe?
As for "having a car with *'only'* a tape deck"... jeez. That's what I call living in the World's Only Remaining Superpower.
― mark s, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Tim, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Andrew L, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― Jack Redelfs, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
On a related note there was an obscure Liverpool independent band called Pink Industry would released a fine single about Morrisse, What I Wouldn’t Give.
The band would steer even closer to the mainstream with their next single, a 7" of "What I Wouldn’t Give" b/w "Bound By Silence" (1985), taken from their forthcoming album. A fantastic single, it became an immediate collector’s item because of the cover that was adorned with Morrissey’s photograph, illustrating a lyric in the song: "That’s my Smiths tapes you never wanted to hear, throw them away, Morrissey in the bin?, if it would bring you back again."
I am not to sure of the precise meaning of this track, maybe celebrating the individuality of Morrissey - but this is one of the finest atmospheric pop tracks i have ever heard. In way it reminds me of Shriekback on this big hush or faded flowers - intricate softly spoken higly atmospheric haunting music.
Pink Industry was a brilliant electronic-industrial-atmospheric act out of Liverpool. Fronted by the charismatic Jayne Casey, they put out three albums and a brace of singles between 1982 and 1985, with a few compilations following in their wake. Jayne had previously fronted two acts–seminal Liverpool punk band Big in Japan, and art- house throwaway act Pink Military
The strangeness of The Smiths in away was put into context on this single, how many artists have songs directly sung about them by other artists in a deeply passionate sense - after a relatively short period of time. This single came out in 1985 and got played a few times on John Peel and RTE Dave Fanning shows back in the summer of 1985.
Apparently Jayne Casey knew Morrissey
the only pink industry i know of were from liverpool, england. the only mention i ever heard of them was in the smiths book _the complete story_ by mick middles. described as "wild and intelligently wacky", led by jayne casey, "fashion queen, mother superior, and friend of morrissey".
― DJ Martian, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― dave q, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
(Also having heard his 'stand-up' you have to assume he was jealous of Morrissey for being funny sometimes)
― Tom, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
Morrissey was a HYOOGE feminist of the Brownmiller/Dworkin school, which is very attractive to 16-year-old fag hags in training ('Mom, I'm okay downtown because the gay guys in the record store keep an eye on me.' 'Whaaaaaaaat?!?'). Linder Sterling/Mulvey from Ludus was his best punk friend (she also designed Magazine and Buzzcocks sleeves) and the person who inspired Cemetry Gates. Mark S is right - she did wear the meat dress at a gig and was part of a coterie of tough feministas inc. the Naylor sisters and Cath Carroll. She does these weird sub-Richard Hamilton collages for art - Nick Momus and I went to see these a few years back 'cos his friend Andrew Renton was showing them in his gallery (now defunct). We were both a bit disappointed, Nick more 'cos Howard Devoto failed to turn up. Linder is now partnered up with the novelist/pop critic Michael Bracewell (who I like very much). YEARS ago when I was in Manchester visiting friends we walked into the big posh Waterstone's and she was managing it, so jaw/floor moment for me!
Jayne Casey last I heard was the director of the Bluecoat Centre in Liverpool - she's artworld big there.
Although I *hated* Johnny Marr for the latter half of 1987 he (and the Bunnymen) were *so good* at gutar it turned my head from the dark synth stuff I liked before I discovered the Smiths. It wasn't until I actually visited England and met the beermonster casual element of their later fan base that I managed to calm down about love for said group (and it did annoy me that Morrissey, who supported socialist causes, would wind up shafting the rhythm section). When I moved here I quickly met all kinds of music industry people who had been friends with him at one stage or another, but there were surprisingly few 'stories' if you know what I mean.
As to the skins and cholo boys Morrissey seems to be obsessed with now, it's definitely a case of Fancying What Is Most Terrifying/Physically Threatening to self.
― suzy, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― DG, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
Can someone explain all this stuff to me about Morrissey in the present. I know very little about him or the Smiths but I always hear about some vague racial thing but never get a clear cut idea about what people are talking about.
