this simply isn't fair!!! how can you possibly choose? i didn't vote because i just couldn't.

The Smiths were perfect.

pick The Smiths, but it's like choosing one parent over the other; boy do I feel bad now.

Morrissey solo is brilliant, when he cares to be.

But The Smiths are the greatest band of the last forty years.

I voted Smiths.

Musically wise I'd go for The Smiths, but lyrically I go for Morrissey.

They should have put Johnny Marr and the Healers in too. I would have voted for them.

You can't have one without other.

"The Smiths" were who we know they were and without whom we wouldn't have our "Morrissey" of today. It's a whole genesis, coming of age, adulthood thing. Is there really any point discussing this? I mean, I'm happy to contribute, obviously, but fear to just "rehash" the same old things again.

No matter how much I love Morrissey (a lot), no band or artist will ever mean as much to me as The Smiths. I know I won't always be able to relate to the tales of teenaged woe, but I doubt there will ever be anyone else that can reach out and resonate with me more than Smiths-era Morrissey has done. It isn't that I don't adore his solo work, I just can't relate to it as much, and, of course, there is the absence of Johnny Marr. Yes, it's been said before, but it will continue to be said for years to come - Johnny Marr was one of the most innovative guitarists of his generation, and Moz's solo stuff is just not in the same league as The Smiths, sonically speaking. While most of Morrissey's solo work is incredible, there have been numerous, erm, lapses in quality control, shall we say, that The Smiths just did not have. And yes, Morrissey has been a solo artist for over four times as long as he was a Smith, thus giving him many more opportunities to make mistakes, that doesn't disguise the fact that almost everything The Smiths produced (bar a few crappy covers) was perfect.

Vastly improved in his solo work. There's nothing in the Smiths catalogue that compares to songs like Jack the Ripper or We'll Let You Know.

The Smiths were more consistent musically but that was probably more due to the age they were at the time. Drive and determination and all that.

Overall, I get more out of Morrissey's solo work.

I just love Moz as a solo singer. He's more fun, quite simply. I mean, come one of those "dark nights of the soul" I always reach for the 1st Smiths LP...They made perhaps more poignant music, with the likes of "I Know Its Over" and "...Cradle".

Solo Moz can often sound a bit lightweight in comparison, I guess, but he's a MUCH better singer these days, and the tunes - at their best - are much more hummable and melodically strong (just my opinion, I figure many will disagree).

Simply put, I can't listen to a lot of Smiths songs nowadays as they make me cry. That's testament to their power, but I cant stick on Hatful of Hollow and yodle joyfully along, as I can with The More You Ignore Me...or Boxers.

I dont think I've really made a point here, apart from to say that I'll take the Smiths to cushion my misery and I'll take the Moz alone to bolster my joviality. Or something...:)

Jilted John

Lyrics from Morrissey are poetry...and musically the Smiths are simply the best band i've ever heard !

comments ive made to the same question on http://www.strangeways.tk/ :

its hard for me to say- inever think of it as "The Smiths or Morrissey"- but id probably say Moz.

"idont even make the separation most of the time other than for chronological purposes. there was The Smiths epoch and now there is the solo epoch, but its all Morrissey to me.

icant really say iprefer one to the other, but ido find myself listenin to and wanting to listen to Morrissey's solo material more often. theyre the songs iprefer to sing along to ithink. ill admit that Moz's solo career bears more holes than that of The Smiths, but iwill also argue that Moz's solo cannon has juste as many highlights and that Your Arsenal and Vauxhall And I are as good as any Smiths album."

