vh2 got the video exclusive, q didn't, they would rather play eminem these days, also he gave the interview to the nme and not q, sour grapes q? well you can eat mine.

the quality of journalism involved with Q has been in decline for a while now. I generally dont take there reviews too seriously. By all means maybe the album will turn out to be quite average, but I wouldnt come to that conclusion based on this review thats for sure.

5 years ago I might've cared what Q thought, now it means nothing to me.

Mojo gave it 4/5 and that's good enough for me.

this is the magazine that gave semisonic's 'all about chemistry' 5 stars you know. so who cares?

most Q journalists are old NME journalists...nuff said.

Who is John Harris? The name sounds familiar. Perhaps he's from the "smelly old NME" derided by Moz in his latest interview.

I don't usually read Q or even bother looking at it, due to the low-rent journalism and lack of anything vaguely approaching taste, but this review was even worse than his Maladjusted review. I seem to remember they described him as "sad" and "past it" or words to that effect. This time, Harris said virtually nothing about the songs, quoted a rather bland lyric amongst the extraordinary lyrics that we know are on the album, and then launched into a bitter diatribe about... how bitter and twisted morrissey is! Ironically, he finished this off by describing "you know I couldn't last" as being self-pitying and self-absorbed, before saying "oh how we laughed" alluding to the journalists vs Morrissey charade that's being an ongoing fixture since the early 90s.

The review was itself self-indulgent and pointless. It was written in the style of a sixth form gig review, was pitifully bereft of facts and reeked of tabloid journalism. Usher was given 3 stars in the review above. I think that sums up Q really, doesn't it?

Q magazine = shit

At least the first bad review comes from a magazine that nobody in their right mind would take seriously. Quite frankly I'd rather read The Beano.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/review/3046262.stm

he's 35, he went to Oxford, he worked for NME in the mid-90's, he's got a mullet.
nuff said!

John, England

...Britney Spears was on the cover.
Need we say more?
Q magazine is the British equivalent of Rolling Stone.

in the current issue. early in the mag they give 10 quotes and ask you to choose whose they were: Morrissey's or Clarkson's.
NB non-Brits; Clarkson is considered to be (by alkl right thinking people) the biggest tosser in Western Europe so this is another dig at Moz by Q.

Maybe - shock horror - his new stuff isn't that good?

The single is ok but out of the other YAMQ stuff I've heard from live shows theres nothing that really grabs me like stuff from Your Arsenal, Vauxhall and I or Viva Hate.

I like the sound of that one that goes ' drinking tea with the taste of the Thames' - his voice sounds great in that.

We'll See

strange that Mojo only gave it 4 considering they've got a good rapport with Moz these days.

I'm hoping it'll be great but IBEH is easily his second worse lead-off single (only Dag Dave is worse).

The most menacing critique i've heard so far is that some of the songs on 'Quarry' sound 'Dido-esque'. I quite like Dido but I would hate Morrissey to sound like her...

Anyone remember that Q 15 special some time back? They did a little q&a with Morrissey, where they asked if he was releasing a new album.

Moz responded, "Yes, and can I expect a dreadful review from Q? Oh, the rhythm of life."

His crystal ball does work!

Don't worry too much about this: that the magazine has the perversity to put a nearly-naked Pink on the cover obviously means that there is too much lead in the pipes of the house of Q.

It re-branded a couple of years ago...now it's intent to get as many semi naked stars in print as possible. It used to be on the ball, but these day's it's not even on the pitch.

No wonder uncut and mojo have stolen it's thunder.

...has been universally praised, has it? Especially not albums with a lot of ambition, like Quarry. Go back and look at the reviews for each Morrissey and Smiths record and I''m sure they've been slagged off by one or more of the major rags.

I only care if a review is badly written, not if it's positive or negative -- 'Q' is no more or less important than another magazine's review, but they do usually go more in depth, so I'm curious. My favourite Moz photo to date is that 'Q' cover shot from '95 with the Man looking over his shoulder.