― hans, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
Morrissey has always had a fetish for tough boys because they are so different from him. Also, fear stimulates the adrenals in the same way as arousal, so perhaps he's mixed up the thought of getting his arse kicked with the thought of getting his arse...well, you know. This became a lot more pronounced after he left the Smiths. I've never believed he has a problem with racial issues, just that in certain areas a guy like him who is literate but not terribly disciplined or qualified in his education might try to comment on certain Matters Of The Day and cause misunderstanding. A lot of his writing is about Difference, but when it's not about being a little bit strange/outcast/ queer I think it's clumsy.
Fetishising tough boys as the Other is a BIG part of the aesthetic of gay men who grew up in the 70s and 80s; if you look carefully at the personnel of fashion shoots etc. in Brit magazines you'll soon see that most of the skinhead/hooligan shoots are put there by gay guys of un certain age. In America, the peachfuzz mullet pickup boy serves the same function to designers like Jeremy Scott and writers like Dennis Cooper.
Morrissey now lives in Silverlake in LA, big home of fanciable cholo boys. Most of the gay guys I know who've lived there think they're cute because of the unattainable aspect. Note to LA cholo boys with a sensitive side: if you fancy a sugar daddy, you'd have thousands to choose from.
On to The Smiths. I'd say the single biggest 'miracle' about the Smiths is that somehow Johnny Marr firstly 'clicked' with an oddball like Morrissey, and secondly, that he was able to find a way to accomodate and harness Moz's eccentricities within a viable working band. This is based on evidence from Johnny Rogan's book (Morrissey and Marr : The Severed Alliance) and a few conversations with Smiths/Morrissey insiders. Marr's genius as a guitarist and arranger is evident, but I think it's even more incredible that he managed to work with Morrissey for 5 prolific years before the inevitable falling out.
Part of this is in the basic practicalities of song-writing. By all accounts Morrissey's words would often appear in different places in the arrangement to where Marr had expected (verses became middle 8's, or Moz would sing across a transition...etc). This may account for the way that many Smiths songs don't have a normal structure or easily identifiable chorus, especially the earlier material. This lack of concern for (or lack of knowledge of..) conventional forms (on the part of Morrissey) helped a great deal to set them apart from the rest. It probably loosened-up Marr from some of the more trad. influences which he might have been tempted to copy. So, I'd say that in terms of FORM, little was planned, at least initially.
Of course we wouldn't be bothering to think/write about this if it were not for the startling subject matter and language of Morrissey's lyrics. In some ways it's quite amazing how you can make such an impact by speaking so directly. Then again think how contemporaries like Ian McCullough were still largely using rock-trad language inherited from The Doors, Lou Reed etc.
Possibly Morrissey's most staggering achievement is to draw on so many largely untapped sources of language to weave togther his words. Camp humour, pathos, Northern dourness, everyday sayings ("The devil will make work for idle hands to do"), heroic superiority (" We may be hidden by rags, but we've something they'll never have"). Sure, you can find examples of each of these around the place before the Smiths, but no-one had ever integrated them into a coherent WORLD before.
Someone asked what initial impact the Smiths had. I remember listening to a 7-inch of "Hand in Glove" when it was released and liking, but not loving it, immediately. I remember spending a lot of time with it trying to figure out exactly WHAT was so different about it, as did a lot of my friends. It definately made an impression, but didn't knock us flat. I guess it was just a tantalising glimpse of Morrissey's world. I saw them live at the Lyceum with Howard Devoto (3rd London show?) and it was clear that something big was coming, even though the set still relied too heavily on B-grade stuff like Miserable Lie and Hand That Rocks The Cradle. When "This Charming Man" was released my friends and I hated it! Friend NG's comment "They've turned into The Farmer's Boys" summed up our initial response to the chirpy hi-life guitar, the jaunty swing of the beat, and the camp lyrics. I still think of this comment every time I hear TCM. I'm not sure whether the album came next, or the "What Difference Does It Make" single, but from that point you couldn't ignore them.
I can't dispute that The Smiths were, as Pinefox puts it, a major incident in pop history. Somehow, I rarely play them these days, and I struggle to enjoy them as much as I once did - I get the impression that history has not been totally kind. I'll dig out a couple of albums tonight and try to make sense of these thoughts.
― Dr. C, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
This wasn't the first time that the music papers branded Moz a racist. During The Smiths heyday, NME soul boy Paolo Hewitt ( IIRC) claimed that the song 'Panic' was racist, because the line "burn down the disco, hang the blessed DJ" was implicitly an attack on black musical forms like disco and funk, and talk of hanging recalled the language of the lynch mob. Moz also famously said that "All reggae is vile".