"im sorry, but too many Smiths fans overrate The Smiths in relation to Morrissey's solo output. ithink it may be some odd sense of loyalty to Marr that propels them but in any case too many hava a far too rose-tinted view of the past in comparison to the present (or not as distant past).

its as if the exclusively-Smiths fans seem to think that The Smiths' catalogue is completely flawless, and while in practical terms and in relation to the entire history of music it basically is, not every Smiths moment was perfect. ifind people tend to seize on the shortcomings of Morrissey with a pre-existing disposition that he cant possibly be as good without Marr, while they convieniently overlook those of The Smiths. everyone is out to prove why Morrissey is not as good as The Smiths as some sort of revenge for his casting off of Marr into the wilderness, but Marr took that walk on his own.

there is no such thing as a "bad" Smiths song, but only one album is back to front A material and that is The Queen Is Dead. Morrissey has two albums that are front to back A material in Your Arsenal and Vauxhall And I and whether or not you think these albums are quite as good as The Queen Is Dead or even Strangeways, Here We Come and Meat Is Murder there should be no denying that they rank amongst Morrissey's best work, solo or otherwise. iwill admit that Morrissey has produced far more misses and a significantly higher percentage of less than A material in his solo career than with The Smiths, but at this point hes also produced juste as much A material as The Smiths. ilov Johnny Marr, but Morrissey was quite clearly the one who made the band great- he was the Muse.

and the suggestion that The Smiths were somehow far more diverse is another rosey recollection. yes, each of their albums (and compilations) show significant differences and move in different directions from one to the next, but they all fall under the same general umbrella. they certainly dont display a greater range than what Morrissey has done in his solo career. iwill agree that Morrissey has always worked within the same general territory through his entire career- Smiths and solo- but within that territory, where the core is represented best by albums like The Queen Is Dead and Vauxhall And I, the most wildly different albums are surely Kill Uncle and Southpaw Grammar and then probably Your Arsenal."

"one thing it might help to keep in mind is that while The Smiths touched on all kinds genres and styles, obviously so did Morrissey- it was his band. he doesnt hav to do that all over again in his solo career to prove anything- he done it and hes moved on.

honestly, listen to albums like Kill Uncle, Your Arsenal and Southpaw Grammar. they are the most daring albums of his career (musically) other than the debut back when he wouldntve even know better. he pushed the boundaries further on those records than on any other and, on top of that, theyre great records.

The Smiths were special, no doubt, but they were special becos Morrissey is special. icant deny that Morrissey's most consistent and prolific streak in his career was with The Smiths, but The Smiths do not hava monopoly on the genius of Moz like so many seem to think."

Smiths = Morrisey [brilliant songwriter] + Marr [brilliant musician]

Morrisey Solo = Morrisey [brilliant songwriter] + various cast of musicians [good to poor]

Simple mathematics says The Smiths.

People you can love and adore Morrissey all you want but in actual fact, if it were not for Johnny Marr and Da Smeefs, he'd still be sitting in a bedroom in his mothers house and you would never know he existed.
The Smiths were the most important band of the 20th century after The Beatles and their success allowed Moz a solo career that, let's be honest, has been hot and cold(sometimes extremely cold)
45% of you all are simply certifiable.

-The Treading Lemming

"let's go and trip a dwarf"

compared with about 35% of the Morrissey songs.
but I've overplayed the Smiths songs so much that I get as much pleasure out of the Moz back catalogue these days as I do the Smiths'...
Maurice

I Can´t have Both...

The Smiths are perfect. The Greatest band of all time.

Morrissey used to sing for them.

Morrissey is living in the moment.

It's an obvious choice - The Smiths of course, of that there is no question. Every Smiths album ranged from excellent to sublime, from Marr's terrific guitar work, Rourkes basslines that fit in so well with them, e.g. 'Barbarism Begins At Home', Joyces competent drumming and obviously Morrisseys brilliant lyrics, his voice that improved on each album and his entire persona - the way he dressed and spoke and acted was unlike anything anyone had ever seen, it was captivating.