Has is ever occurred to all you sycophants that maybe the album is shite. True Q is a pretty awful magazine these days but then again when was the last time Moz put out a decent album. Just because he's been away for years there's no reason to assume this album is going to be any better than the last few piles of crap he's put out.

Very ballady, with an ending which is reminiscent, lyrically at least, of Speedway.

I have forgiven jesus has a quite breathtaking key change in the chorus, which should get the audience swaying in unison, with their arms raised heavenwards ...

I haven't heard the album nor have I read the Q review, and whilst much has been made of the production, etc, what I've seen of the lyrics doesn't really seem that inspiring. TWIFOCB seems to take swipes at taxmen and the like for the apparent smallness of their lives which is less than charming when coming from a 40-year-old millionaire who was lucky enough to have his talent recompensed financially; YET more moaning about a court case which he has been dragging out for ten years; IBEH sees Moz getting into his usual muddle about politics (the royal family line/Cromwell thing); more moaning about critics. This man wrote "It's so easy to laugh, so easy to hate...it takes guts to be gentle and kind." Nothing here seems to even approach the simplicity, beauty and insight of that standard of lyric.

One's review should not be dependent on whether or not the artist is accessible or likeable. Morrissey's work should be judged based solely on the work itself. I would hate to think his good reviews are because he has granted interviews and has made himself available to the people critiquing him. By the same token, I would hate to think that Q's negative review was because the hack writing it has an axe to grind (that certainly seems to be the case). It is almost becoming a sort of payola of the print media world, where a bad review may cost an artist several thousand dollars--forcing an artist to pay up and kow-tow to the reviewers.

there is a review in the uk gay magazine attitude which is shall we say the most understanding and most incisive review of a morrisey album i have ever read. the journalist is intelligent and well informed and most impotantly seems to 'get' what moz is trying to get across. having heard pretty much all of the album one way or another i'd say this was the most concise review i've seen so far in print. its the one with george michael on the front, check it out. i myself think that it comes second to vauxhall and i in the cannon of moz but then again i think that vauxhall is better than anything he did with dear old johnny.

To be honest, this review is not entirely unexpected, at least not as far as I'm concerned anyway. Word's sarcastic 'preview' made it evident that some critics were going to lambast the lyrics. Indeed, I'm surprised NME have been so forgiving at the frequent attacks Moz makes on music journalists in the likes of "You Know I Couldn't Last". But then I think it is evident that NME have already long ago decided they're going to support him this time round. His comments about immigrants, however well intentioned, did give them perfect ammunition to suggest that their earlier criticisms weren't entirely unfounded, but they chose not to, because they have decided to take a pro-Moz line at the moment.

But, to be honest, and please don't hate me for this, ever since I first saw some of the lyrics I knew there was a big danger that some critics would take the line Harriss takes. Because they can argue that Moz is just indulging his own bitter whims and not in fact saying anything anybody can really relate to. Who, after all, hates judges, taxmen and music critics with as much vengeance as he?

Also, I was reading the lyrics to songs from 'The Queen Is Dead' a couple of days ago, and have been listening to 'Vauxhall and I' quite a lot again, and it struck me that, unfortunately, the new lyrics really aren't as good. The Queen Is Dead's lyrics are truly, brilliantly, poetic, while Vauxhall is largely an articulation of emotions that have universal resonance ('Hold On To Your Friends, 'Why Don't You Find Out For Yourself?', 'I Am Hated For Loving'). These new lyrics, rehashing his disgruntlement over the court case, anger at music critics etc, seemed a little lacking in subtelty by his standards. Certainly, America and IBEH seem surprisingly naive lyrically - especially by his standards.

On the other hand, it could be that Harris bears some grudge against Moz and is just being a prick, especially since we find he used to work on NME at the time of its hate campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I love The Smiths and think Arsenal and Vauxhall are superb, but something tells me that Vauxhall will remain, for now at least, the acknowledged masterpiece of his solo career. I still hope for the day when, once again, he puts out an album that can be loved by everyone (or nearly everyone anyway!).