More generally, Moz has always lamented the death of England - or his vision of England, shaped by kitchen sink dramas, camp comedies, mods and rockers violence, images of rundown seaside towns etc. An England corrupted by outside influences, chiefly American consumer culture (ironic considering that Moz now lives in the USA). In this way, Moz can be seen as part of an English socialist tradition that streches back at least to Orwell - the working classes have been seduced by the empty, gaudy trash of an imported culture that has cut them off from their 'authentic' roots and 'heritage'. Yet at the same time, Morrissey worshipped The New York Dolls...
Basically, the contradictions are endless... 'For what it's worth', I don't think Morrissey is or was a racist, but his obsession w/ the nature of Englishness, his indifference to dance music, and his previously mentioned homoerotic fascination/loathing for the bully bad boy, did drag him into some pretty murky waters. But Ironically, at the height of Moz's flirting with fascism period, he was booed off-stage by racist skinhead Madness fans who hated seeing their beloved Union Jack soiled by Moz's poovery...
― Andrew L, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
I always had the idea that Britain in the 50s and 60s had this nice can-do attitude when all the trad class distinctions were starting to erode (well, if you were a clever working-class angry young man). If you got involved in the music biz in the 80s you'd have been seriously disabused of the notion that Britain was on its way to better, more egalitarian times.
― Sean, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
It disappears by the next record, though ...
― Nitsuh, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
1. I like the qualified points that Nitsuh and Suzy have just made - that sounds about right to me.
2. Like I said, this is not meant to be a thread re. the Smiths = grate or rubbish - so with respect and all that, I don't see Jack R's, or Dave Q's comments, as very relevant really. (There's a C/D for that.)
3. I like Cockfarmer's post. Also DG is on the money here.
4. Martian: yes, I saw the programme - which has never been very highly rated - years ago. You seem to be saying that I don't have a clue about the BASICS about the Smiths. What I'm trying to say, rather, is that once you have all those basics, it's still hard to make it all add up.
5. Suzy is right re. otherness, boot boys, etc - in detail.
6. Dr C: fantastic post: I agree with almost everything you say (until towards the end), and I (think I) know what you mean about initial reactions and the way you go back to them later (ie: still thinking about 'TCM' in terms of initial rejection). (Maybe initial reactions have something going for them.) I totally agree with you re. Marr holding things together (ie, how did he cope? etc), and the ('accidental'?) oddity of the structures (*this* is the kind of thing that no-one ever seems to get to discussing, for one reason or another - though it's BASIC to what the band had to offer).
― the pinefox, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
I don't really have anything else to say, except that I'm playing "The Headmaster Ritual" at the moment and it still sounds pretty special to me, though obviously intensely related to a social set-up now long vanished.
God, "Panic" sounds stranger with every year that passes: I don't know whether the Pinefox will agree with me, but I find it their strangest, weirdest, most pathological single, their most passionate yet their most doomed. But I don't think it would have sounded like that in 1986: it's just that the more Britain changes year by year, the more cosmopolitan and hedonistic it becomes, the more it seems like an anthem raging hopelessly against the tide. Time has made "Panic" sound vainglorious: the question is - from someone far too young to understand these things 15 years ago - did it *always* seem like that?
― Robin Carmody, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― mark s, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
A few years later, of course, the clubs were in thrall to dance music which did say something to people about their lives.
― Billy Dods, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
"Hang the DJ" referring to Smashie and Nicey gang - yes, absolutely, but that doesn't detract from the essential nostalgia of "Panic" as a song: a call to arms, absolutely, but also a rather pathetic, blunted one, the children's choir sounding like a vainglorious echo of post- war formality, and I can't help but hear a desperate fear for the future behind the line "Could life ever be sane again?". The strange thing is, though, I think the song is *brilliant*, but what it is based on (broadly, to my ears, desire for a unified working class not indulging in hedonism and love for American pop culture) could never be recaptured, and that is where the brilliance comes from: the desperation to achieve something that could never actually happen, never more perfectly expressed in pop. It isn't that nobody would write about provincial towns now but that provincial towns *just aren't like that anymore*: even compared to 15 years ago, they are as given over to hedonism as anywhere else and totally unresponsive to any remaining echoes of puritan socialism (or puritanism or socialism in any form, really). This is, I think, why Morrissey lives in LA: he would rather not live in Britain than in a Britain unrecognisable from his idea of Britain.