When compared with Moz as a solo artist, there have been some terrific albums and singles yes - but theres just something lacking. Whyte and Boorer will never produce like Marr did in his prime, as one or two of Mozza's albums show - there have been some lacklustre efforts from them and even from moz himself.Morrissey as a persona is just not interesting as he was back with The Smiths, this is why there will only ever be one choice and that is The Smiths - every time.

as I look at the overall output post Smiths. Morrissey solo may have its flawed moments, but Marr's brilliance in the Smiths has been practically snuffed out...Marr's output has just been a sputtering sparkler on occassion since the end of Smiths. The Smiths were brilliant. Morrissey/Marr was brilliant. But seperate the oil from the vinegar and it's clear to see who lit whose match and who holds the torch.

My first reaction was, of course, the Smiths. I've seen both live and my fondest memories are of the Smiths. But then I thought about how much the Smiths were a part of my youth and that I could not separate the music from the bitter sweetness of growing up.

But the Smiths lasted such a short time. Moz's solo career has spanned many more albums, many (albeit not always successful)experiments in sound, and some of the most emotionally intelligent work of his career. Per album its the Smiths, but for the whole body of work, its solo for me.

Yes, I love the Smiths but everyone will vote for them so I'll pick Morrissey. Both are great.
thetexasbloke

Look what the others have done since - It's really laughable!

Yes, this is a very mean question. I have to go for Morrissey because, firstly I was too young to really get into The Smiths at the time so I have none of the nostalgia of that music being part of my life at that time, but also because though I totally respect the Marr factor and the material they produced together, the common factor is M. It's his words and voice that have captivated me and will keep me company until I am old and beyond. He's also grown as an artist so much since then.
Gotta love the Moz.

I have been waiting for this crucial poll to appear on Morrissey-solo. Crucial, because the choice can say so much about one's maturity and sense of style. I emphatically and resolutely voted for Morrissey's SOLO YEARS. The only thing that could (possibly) have prevented me from doing so would be a little excercise in political correctness called 'You are the Quarry'. Other than that, the mature Moz is superior to the young, angry and 'depressed' frontman of the Smiths ('I'm so glad to grow older...') Some will say, oh - well Marr, and Smiths are musically this and that...Well EVEN MUSCIALLY, I cannot listen to them for too long. It really does testify as to Marr's genius, but it also really is too jingly-jangly sounding for my taste. With the solo years, Morrissey goes for the more predictable, but also more plainly beautiful and melodic solutions.
And lyrically he grows wiser, while on stage - he grows infinitelly cooler - even now in his Bond or crooning years (and look).

Me, I liked the solo stuff from the very start - the production and arrangment value of Street's Viva Hate and Bona Drag are unsurpassed - much better than any Smiths stuff. It gives a definite atmosphere to the albums. Same can be said of Your Arsenal (I'd rather skip 'Uncle' here) and Vauxhaull, though it was not completely to my liking. The stuff after that is highly questionable, but the individual songs and - most importantly - his performance and presence on stage - makes the solo years an obvious choice.

By the way, 'First of the Gang to Die' is one his most beautiful songs, and that perfomance on Craig Kilborn will turn out to be a classic. But YATQ was a huge dissapointment, as was his endorsment of John Kerry (or John Stewart for that matter)(or, generally, that kind of a vulgar political involvment)

I cannot vote in this poll as I don't think of Morrissey and the Smiths as two separate entities. To me, The Smiths happened to be Morrissey's band for the first 5 years of his career, just like Alain, Boz etc. are now.

Having said that, I think his time in The Smiths is perhaps the most consistently brillant of his career. But it has always been Morrissey for me.

I could describe my love for Morrissey solo work just with one song: "Southpaw". It contains everything I love in him and that the Smiths never gaved me.
That’s the truth. I always loved Morrissey solo work more than that with the Smiths. The first record I bought was Viva hate, "which set the pace for the rest of ´my´ days".
Another important thing that determines my opinion is the sense I have that Morrissey solo work was always a fight against that kind of people, who include so many of that so called fans, that trough his solo years never stopped criticizing, that never ever believed in him, that still don’t believe. I believe and that’s my fight.

i dont know... its not an easy question for me
but still i love moz more than life...