As an addition to the above comment, I could easily see him putting out a record in years to come with little fanfare, only for everyone to hail it as one of his best. This, I think, will happen when he feels less angry about the court case et al and writes lyrics of a more universal nature - by which i mean thematically, i would certainly not want him to abandon his usually brilliant lyrical style! I also think that such an album would be low-key, perhaps like Vauxhall, with the more 'minimal', lo-fi musical backdrops alluded to by Rhodri Marsden in the Observer review. This would mean that critics like Harris would have no grounds to have a go at him. I know Morrissey is not yet done, and hope he will at some point return with a universally hailed masterpiece.

And, after saying all this, let's face it, this Q review is only one person's opinion. Many of us here could no doubt love this album, and that's what counts.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Q review as most people have noticed the magazine has been reducing in quality greatly.

In fact they are losing readers at a frightening rate recently, in fact the last Divine Comedy album review was almost word for word the same as the press release. Not what I'd expect from a publication of it's (so called)standing, very poor, as Vic Reeves used to say.

Poor old Q, someone should kick the crutches from underneath it's feet.
You know he does bare more grudges than lonely high court judges

It's intersting that everyone is slagging off Q and John Harris, despite the fact that probably only a select few of us have actually heard the album. Wouldn't it be better to reserve judgement on the review until we've all got out copies of the LP?

re: John Harris, he wrote "The Last Party", probably THE definitive story of British music in the 1990s. He's an intelligent and insightful writer, and certainly no hack. He is actually pretty supportive of Morrissey/The Smiths in that book, so I don't expect that he has any particular axe to grind.

Iīve already listened the album and until now iīve done anything than that. Itīs really beautiful. And after I read this review my eyes were flood by tears because itīs so unfair to say something so bad about something so really really beautiful.

I don't see what the big deal is. He's one man and he has his opinion. So what? I've been reading negative reviews of Morrissey ever since I began listening to him. We all know he's not for everyone. I remember many negative to lukewarm reviews of Vauxhall & I and that's, in my judgment, a GREAT album, perhaps even my favorite album of all time. Just calm down. All that matters is how YOU feel about the album. I haven't heard it yet so I can't say anything to that.

And it's not like Q magazine has intelligent critics anyway. = )

and fill it with songs about taxmen, magistrates, uniformed people (apologies for vagueness!), music journalists, court case and all that stuff which is totally tedious for all the rest of us and get the whole thing out of his system once and for all.

and then go back to writing songs which express, humour, observation, joy, emotional insight, clever wordplay and all that stuff that we used to love Moz for. songs with universal appeal which don't require you to be a mid-40's multi-millionaire mucician who is continuously getting dragged through the courts, to empathise with.
even back in 97 he wrote some great stuff we could all sing along to like Trouble Loves Me, Lost, Alma, and The Edges.

come on Moz, our patience is running thin.

John

For the first time ever, with a Morrissey solo record, nearly all the criticism is being directed at Morrissey's lyrics. Alain and Boz appear to have provided an outstanding musical backdrop to the new album which Moz appears to have possibly jeopardised with a set of bitter, self-obsessed, unpoetic, humourless lyrics.
Isn't it ironic; doncha think?

The Sanctuary press release said that Q were gonna give Moz the main review in the magazine but buried it right near the back.
This privilege was given to the execrable 'Streets' who've just taken over from Toploader as officially the worst band of all time.

You need to listen to Attitude`s review of the album. They give it 5 stars out of 5. It is the best review I have ever read of Morrissey`s work.It is the most fair and unopinionated review I have read. I want to listen to the album NOW after reading the review. Attitude is a monthly gay UK publcation. They even say that this album compares to the best of The Smiths.

And so far John Earls of teletext has given it a postive view point, and in my view he is hardly ever wrong.

Surely no-one reads Q anymore? Every edition is yet another list the 50 best albums (winner Radiodead); the fifty best groups (winner Radiodead); the fifty best singles (winner Radiodead); the fifty best ballroom dancing acts (winner Radiodead). I think Radiodead may in fact own Q!

Ok, when I first heard/read that Harris had written such a review I wanted to tell him what a dick I thought he was/punch his lights out etc - this is because I'm a supporter of Morrissey.