Essential ambivalence is what I love best about the Morrissey of that time, and his worst moments ever have been his most obvious: I personally think of "A Rush And A Push And The Land Is Ours" (specifically "It has been before / So it shall be again") as referring to the Wilson government / social democratic leadership compared to the Thatcher era, but I can quite see why certain people after the Union Jack / "NF Disco" episode interpreted the song to mean something rather less positive (I don't think that interpretation is *right*, of course ... the ambivalents of pop have to be prepared for occasional stupid misinterpretations: it goes with the territory).
Robin C:
>>> mid-80s Smiths fandom as I see it was the *last breath of Hoggartism*
In large part, yes, this is right. Maybe the M thing about 'illness' (hearing aids etc) stuck out, though? Also re. gender - cos M was 'sexually ambiguous' - and Hoggart's book doesn't have much place for that. (This is the puritan vs bohemian split in M, if you like.)
>>> I don't know whether the Pinefox will agree with me, but I find it their strangest, weirdest, most pathological single, their most passionate yet their most doomed.
Yes - kind of. But like you, I don't think that detracts from its enjoyable fascination. A strange thing, rarely mentioned, is that it's VERY SHORT!
Suzy:
>>> A few years later, of course, the clubs were in thrall to dance music which did say something to people about their lives.
Well - different perspectives here, surely. From the POV of dance fans (or whatever) in 1986, dance music presumably *did* say what they needed; just like (I imagine) it does for dance fans now. It doesn't for me, of course - but you knew that.
Dods: I like the points re. rockism (personally I *love* guitar solos, of course).
>>> The echo of the provincial towns sounds rather quaint now, I can't imagine anyone else singing the praise of Carlisle when you've got the delights of London or NYC to write about.
Well. Just you wait. One day.
>>> It isn't that nobody would write about provincial towns now but that provincial towns *just aren't like that anymore*: even compared to 15 years ago, they are as given over to hedonism as anywhere else and totally unresponsive to any remaining echoes of puritan socialism
Hold on - there seems to be an assumption developing re. M's attitude to provincial towns (which as said in past I find fascinating - the towns, I mean, not the attitude). I don't see it that way. I think he is just *listing* for PANORAMIC EFFECT: it's ALL ENGLAND APOCALYPSE.
>>> The other thing is the provincial towns Morrissey loves may have existed at some point, but they had already disappeared, or were disappearing, by the time Panic was written.
But those towns are still there! Yes, they've changed - but for the better *as well as* the worse, I'd guess (like most things: dialectics as usual).
Back to 'strangeness': this is still the key thing for me. Robin C pinpoints an aspect of it re. the children's choir - an element of sinister otherworldliness, or whatever. Plus, the comic (and retro) eccentricity of Marr's *music* (cf Nitsuh earlier) as well as the unseemly violence of the lyric (M as embarrassing ranting party guest - back to Nitsuh earlier, again)...
It would be interesting to know if 'Panic' could ever have gone another way - if there were more elaborate lyrical drafts that spelled things out more fully (a la 'Queen Is Dead'). But I'm clutching at gladioli, I know (I know, I know...).
Billy: the other Mancunian axis that comes to mind as more representative of genuine latter-day (i.e. post-Thatcher, or rather *irrevocably-changed-by-Thatcher*) Northern working-classness is the Roses / Mondays (the Mondays especially) wing which was in the ascendancy as Morrissey's solo career declined (held back, as I saw it, by long gap between first two proper solo albums causing loss of momentum: instructive that none of his four 1991 singles, from the Our Frank era, made even the Top 20 whereas the first four solo singles all went Top 10). For some reason (and I was actually thinking about this before I knew this thread existed!), I associate "Madchester Rave On" outselling "Ouija Board Ouija Board" five to one in Manchester HMV with the fall of Communism and the emergence of MTV Europe: not only concurrent, but a similar, definitive (or so it seemed) victory of hedonism over any remaining hints of, perhaps foolhardy, ideological conviction.
Provincial towns already changing rapidly by 1986 - well, exactly, kind of strengthens my argument that the central theme of "Panic" is nostalgia and longing. This is, also, its central fascination.