His voice has improved incredibly in his solo career. Sometimes the way he sings in early Smiths songs bothers me a little in a grating kind of way. Especially on "Heaven Knows..." and a few others. I describe it as "Elvis Presley strangling Kermit the Frog." It really makes me crave the smooth vocals on a song like "Whatever Happens, I love you". Flawless.

Also, "A Swallow on My Neck" is the greatest song of all time. I wish there was a whole album with similar production. It sounds sooo good.

Peace - Man of Vision

You'd have to be either deaf or American to choose Morrissey!

Back in the smiths days, Morrissey were honest, untouched, just lovely...hmm...dont now were im going with this...look, all im sayin is Morrissey has changed, and not for the better (both musicaly and as a person).

Can you honestly say that, you are the quarry or maladjusted could be compared to any of the smiths records?

yes, morrissey was the true brilliance in the smiths. without him they wouldn't have been what they were. so to vote for one over the other is strange as it is really one long career. that said, the music in the smiths is far and away better than the solo stuff. as were the lyrics and his whole persona. now, late in the game he is a somewhat out of touch old man (look at the bands he champions compared to the ones in his smiths days). i still love him and always will but if i am completely honest a lot of you are the quarry sounds like bland alternative rock. a great album due to his voice and lyrics (and some of the music) but not close to the true originality and brilliance of the smiths. when they started the smiths were an act of defiance against prevailing attitudes in music - a plea for passion, sincerity, emotion and beauty in music in the face of the icy distance and coolness of much of post punk. they changed music, influenced everything and were a true phenomenon in the best possible sense. amazing as much of the solo output is none of this can be said.
however, viva hate is probably my favorite album moz has had anything to do with. a sad album tinged with an aching nostalgia that also carries a fair amount of bile and anger (exemplified by the title - his best).
too much of the solo output is bordering on average - that is by his lofty standards. i like a lot all of his solo work and that includes kill uncle (wonderful pop) and southpaw grammer (a bold move which i wish he would repeat). it just doesn't compete with the musical and lyrical content of the smiths.
morrissey was to a large degree the smiths. there is no real division. sadly, despite this, he has not since those days managed to find a songwriter of the true brilliance of johnny marr.
i am not, however, one of those people that has been complaining and criticising since the end of the smiths. moz moved on brilliantly, and a chance was most necessary.

As much as i like the Smiths Moz solo will have to get it.....Vauxhal & i is the a near perfect album.....

Tt is impossible to get your point across when answering this question. This would take the best part of a book 'The Smiths v Morrissey'. It could be an absolute classic and somebody should write it that is, like myself, somewhere in the middle of preference to either, for reasons that are too many to state and would generally require individual in-depth explanations.

I can even picture the cover, two boxers in a ring, One being Morrissey as 23 the other being Morrissey at 43.

The book should have no real conclusion, it would not be an exercise for the author to convince us why he likes one or the other. It should complexly pull you in different directions and leave you more confused before you started reading it.

Well, what a can of worms I've opened in suggesting this poll. I agree it's almost impossible to decide but I guess it really comes down to the question of whether you preferred Morrisey as the lead singer of the Smiths or Morrissey as, well, Morrissey. Ultimately it's a poll of Morrissey v Morrissey, and of course he always wins - Simon

if you are american you'll probably choose Morrissey as the majority of you will have heard his work before the smiths.

This poll should have an option for both, how can you seperate the two. Who could justify seperating the two.

I chose Morrissey's solo career. Those are the songs I listen to the most.