But, after this gut reaction, my objectivity returned and I thought that maybe, just maybe, Harris has a point about the lyrics. Having read them in tandem with the likes of the lyrics from 'The Queen Is Dead' (whole album, not just the one song) and 'Vauxhall and I', it just strikes me that actually the lyrics ARE bitter and they ARE self-absorbed. They lack the beauty and poetic resonance of his earlier work.

But, I do have two criticisms to level at Harris/Q magazine.

1. Harris makes no mention of the MUSIC - Boz and Alain have, according to many, created some of their best music yet for the new songs. Not one iota of praise or recognition do they receive from Harris.

2. I'm sorry, but the Jeremy Clarkson 'article' is utterly pathetic. They criticise Moz for being spiteful and then go and publish a supposedly 'funny' article which is itself entirely spiteful. Harris doesn't like the album? Fine, that's up to him, but I found the Clarkson comparison to be totally unnecessary, a cheap shot, and not even informative in any way. It is the kind of shitty space filler you expect to see in 'The Sun'.

Nevertheless, Moz, you know you are capable of great, tender, evocative and witty songwriting, about universally resonant themes not just the ins and outs of the wearisome court case! Please return to the standards of 'Vauxhall and I' and then your genius will be recognised anew.

When we were first given the list of songs recorded in the Quarry sessions I was pleasantly surprised by the number of interesting outward-looking song titles.
However, it seems that many of these songs (with titles like The Slum Mums, Munich Air Disaster, The Never Played Symphonies, Teenage Dad on his Estate) have not made it onto the album.
So perhaps Moz is still writing songs with a more universal appeal but just hasn't decided to put them on the album. This seems a bit of a shame to me and, if the music to these songs is good and they do appear on B-sides, he will be continuing his tradition of hiding away many of his best ever songs (like he did with Nobody Loves Us, Jack the Tipper, Lost, I'd love to, etc).
John

The only problem with YATQ is that it gives those who don't like Morrissey ammunition to attack him, especially lyrically with a fair bit of self-indulgence. I have listened to the album a number of times and only an idiot would give it 2/5. It is worth at least a 4/5 in my opinion.

I think that seven or eight of the songs are either very good or excellent, so a this proportion is higher than 'Maladjusted'. The only track which I would consider poor lyrically as well as musically is 'America...' which provides a highly inauspicious start to the album. But from then on, tracks 2-9 are extremely good and only towards the end does the album tail off a bit with 'Let Me Kiss You', 'All The Lazy Dykes' and 'I Like You' perhaps less strong than the songs which went before. Having said that they are all good songs. It is notable that the Q reviewer criticised the songs which were lyrically self-indulgent and had bitter lyrics and praised the only two songs which really diverge from this 'First of the Gang' and '...Camden'.

As previously mentioned, there seems to be a direct connection between whether Morrissey has given Q their EXCLUSIVE interview or not. He bothered to do it for 3 albums in a row (Arsenal, Vauxhall, and their fave Southpaw grammar) and surprise, surprise got 4 stars for all of them. No interview and, as the man, says; sour grapes! The age of the jounalist also plays a factor. Harris is approaching 70 now. He doesn't like music and he works for a magazine that is competing with Loaded for the most front cover titillation. Their solitary sales strategy is young, female singer (e.g. Pink, Britney) in underwear or The Beatles (in another rehashed goddamn special!). He hasn't got a chance. No wonder he's so jealous and spiteful. He also can't get an erection at his age, which I think still rankles with him.

The more we and the journalists accuse him of writing bitter, self-obsessed, inward-looking lyrics, the more bitter, self-obsessed and inward-looking his lyrics are likely to become!
How we can help the poor chap break free?
John

Isn't Q doing a Smiths special soon? A bit cheeky expecting us all to shell out after hammering Moz so badly.

Come on Guys and Guy-ettes, reviews are only reviews, a point of view always slips in no matter how impartial the reviewer tries to be.

You all know there will be something you LOVE about the album when it appears with thunder soon, even if you don't think it's the best thing he's done since Southpaw Grammar.