Pinefox: shortness of "Panic" something that occured to me earlier. I personally relate it to the classicism / nostalgia of the song: write a song that evokes provincial towns as they perhaps were around 1963 and make it the length of pop songs of the time (during the British New Wave cycle of films from 1958-63, it wasn't unknown for songs of less than two minutes in length to make Number One: Adam Faith's "What Do You Want?" springs to mind).
The towns are still there, of course, and what is fascinating is just how much they have changed, as anyone who makes a habit of visiting places that feature in old films, TV series, photographs etc. will know. One of the great fascinations of modern Britain is comparing the general informality and hedonism of these places *now* (main exception that comes to mind: Winchester, especially in winter) with images of how they once were. Peter Hitchens was, perhaps for the only time in his life, spot on when he said that traditions can be destroyed just as effectively when you leave the buildings there but chip away at the ideas and feelings that gave them meaning, as when you tear down the buildings themselves. This is the key to how Manchester - and, I suppose, provincial Britain generally - has evolved in contradiction to and refusal of Morrissey's vision of it.
Strangeness: exactly. Listening to "A Rush And A Push ..." and "Death of a Disco Dancer", what comes out is how great they are *as sound*. I'd previously concentrated on Morrissey's words, but what stands out now is how great a *band* they were. For the first time, "Disco Dancer" sounds to me quite as apocalyptic as the title track of "The Queen Is Dead", an epic melodic grind for long after Moz himself is unheard.
There is much more within this thread, I think.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 25 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
(Suzy and Nellie are sitting in the hall in front of their opened lockers which are littered with artfully arranged pin-ups from British and Japanese music mags. They are clearly deep in conversation)
PASSING METALHEAD BOY does a double-take when he sees locker gallery full of Men Wearing Makeup. PMB: "What is that faggot shit?"
SUZY and NELLIE exchange glances. Each girl removes an empty shopping bag from their locker. NELLIE: "'scuse me?"
PMB: "I asked you what that faggot shit was."
NELLIE (offers bag to PMB): "Here, take this."
SUZY (offers second bag to PMB): "Here, take this."
PMB now has TWO BAGS. PMB is puzzled.
SUZY: "Now. Put both bags over your head, DUDE. Keep America beautiful, okay?"
...see, they didn't stand a chance so no real hassle. Mallrat girls who had 'hair' comments were encouraged to look five years into the future, where if they had not managed to reproduce with a football player, they might actually HAVE the haircut I was sporting that day. In the same future I would of course be having my hair cut where I would never have to look at their bad style ever ever again. Besides, there weren't enough of US to form an actual Breakfast Club-type subcult so we were very confusing for THEM.
― suzy, Wednesday, 26 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
Not sure I agree. Sitting out Madchester was probably a wise move, but the single biggest cause of the decline HAS to be the fact that Kill Uncle was so spectacularly awful. Virtually EVERYTHING which was good about the Smiths had gone by now. (By the way, except for the singles, I really don't like Viva Hate either).
Somehow that knife-edge balance between camp, misery, humour, nostalgia and arrogance, which he kept throughout the Smiths career is out of whack much of the time. Too much or too little of any of these carefully-juggled elements resulted in nonsense like King Leer, Bengali in Platforms, Little Man What Now, Late Night Maudlin Street,Alsatian Cousin etc. Maybe the lay-off before Kill Uncle gave him too much time to think about how and what, rather than doing what came naturally in The Smiths. Working with hacks like Street, Langer and Nevin couldn't have helped much either.
Arthur makes a good point about a possible precendent in Orange Juice, and for the Postcard singles, it makes good sense. Simply Thrilled Honey and Blue Boy in particular have that odd structure and slightly distanced feel which marked out Hand In Glove. I sense that Collins was a much less complex character than Morrissey, and consequently less interesting. The post-Postcard era showed that he had nothing much to say.
― Dr. C, Wednesday, 26 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
I agree, pf. It's funny - I was thinking of posting a thread about Panic a while ago and thought better of it. What I was going to ask was 'what does this song MEAN?' Or more specifically, what do the chorus and verses have to do with one another? But then I decided it would make me look stupid. Of course I understand the connection, but it struck me as a perfect example of Morrissey's (Smiths era) approach to songwriting- so many self-contained lines/notebook fragments/twisted aphorisms that somehow end up constituting a lyric. If someone asked me what situation Morrissey was describing, or point he was making in a lot of Smiths songs I'd have no straightforward answer. He changed style a bit on Meat is Murder ('The Headmaster Ritual' is perhaps his best sustained direct, transparent song) but he never really lost his predilection (knack?) for opaque, ambiguous, cut and paste lyrics (torrents of words falling over themselves) until a little way into his solo career.