For me the answer to this question is blatantly obvious. So vast is the margin between the two possibilities, that the mere fact that it is being asked, makes me slightly offended. The Smiths are superior to solo morrissey in all aspects(songs, lyrics, arrangements, cover art, etc.). In the Smiths, Morrissey was lucky enough to colloborate with the undisputed guitarist of his generation. Johnny's Marr's abilities as a songwriter, guitarist, producer, and arranger were astonishing. Solo Morrissey has never come near to replacing Johnny's Marr's musical presence. While the Smiths arrangements were consisntently fascinatingly layed and sonically complex, solo morrissey's arrangements have been simpler (choosing to paint with broader, more obvious strokes musically). Also, it is important to note, that the smiths possessed one of rock music's most underrated rhythm sections. One only needs to listen to This Charming Man, The Queen is Dead or Death of a Disco Dancer to realize this. The dynamism, artistry and power that those four members created when working together was almost without parrellel or precendent in the history of pop music. The catalogue that they amassed between 1983-1987 is the most profilic (after the Beatles) in 20th century British pop music.
Though Morrissey's solo career has attained some very noteworthy artisitc heights, it has come nowhere near the Smiths remarkable status (not many artists, since The smiths disbanded, have). I would contend that even Morrissey would agree with the Smiths superiority. The fact that 46% of people on this site deny this superiority is frankly astonishing and a little infuriating.

For those who wish to respond, please do not rely on a "well you obviously don't like solo morrissey" retort. Such a claim would be patently untrue. I own all of his albums and many of his singles. I just feel that in spite of his solo qualities, it falls far short of the Smiths phenominal achievements.

contained more brilliant songs (i.e. 3) than the entire 7 years' worth of material recorded in the Who Ate Me Curry Sessions.
M

I think that despite the flaws, songs that I feel closer to than others, Morrissey's solo work is better. Better, because he has always been, in my opinion, an experimentalist with his voice, and with the miriad of emotions that its sounds can produce. He has been the maestro of these effects, even if Alain Whyte or Boz Boorer made the music. I love the fact that each solo record shows/ed a different side of him. Alma Matters gives me one feeling, Best Friend on the Payroll another. I didn't perceive this prisma with the Smiths, as good as they were, not that this means they lacked variety. One of the best qualities of Morrissey's songs is that they dare to try new sound concepts, to be long or short, whispered or grawled. Those solo experiments have reflected better the array of Morrissey's emotions, and for that I came to know him better. I have never heard, by the way, anything as lacerating as I Have Forgiven Jesus, and people have said here he is not as moving as in the Smiths days. I simply cannot convince my ears it's true, and I've known him since 1987.

he said he was happier now than then! i go where he is the happiest =)

Morrissey is a man of many talents.

Those were the 'good old days' back then - for me and for some of you - however, for the youngsters here these days are going to be the good old days...

I am grateful for the opportunity to have been here, to listen and to wonder in absolute awe at Morrissey's amazing gift to the music world. I will treasure those days and these days forever and ever.

With love,

Strawberry.

He's earned my vote just by remaining alive.

I think all the people that have voted for the Smiths are out of their minds.

All Smiths albums were great, the same can't be said for Morrissey (Kill Uncle, Southpaw Grammar, Maladjusted). Morrissey/Marr songwriting is much stronger than any tandems with Whyte, Boorer, Day.
These types of polls cause so much friction, but since the question was asked, I have to tell the truth. "I can't be wrong all the time, I just can't be." And if Morrissey didn't really miss the past and the greatness it was, he wouldn't perform the old classics in concert.

In a 'Rock-N-Roll' point or view, it was {and is} the 'bands' such as The Beatles, The Who, The Ramones, The Jam and The Smiths who are going to be remembered as to what each one contributed to each generation in our lives! Its very hard for a solo artist to get into the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame unless they started off as a solo artist. What is my case in point? I truly believe that Morrissey would have never reeped the benefits of his success if he never connected with Johhny Marr, Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke. I believe that all of the people who are voting for Morrrissey in this poll, were not old enough to see just how powerfull The Smiths were in their day. They were the BEST at what they did and no one could even come close to the impact they made on alternative music, or plainly speaking, Rock-n-Roll! No Smiths, No Morrissey!

