If he did say he came here then everyone would start acting differently and stuff, so maybe it's best if we don't know.

I liked the interview. But I must say I'm getting a little bored with all these interviewers making such a big deal about where Morrissey lives. It's interesting to hear about now and again, but it's like these interviewers are obsessed with the fact he moved to L.A.!! And here Morrissey was asking to be questioned about the things we don't hear enough about, like the motivations behind his songs. We get too many of the same questions in every interview.

Anyway, I hope we get to hear a new album in 2000.
Or sometime reasonably soon! There's nothing like taking home a brand new Morrissey album from the store. I miss that.

The reason that Moz lost is not because the judge took up cudgels on behalf of the ruling class against the working-man's hero. Moz lost because quite fairly there is a legal presumption that members of a band are in partnership with each other on the basis of equality. It is quite easy to displace that presumption if you want to: you go to a lawyer and ask them to draft you a partnership document on any basis you fancy. This is not a difficult thing to do if you are an affluent pop star.

What Moz tried to argue was that everybody had understood that profits were to be shared unequally. The trouble is, the law tends to require strong positive proof to displace the presumption of equality, such as for example, something in writing. Moz had nothing of the sort - in fact he had a band member who said that nothing of the sort had been agreed - and so he failed to win.

So even if the judge had thought him a sterling fellow and a thoroughly decent chap all round, he still was going to have an uphill struggle if he was going to win. No doubt, he got wound up in the witness box and blew his top, and undermined his position further.

I don't blame Mozzer for trying it on. He would (or should) have been told by his lawyers that winning would be an uphill struggle. It must be a real pain to have lost, but there you are, life goes on. To raise it to the level of high drama is just pointless.

David T, you may well be right about the court case, but then again you may not have a clue. I don't know, and I doubt you do either. Were you in the court room? did you hear all evidence first hand? Have you studied the law in this area and applied it to the evidence of the case? Or did you just read about it in a magazine like the rest of us?

All I do know is it was very strange for a judge to make such a personal attack on Morrissey. That calls into question the mentality of the judge, just as Morrissey said. Doesn't mean Morrissey deserved to win the case, but it suggests the case was being presided over by a guy who shouldn't be a judge.

But I did read the judgement of the Court of Appeal, which set out the basics of partnership law. Judges sometimes do "invent" law in obscure and novel areas to get the result that they desire, particularly when the case is political. But partnership law is pretty settled, and there really isn't a political dimension to the case - I'd be astonished if the judge had ever heard of Moz before the case began

As for the interview, although I enjoyed reading it (it was very kind of this girl Gemma to take the time to transcribe it, that must have taken eons), I did find that the interviewer was way too much of a suck up. Do you have to be that sycophantic in order for Morrissey to grant you an interview these days?

1. I think Moz is handsome with a great physique.

2. I don't know what your anger is supposed to accomplish. You make it sound like he is going down to the plastic surgeon and asking the doctor to make him look as hideous as he possibly can.

3. Reading some of the other things you've written, you sound like a complete psychopath, and I hope i don't bump into at any future Moz shows...or in a dark alleyway for that matter.

I'm glad you enjoyed the interview. as for Sean being sycophantic, yeah I noticed that myself actually, it disappointed me too. it's one of Sean's only faults as far as I'm concerned, he allows himself to be pretty biased in his interviews; he will persistently criticise what he dislikes, and compliment what he likes. he can be really harsh when he criticises sometimes, so I was hoping for some of that, but... didn't get it. ah well. =)

I mean, sure, you can feel it but no grovelling please. Leave the interview with a little dignity.

I saw him at the last concert arriving in a black cab and entering via the stage door. How very...err, I can't think of the right word but you know what I mean.

That means if he went to the Saturday concert, Sunday concert (concluded from the comment "I'll see you tonight") and I saw him on the Tuesday, he went to three concerts at the very least.

I have this picture at home with Moz at an awards ceremony, speaking to Bob Geldolf's daughter (of all people!) and Sean is there as well hanging around (in the words of my mother) well, like a bad smell.

Granted, I don't know him personally but from what I have heard from people who do, one shouldn't be surprised if he's a little on the shallow side.

Then again, there was The Detainees....

Jim

I've seen that picture you mentioned, I dunno if Sean's hanging around like a bad smell though... I don't know about 'shallow', but he could have been more critical in this interview. I mean, I can definitely understand wanting to show your heroes your appreciation for them, and after some thought I don't think sycophancy is the right word because it implies there's very little sincerity in the compliments, which there is a lot of here... and I agree with you Jim that Sean and Moz got along well (it was sweet to hear them laughing together) and the interview was nicely relaxed... but I still think it would've been interesting to hear Sean laying into Morrissey with the, er, criticalness that I know he's capable of. and Sophia, I think that's a good point about Morrissey granting interviews to people he knows aren't going to criticise him much.

as for 'The Detainees' - hmm, I used to like it, but I don't think it's as good as his second novel, 'It's What He Would've Wanted'.