A thing that rarely gets mentioned: Mick Middles' book (yes, I know it's terrible) insists that when Morrissey & Marr started out, their plan was to become a songwriting team, not a band. Does anyone know if that's true?
― Nick, Wednesday, 26 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
That begs the question what was different about the Smiths. I would tend to argue that, musically, they were *less* strange than early Orange Juice: a fuller sound, less angular and difficult, less scratchy. Which is to say, I suppose, that they were more palatable to a pop/rock mainstream. I recall very well hearing "What Difference Does It Make" and "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now" on Radio 1 on the bus to school. I can't imagine any of those first few OJ singles making it onto the breakfast show.
There's also clearly a big chunk of J. Rotten in the Morrissey persona: that ill, contrary outsider bit, handing down his crushing barbs with total disdain. I suppose you could argue that, musically, the Smiths were the first band in a musical generation to consider themselves nothing to do with punk (and punk as just a detail of history). They made themselves palatable to punk-obsessed likes of me by the Rotten-ness of SPM. Just a thought.
― Tim, Wednesday, 26 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
― mark s, Wednesday, 26 September 2001 00:00 (11 years ago) Permalink
C'mon he's Rocky from Boon
― OutdoorFish, Tuesday, 19 March 2013 01:18 (2 months ago) Permalink
has morrissey ever talked about the singers who influenced him? i can't think of a single male vocalist who really sounds much like him.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 19 March 2013 01:29 (2 months ago) Permalink
I always used to think there are male vocalists and there is Morrissey
― OutdoorFish, Tuesday, 19 March 2013 01:36 (2 months ago) Permalink
I get proto-Morrissey vibes from Billy Fury:
― Heyman (crüt), Tuesday, 19 March 2013 01:41 (2 months ago) Permalink
Yeah he loves Billy Fury
― OutdoorFish, Tuesday, 19 March 2013 01:44 (2 months ago) Permalink
starting in on Fletcher's "There is a Light That Never Goes Out"
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 1 April 2013 17:37 (2 months ago) Permalink
I see Morrissey is due to appear on a documentary about cups of tea, interviewed by Victoria Wood.
― djh, Sunday, 7 April 2013 18:07 (2 months ago) Permalink
from a great post by dr. c 12 years ago:
By all accounts Morrissey's words would often appear in different places in the arrangement to where Marr had expected (verses became middle 8's, or Moz would sing across a transition...etc). This may account for the way that many Smiths songs don't have a normal structure or easily identifiable chorus, especially the earlier material. This lack of concern for (or lack of knowledge of..) conventional forms (on the part of Morrissey) helped a great deal to set them apart from the rest.
if i'm not mistaken this is very similar to how things worked, and/or didn't work, between michael stipe and peter buck.
― fact checking cuz, Sunday, 7 April 2013 19:43 (2 months ago) Permalink
That'd explain how "Call me when you try to wake her up" fits into 4 beats..
― Mark G, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 09:38 (2 months ago) Permalink
I must confess I was disappointed by his Thatcher quote. He must have spent half a life time preparing for that moment and it just wasn't as powerful as it needed to be.
― djh, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 20:46 (2 months ago) Permalink
The widely reported quote was apparently cobbled together by the press from a recent interview. Here is his actual statement (djh's point still stands):
The difficulty with giving a comment on Margaret Thatcher's death to the British tabloids is that, no matter how calmly and measuredly you speak, the comment must be reported as an "outburst" or an "explosive attack" if your view is not pro-establishment. If you reference "the Malvinas", it will be switched to "the Falklands", and your "Thatcher" will be softened to a "Maggie." This is generally how things are structured in a non-democratic society. Thatcher's name must be protected not because of all the wrong that she had done, but because the people around her allowed her to do it, and therefore any criticism of Thatcher throws a dangerously absurd light on the entire machinery of British politics. Thatcher was not a strong or formidable leader. She simply did not give a shit about people, and this coarseness has been neatly transformed into bravery by the British press who are attempting to re-write history in order to protect patriotism. As a result, any opposing view is stifled or ridiculed, whereas we must all endure the obligatory praise for Thatcher from David Cameron without any suggestion from the BBC that his praise just might be an outburst of pro-Thatcher extremism from someone whose praise might possibly protect his own current interests. The fact that Thatcher ignited the British public into street-riots, violent demonstrations and a social disorder previously unseen in British history is completely ignored by David Cameron in 2013. In truth, of course, no British politician has ever been more despised by the British people than Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher's funeral on Wednesday will be heavily policed for fear that the British tax-payer will want to finally express their view of Thatcher. They are certain to be tear-gassed out of sight by the police.