I've pondered this question many times and always end up asking myself a different question to resolve it:

If you could only take the back catalogue of either The Smiths or Morrissey to your desert island which would it be. Assuming the numbers of records is limited (i.e. to the maximum Smiths discs, given that they have fewer...) the answer for me is......MORRISSEY.
What about you?

Yes, it is the end of an era, so to speak, but as we all do, he has to move on, or he feels like it, to somewhere new. I'm sad I never met him in front of Sweetzer but that's all right. He's in with me ( listening to "Kill Uncle" now and am having a fabulous time, having not heard it for such a long while. It really is a quirky, great album. Well, I'm having fun anyway ) Moz, I do hope you find the home of your dreams; the place where you feel you can be the most..Morrissey! No snooping fans or photographers. Just privacy. Isn't that what it's all about? Which reminds me, once I came home to my apartment after a horrific day at work ( I did tests with people outside of our company to see how they liked/disliked a product) and my pothead neighbor Mark said,"Hey Kali, you never invite any of us over, you're scared of us" and I rolled my eyes and said, "Look, I've just worked for 10 hours, I'm fucking tired, and this is not a commune. I pay rent for this space and I don't owe you a fucking thing". And a SLAM of the door was heard. Ahhh happy days...

Well in theory there would be no Morrissey without the smiths if we're honest. But that is just in terms of existence. I think the smiths are a difinitive part of Morrissey as an artist and the social state of humankind and the country in the 80's. The two are seemingly different but reasuringly similar, because Morrissey has never lost his inate ability to be so eloquent and sharp with his words. But to choose in the terms of favouritism, thats just crazy, you just can't do it.

Smiths? brilliant indeed, but short lived. Moz with his up and downs still more prolific and lasting than The Smiths. I just can't believe there was ever a question, without him there would be no Smiths... And can we please stop talking about Johnny Marr, who cares about the guy at this point. It is the same to say that we should appreciate Elton John's present work since he used to be a good song writer... The man(Johnny)played and composed very well back them, now he has a shitty band and a even shittier haircut. Morrissey, not the Smiths, comes first, always.

I love both - it's really impossible to separate them in terms of quality, forgetting a couple of forgettable solo albums.

The Smiths were probably more consistent, but as a solo artist, he's released more great songs than he did as a Smith.

So I've gone for Morrissey solo.

It's the difference between Jesus when he was among the disciples, and when he'd risen form the dead; It's the difference between Sinatra when he was a member of the rat pack, and Sinatra since he's been dead. Somehow Morrissey managed to become a legend without dying first.

broken

The Smiths were...perfect...
a beautiful, beautiful thing...
while it lasted.

Lionel

There was a general misconception at the time that Morrissey would struggle in a post-Smiths world; the theory being that he just wrote the words and would be hopelessly lost without Marr's brilliant songwriting, musicianship and production.

What many people failed to realise at the time was that Morrissey didn't 'just write the words', he also wrote most of the top-line vocal melodies.

Marr would usually come up with a near complete backing track and Morrissey would come up with something to sing over it. Often times he would appear with something strange and unexpected -for example singing a verse over the part Marr had designed for a chorus, and singing a chorus where the verse was supposed to be.

In many respects, this technique is what gave the Smiths songs their power and uniqueness.

It also meant that Morrissey could continue to produce outstanding music post-Smiths. His songwritting style is such that he can work with a great variety of writers/arrangers.

For example Stephen Street came up with the basic track for 'Maudlin Street' and put it on cassette for Morrissey. It's a fairly simple four or five chord arrangement. Street had no idea what Morrissey would come up with. He admits to being awestruck when Morrissey appeared and laid down his vocal in one take. Morrissey wrote that melody.

He has real gift for melody. You can hear it in his phrasing. You could give the guy any piece of instrumental music and he could hum a new tune over it.