So try to breathe deeply and put your feet in a basin of hot water.

Look, I don't give a shit about this asshole anymore. He's only a loser. I've been following Morrissey for 16 years now, through hell and high tide, and I've seen him weathering everything. Should we be scared by a ranting slob whose job is penning inaccurate reviews for a moribund magazine? Fuck him! He will be forgotten in one week, to be fair.

OK, just read the Q review, and didn't think it was QUITE as unfair as many have suggested, though it was bitchy, and Harris fails to talk about any of the songs in much detail.

But anyway, because I support Moz, and to undermine Harris's credentials a bit, if you look at the front of the magazine, each senior journalist is asked for their favourite live album, and Harris nominates 'Wings Over America'. So, a man of immense taste then?????!!!! Also (and I am a Beatles fan so this is not biased) Harris has spent many a column inch bigging up Paul McCartney's first solo album when in fact it is half-baked and underdeveloped, with only four good songs. He rates it above Lennon's 'Plastic Ono Band' album, which is surely a masterpiece and far better than Macca's effort. So, Harris is not necessarily a man whose viewpoint is to be unreservedly respected!

An album by Moz is never reviewed on a par with releases from other artists. Because of what he has achieved in the past most reviewers are quick to dismiss anything new 'as not as good as The Queen Is Dead.' No other artist has their lyrics so closely analysed- im sure Ushers album in the same set of reviews wasnt marked down because of the lyrics. Im not saying every release should be given top marks and five stars but his new material should be reviewed on its merits and not compared to everything he's done previously. Moz is on a hiding to nothing with every release as nothing is reviewed subjectively. He is ,and always will be, an easy target for journalists looking to settle old scores. He'll probably only ever be given the acclaim his solo career deserves when he dies.

I've just read quite a few for the first time and am pleasantly surprised.
They're here (apologies if thi is common knowledge): http://www.youarethequarry.net/lyrics.htm

even the angry songs, contain some nice thoughtful images.

John

....that the link to a positive review (5 out of 5, German press) gets a total of 6 posts from us fans yet during the same time a negative review of YATQ gets well over 100 posts? Perhaps that we are as obsessed with writing with spite as the Q review believes the Man himself to be?

Attittude, the gay mag has given it five stars and a glorious review in the current issue(half a page). George Michael is on the cover

Maybe it's a trick. Maybe they are tempting fate.

What do I mean? Well...in the last 18 months Q gave 2/5 to both Christina Aguillera's 'Stripped' and The Black-eyed Peas 'Elephunk' albums, and they both did spectacularly well, both selling massive amounts and spawning huge hit singles(not that I like either artists music myself, but that's beside the point).

So maybe Q are secretly hoping the same will happen with 'You Are The Quarry'.

Or maybe they're a bunch of stunted ex-NME hacks who wouldn't know good music if it jumped out of their soup and bit them in the eye.

I think it's worth noting that this is a Morrissey album, so don't we expect the songs to be to a degree self-obsessed? In fact isn't this why we like them? I'm not saying that we are all self-obsessed, but the introspection of Morrissey's lyrics is probably the part which is of greatest appeal to most of us, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of introspection, particularly when it is wrapped in romance and humour. There is certainly a huge amount of introspection on The Queen Is Dead.

With regard to the lyrics, from what I've seen and heard they are good. Personally I don't think that most of his solo stuff is quite on a par with the Smiths, but it is still way above virtually any other lyricist's efforts.

I think that John Harris is a pretty good writer, but that doesn't mean that he's right, and it is only one person's opinion. Every other review I've read or heard about has been at least good. The worst I've seen was in the Observer Music Monthly, where the writer gave it 3 out of 5 and didn't really have a bad word to say except that Morrissey was still singing about himself, and 'not endowment mortgages'.

Thank God that no-one does sing about these things, but it is worth noting that journalists age and some may start to think that music should reflect their more 'grown up' concerns. (At which time they should stop writing about music!!)

"Dear God, if only I could change,we'd all be so relieved. But not yet."

Sorry.