Songs that Saved Your Life was a good interesting read but ultimately Goddard makes a living writing about another group/mans creative talent so whilst he may have a right to complain, it's hard to sympathize when the people who he sold the rights to his book take a route that will lead them to the whole point of the venture - to make more money out of a fantastic band he has no formal affilation with who broke up 20+ years ago.

He's as much right as a fan to write about Moz as you or I, and his new read should be at least worth a look, but just don't expect loyalty when the inenvitable short changing happens in the publishing world.

point of view to see your work taken away from you, imagine how Morrissey or indeed any artist feels when 'they' aren't consulted about the critique thats printed about their creative output on a daily basis

Simon,

We won't buy your fuckin' shite anyways. Try not to worry.

If they say it's revised, it must be. So I'm going to buy it.

I wish everyone would stop quoting "Paint A Vulgar Picture" everytime there is a re-release of anything related to Morrissey or The Smiths. It's old. Change the damn record.

...really explains why we shouldn't buy it. Publishers frequently revise. And saying that this book was "concocted" without any involvement from Goddard is silly. He WROTE the book, didn't he?

I also agree with the comment about the over-use of "Paint A Vulgar Picture" when referring to these sorts of things. It isn't clever.

I thought only Morrissey was allowed to issue statements saying don't buy my bok, album etc etc.... bizarre.

I didn't paid an advance for this, so you ungrateful little shits shouldn't buy it. It's a cheap little book about pop music, for fuck's sake, not Dostoyevsky.

That a hack who lives parasytically off another's talents should moan about being taken for a ride!

please add Peepholism 1994-till the time of writing it

SMS Morrissey, and work it out in the fall

the best book, or Linder might make another shot
of this tour

too many words, stories behind the sleeves are
so much more enjoying to read, than a band
has covered a Smiths song, who wouldn't past years, it's virus, though their are a few goodies between

so, Into the art of Morrissey, Peepholism, from
1994 on, or has Jo got 'the letter' on the car also?

The biggest problem with 'Songs That Saved Your Life' is the same problem that befalls all these books that attempt to analyse a band or artist's work song by song; they all wilt in the shadow of Ian MacDonald's mercurial tome 'Revolution In The Head' in which he overviews the chronological recording history of The Beatles.

Ian MacDonald wasn't simply a brilliant writer, he was also extremely musically erudite, casually slipping words and phrases like 'glissando', 'pandiatonic clusters', 'submediant' and 'ritardando' into his reviews whether the reader understood it or not.
His writing drove the reader not just back to re-listen to the songs, but to hear them afresh with a new understanding.

'Revolution In The Head' sadly opened the floodgates for many cheap imitations, many covering bands or artists whose worth barely deserved any analysis whatsoever.

As a huge Smiths/Morrissey fanatic I found Simon Goddard's book to be interesting at most, but I simply felt I was reading nothing more than another fan's perspective on the songs. At least 75% of the contributors who post here probably have their own takes on the songs and if all were to write similar takes we'd end up with a few thousand versions of the same book, all similar in aspect but with several thousand different views, all equally relevant.

Whilst Ian MacDonald's volume ranks as one of the greatest music books of all time, Simon's book is simply just another book about The Smiths. As Johnny Rogan's 'The Severed Alliance' remains the greatest overview of The Smiths(at least till Morrissey publishes his memoirs/autobiography), Goddard's book has to be filed alongside the works of Phill Gatenby, Mark Simpson and, embarassingly, Mick Middles.

If you own the first copy of 'Songs That Saved your Life', the fact that nothing new has been released, so far, from the archive, then there's really no point in purchasing the new version.
     

... confuse the freedom to speak with having something to say? Personally, I don't particularly care for Goddard's brand of trainspotting commentary; however, to describe him as making money at another's expense is just nonsense - he's a journalist writing about an artist's work. And why do so many people think that being a fan means you necessarily understand or are qualified to talk about an artist's work? Oh yes - because they're so thick!

By the time I saw this post, the content had already been removed, so I don't know what exactly was said about upcoming revision to Goddard's book. But a general comment...

I thought Goddard's Songs That Saved Your Life was a really valuable resource, particularly that second edition which included Marr's input. As a musician and a big Smiths fan, I found it really interesting to learn about the musical genesis and evolution of each song, how they came to be, some of the band's relevant influences at the time, what was going on with them as a band when the recording was made, which versions of the song exist publicly and privately, how they changed when played live, etc.

I haven't read Severed Alliance, but it seems like Rogan's Morrissey: The Albums attempts something along the lines of what Goddard has done and maybe provides a better "apples-to-apples" comparison. I thought Rogan's work was really unnecessary. With the exception of a few nuggets from Moz interviews and maybe some Johnny Bridgewood comments, the whole thing lacked the depth of Goddard's research. It seemed to be a mix of painfully obvious/unnecessary synopsis of the lyrical content and then Rogan's subjective interpretation of their meaning. In short, I don't feel like I learned anything from Rogan that I couldn't get for myself in one listen to any of those songs. Goddard on the other hand tells the back story. Way more valuable for my money.

What was the gist of the statement?

I'm late to the party.

What about the commentary on Match of the Day, for example? Is the analysis - which I for one enjoy - by Alan Hansen, Lee Dixon and others 'parasytically living off another's talents'? The problem isn't that books like Goddard's are doing something illegitimate, the problem is that they do what they do BADLY. Rogan is as eloquent as Alan Shearer.

Isn't his Mozipedia in any case a putting of the same material into alphabetical order?