Paul McCartney (arguably the most talented melodic songwriter of all time)never had any formal music training. In the mid-sixties, he was being encouraged to study music theory by George Martin. McCartney considered it, but felt that 'knowing too much' would trap him into working in a more conventional way and he decided against it. The guy still can't read music. That's probably why music graduates don't write things like 'Elanor Rigby' and 'Helter Skelter'.

So, in a way, Morrissey's need for co-writers and arrangers has kept his music fresh and vital.

I would have to give this vote to his solo stuff, even though I grew up with The Smiths.

Smiths are the better! They have the music and lyrics on their side. It's simple. How can so many complain over his voice then? Nothing was wrong, he sang on key and with lots of passion!
Can anyone, I beg you, explain what is better with Morrissey's solo career? Hmm. No. Well. Now I'm glad. It's all very individual but let the right Mozperiod slip in! //Svan

for that last commet ("Not just a great lyricist... ").

another thing ithought id mention that ithink those voting The Smiths are overlooking is that many, if not all, of those who are voting for Morrissey (if imay speak for them after reading many of their comments and getting a feeling from them similar to that ipersonally feel) simply do not make the split between The Smiths and Morrissey. The Smiths was Morrissey, Morrissey was The Smiths. we realize that the question is intended for us to draw the comparison between the catalogue of 83-87 versus the catalogue of 88-05, but its simply not like that. for many, im sure, asking this question is like asking 83-87 versus 83-05.

even if you should strictly follow the intention of the poll, Morrissey's solo career still has to be taken in the context off coming out of The Smiths. he doesnt leave those accomplishments behind and start from scratch and so hes not trying to go back and recapture what the The Smiths had cos he keeps it always, instead he moves on to something new in his solo career. his solo records dont sound like Smiths records not becos he cant without Marr but becos hes already been there and isnt interested in going back becos its pointless.

he has taken more risks musically in his solo career and consequently has had a few more misses than in the days where he simply kept to "what he knew best". and his risks hav too often been unfairly taken to be misses by an at times or in certain numbers inflexible, unadventurous fanbase. 'Kill Uncle' is an unqualified success- a tremendous record. 'Southpaw Grammar' and 'Maladjusted' are flawed, but daring and still overall successes. 'You Are The Quarry' was a little safe perhaps, but understandably after the long hiatus and the unfair and misguided backlash over the previous two albums. still, at his peak Morrissey has easily equaled The Smiths in quality- both in respect of singular moments of brilliance and in full albums, 'Your Arsenal' and 'Vauxhall And I'.

those that continue to come here and patronize the young fans who vote for Morrissey claiming that we are too young to appreciate the greatness of The Smiths (perhaps) and that nothing since them has even come close, ihav bad news for you. you hav become your parents. those old stubborn sods who cling to their youth and recall it through foggy recollections as some sort of "golden age". you are pathetic. go see Sweet And Tender Hooligans and pretend you are in your twenties again and continue to predispose yourself to thinking that nothing will ever be as good as the first time it was good, but yure juste making a fool of yourself.

You can throw a lot of money and technology into a record and get something like Quarry which was...an OK album. But have another listen to Hatful. There's not much there except vocal, guitars, bass & drums. It's all about the songs and although Moz has had brilliant moments (Everyday is like Sunday for one), you simply cannot compete with songs like "William..", "Accept Yourself", etc. I personally look at this survey as The Morrissey Band vs. The Smiths. The synergy that Moz had with Marr will never be reproduced..perhaps not even with Marr and Moz back the helm. This does not take away from Alain and Boz who wrote some fantastic songs.

Morrissey WAS the Smiths, and even better after dropping the bagage. Love them all, moz just gets better with age.

I just love the whole, ' celibate ' thing and how Morrissey always used to keep you guessing. Anyway I know I'm 16 and I didn't live to see the whole Morrissey via The Smiths thing, but he was just ... great back in the day.