United Kingdom? Syria? China? What's the difference?
Morrissey9 April 2013
― Eyeball Kicks, Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:22 (2 months ago) Permalink
the new smiths book is fantastic, loving it so far
― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:26 (2 months ago) Permalink
funny how the original 'outraged' interview quote is more OTM and less insane than his sober, considered quote!
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:28 (2 months ago) Permalink
tho tbh even most of that quote isn't really wrong, except for 'unseen in british history' and 'syria, china.'
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:29 (2 months ago) Permalink
yeah I'm digging it, it has made me notice all sorts of details in the songs that I had previously glossed over or never bothered to dissect (ie, anything referencing Manchester geography lol)
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:37 (2 months ago) Permalink
You guys are talking about A Light That Never Goes Out right? What about the book called Songs That Saved Your Life?
― What About The Half That's Never Been POLLed (James Redd and the Blecchs), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:53 (2 months ago) Permalink
yes, the former. I dunno that latter.
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:57 (2 months ago) Permalink
Still gotta read my copy of that guy's All Hopped Up And Ready To Go.
― What About The Half That's Never Been POLLed (James Redd and the Blecchs), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:59 (2 months ago) Permalink
yeah light that never goes out!
so many cool details in the early days, johnny marr liked tom petty and rory gallagher! the smiths 4th gig was opening for richard hell & the voidoids!
― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 23:10 (2 months ago) Permalink
first gig was the same night as a WS Burroughs reading at the Hacienda etc
― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 23:12 (2 months ago) Permalink
songs that saved your life is the one that's modeled on ian macdonald's beatles book, right? would love to read something like that about the smiths.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 23:21 (2 months ago) Permalink
OK, guess I gotta start reading before you guys post any more spoilers.
― What About The Half That's Never Been POLLed (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 10 April 2013 00:28 (2 months ago) Permalink
tho tbh even most of that quote isn't really wrong, except for 'unseen in british history' and 'syria, china.'― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:29 (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 9 April 2013 22:29 (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Yes,
also:
Thatcher's name must be protected not because of all the wrong that she had done, but because the people around her allowed her to do it, and therefore any criticism of Thatcher throws a dangerously absurd light on the entire machinery of British politics.
is very otm indeed. And, of course, will remain unremarked upon. (in favour of the syria/etc quote, and somthing added on about animal welfare or some such)
― Mark G, Wednesday, 10 April 2013 09:33 (2 months ago) Permalink
complete 1985 Madrid show taped for spanish TV
― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 12 April 2013 14:58 (2 months ago) Permalink
rockpalast show in germany, a bit more low end on the sound here vox a little low but not bad
― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Friday, 12 April 2013 15:04 (2 months ago) Permalink
Morrissey's Wolverhampton 88 show has leaked in glorious soundboard quality. Check it out on Morrissey-Solo.
― brotherlovesdub, Friday, 12 April 2013 16:50 (2 months ago) Permalink
thanks for the heads up re the 88 gig; very interesting recording! band sound way tighter than i'd have thought for their first gig. well ONLY gig i suppose with that line up.
― piscesx, Saturday, 13 April 2013 04:12 (2 months ago) Permalink
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/why-i-still-hate-the-smiths-and-myself/ This is one of the worst pieces of music writing I have come across.
― "bath salts" should have been my username (Pat Finn), Saturday, 13 April 2013 05:44 (2 months ago) Permalink
got the light that never goes out book at the library -- really a great rock bio so far. i'm not even a smiths die-hard (i think they're awesome, don't get me wrong), but it's just packed with good stuff.
― tylerw, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 15:36 (1 month ago) Permalink
kind of astonishing how fast everything went for them once marr and morrissey partnered up.
― tylerw, Wednesday, 24 April 2013 15:37 (1 month ago) Permalink
yeah the speed of it is crazy
also realizing that the legendary "manchester scene" was soooo small really
― ums (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 15:51 (1 month ago) Permalink
The writer comes across as a misogynist cretin.
― The last of the famous international Greyjoys (Nicole), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 16:01 (1 month ago) Permalink
Anyway, like any good adolescent boy, I wanted in her skinny jeans so damn bad.
'any'
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 21:44 (1 month ago) Permalink
pretty much every sentence of that article is horribly worded, it reads like a fake piece by that onion guy.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 21:48 (1 month ago) Permalink
i have read much worse reviews, the guy dos not follow the cult of the smiths and tries to explain why. his arguments are not very convincing but still.
― it's the distortion, stupid! (alex in mainhattan), Wednesday, 24 April 2013 21:50 (1 month ago) Permalink
How the Guardian covered the Smiths in the early 80s
With a terrible review (in both senses) from Mary Harron and an interview that misspells Morrissey's name …
― Alba, Friday, 17 May 2013 13:40 (1 month ago) Permalink
The interview is terrific. Morrisey a prick in a good way. I tried to read it imagining I had never heard The Smiths. What would the music this man makes be like? Something like Savages.
― Eyeball Kicks, Friday, 17 May 2013 14:24 (1 month ago) Permalink
Just realised that the Mary Harron who wrote the "nurd" review is the director of American Psycho (and ex-girlfriend of Tony Blair)
― Alba, Saturday, 18 May 2013 10:56 (1 month ago) Permalink
and ex-girlfriend of Tony Blair
Uhhhhhhhh, what?!?!?!?
― Bees Against Racism (Tom D.), Saturday, 18 May 2013 10:58 (1 month ago) Permalink
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/when-tony-met-mary-met-chris-467061.html
― Alba, Saturday, 18 May 2013 11:01 (1 month ago) Permalink
wow, small world.
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 18 May 2013 12:17 (1 month ago) Permalink
she also went out with Chris Huhne, an Oxford contemporary of Blair, who last week was tipped in the polls as the most likely contender to take over from Charles Kennedy as Liberal Democrat leader.
LOLz
― Bees Against Racism (Tom D.), Saturday, 18 May 2013 12:24 (1 month ago) Permalink
just plowed through the fletcher bio in a couple of days - a really great read as stated above by others. i'm a little surprised at absolutely no mention of the byrds among marr's influences/interests.
― sleepingsignal, Wednesday, 29 May 2013 07:00 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
I read the book last week and it has quite re-invigorated my love for the music, and watching YouTube videos of their early gigs at the Hacienda really helps underscore the notion that they seemed to emerge fully formed. Lyrically and musically, some of their earliest songs are still amongst their strongest and most affecting, imo. But reading of how they pretty much hit the ground running made me wonder if they don't dispel Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000-hour rule (ie the amount of time required practicing something before you can master it). I mean, yeah, Marr played in other bands before the Smiths, and there's Morrissey's fevered letter-writing activities, but it doesn't seem to be the equivalent of, say, the Beatles slog through the Hamburg and Cavern years. I dunno.
― hewing to the status quo with great zealotry (DavidM), Wednesday, 29 May 2013 15:43 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
If I've read The Severed Alliance, should I pick up this Fletcher Bio?
― brotherlovesdub, Wednesday, 29 May 2013 15:50 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
xp yeah The Smiths are the all time great example of where the Outliers theory doesn't work. Marr says they never even rehearsed.
― piscesx, Wednesday, 29 May 2013 16:14 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
according to the book they rehearsed plenty. also they specifically played small out-of-the-spotlight venues to hone the songs.
― sleepingsignal, Wednesday, 29 May 2013 17:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
yeah, and there's that tape of them rehearsing! http://www.slicingupeyeballs.com/2013/03/19/smiths-rehearsal-tape-may-1983/[maybe he meant they didn't rehearse much]
― tylerw, Wednesday, 29 May 2013 18:03 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
they rehearsed mostly daily early on, and did so to get better between their first appearance and subsequent gigs.
― sleepingsignal, Wednesday, 29 May 2013 18:51 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Also Gladwell's theory is bullshit.
― everything, Wednesday, 29 May 2013 19:18 (2 weeks ago) Permalink