Which has been the best decade for Morrissey songs?

Which has been the best decade for Morrissey-sung songs (id est including Smiths)


  • Total voters
    71

Maurice E

Junior Member
Well, it looks like we probably won't be getting any more new songs released this year (although there's a small chance of something on Swords), so a fitting time, perhaps, to appraise the three decades' worth of material (solo and Smith)...
 
Last edited:
Well, it looks like we probably won't be getting any more new songs released this year (although there's a small chance of something on Swords), so a fitting time, perhaps, to appraise the three decades worth of material (solo and Smith)...

Maurice. You're not seriously asking which decade was Morrissey's best, are you? With a straight face?

I love a lot of his 90s and 00s work, but this isn't really a question.

morrissey53.jpg


1760840.jpg
 
Last edited:
Almost impossible.

Voted November to Maladjusted, but only because I couldn't live without Vauxhaul and I.
 
Maurice. You're not seriously asking which decade was Morrissey's best, are you? With a straight face?

I love a lot of his 90s and 00s work, but this isn't really a question.

morrissey53.jpg


1760840.jpg

yeah, it's a bit of a no-brainer (as they say) but still interesting to see the percentages.
in the mind of Moz, his 80's stuff and 00's stuff is the best, based on the selection of songs he's played live in recent years, at least ...
 
Minor point I know, but is it just me or is 'Who Ate Me Curry?' a spectacularly unfunny gag. Maybe as a one off quip, but everytime it's referenced ? I just don't get it. Is it meant to be a comment on the quality of the album ? Is it a reference to something Moz said ? :confused:
Also, I didn't vote, cos I can't see any possible value in these polls.
Colour me grumpy :crazy:
 
Minor point I know, but is it just me or is 'Who Ate Me Curry?' a spectacularly unfunny gag. Maybe as a one off quip, but everytime it's referenced ? I just don't get it. Is it meant to be a comment on the quality of the album ? Is it a reference to something Moz said ? :confused:
Also, I didn't vote, cos I can't see any possible value in these polls.
Colour me grumpy :crazy:

yep, soz it is a bit unfunny, but it was how Moz referred to it at a couple of live shows. don't shoot the messenger!

value in these polls? well, Moz has been ramming his post-2000 material down our throats in the live shows in recent years, in the belief that it's the best stuff he's ever done (backed up by interview comments and song selection on the last singles collection).
if only he could see polls like this, he may begin to appreciate the considerable decline in quality and actually do something about it...
 
Last edited:
In other words, what's better? - winning the lottery, receiving a massage, or having a red hot poker shoved up your back passage?
 
Maurice. You're not seriously asking which decade was Morrissey's best, are you? With a straight face?

I love a lot of his 90s and 00s work, but this isn't really a question.

morrissey53.jpg


1760840.jpg

Bloody hell, that's a gorgeous photo. Back to the subject at hand: it's a strange and mysterious phenomenom that rock musicians, like athletes, tend to peak early. You would think that time, life experiences, honing one's craft, etc. make one better, but that rarely seems to be the case. Writers, painters and actors get better, jazz and classical musicians get better, but not pop musicians.
 
Your Arsenal
Vauxhall & I

Enough said.

And yet.

The Smiths
Hatful of Hollow
Meat Is Murder
The Queen Is Dead
The World Won't Listen
Strangeways Here We Come
Rank
Viva Hate
Most of the "funny little singles" that comprise Bona Drag

I'm in awe just reading that list. :bow:
 
And yet.

The Smiths
Hatful of Hollow
Meat Is Murder
The Queen Is Dead
The World Won't Listen
Strangeways Here We Come
Rank
Viva Hate
Most of the "funny little singles" that comprise Bona Drag

I'm in awe just reading that list. :bow:

You're absolutely right. I'm making my decision :thumb:
 
Bloody hell, that's a gorgeous photo. Back to the subject at hand: it's a strange and mysterious phenomenom that rock musicians, like athletes, tend to peak early. You would think that time, life experiences, honing one's craft, etc. make one better, but that rarely seems to be the case. Writers, painters and actors get better, jazz and classical musicians get better, but not pop musicians.

Youth makes pop music what it is. I don't say this out of a moist-eyed nostalgia for the glorious genius of youth, necessarily; half the time it's just that the young are stupid and naive enough to act with the boldness and pretension that makes pop music great. Either way, never discount youth for its own sake. It shouldn't make that much of a difference, but we all know it does.

For mighty were the auxiliars which then stood
Upon our side, we who were strong in love!
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!​
 
Even though I'm a solo fan more than a Smiths man, I'd have to go with the 80s.

It's quite fascinating how Morrissey never really changes (IMO) but the mini-era around each album is so different. Was watching Quarry-period footage today and thought "that's not the Morrissey of now" -- 5 years feels like a decade ago.
 
Youth makes pop music what it is. I don't say this out of a moist-eyed nostalgia for the glorious genius of youth, necessarily; half the time it's just that the young are stupid and naive enough to act with the boldness and pretension that makes pop music great. Either way, never discount youth for its own sake. It shouldn't make that much of a difference, but we all know it does.

Partly true, but there are plenty of bands who make successful music into their 40's and beyond. I'm not a fan of either but U2 and The Red Hot Chilly Pepper have both enjoyed some of their biggest critical and commercial success in their 40's.
Paul Weller's last album (22 Dreams), made on the cusp of his 50th, was possibly the most acclaimed album of his career. It sold pretty well too. Some of Bob Dylan's recent albums have been considered to be among his best along with those by Bruce Springroll.
So I don't think we can really put down Morrissey's disappointing decade to the fact that he was over 40...
 
I won't vote until I can make a fully educated decison, but based on what I know I would have to go with the 80's.

90's versus 00's is not such a tough choice for me as I'm a sucker for all the post-Quarry stuff although admittedly I haven't heard Maladjusted or a lot of the bits and pieces from the 90's compilations.
 
Partly true, but there are plenty of bands who make successful music into their 40's and beyond. I'm not a fan of either but U2 and The Red Hot Chilly Pepper have both enjoyed some of their biggest critical and commercial success in their 40's.
Paul Weller's last album (22 Dreams), made on the cusp of his 50th, was possibly the most acclaimed album of his career. It sold pretty well too. Some of Bob Dylan's recent albums have been considered to be among his best along with those by Bruce Springroll.
So I don't think we can really put down Morrissey's disappointing decade to the fact that he was over 40...

I agree with you. I think older artists are also wonderful, but in a different way. I'm not sure how I would distinguish them, exactly. Probably just a vague thing like spirit or energy. The superb "Stanley Road" is much more polished, assured, and well-crafted than "Setting Sons", but there's no contest as to which I prefer.

Perhaps the difference is that, later in their careers, musicians are on a career track. I don't mean they are money-grubbing careerists, just that, beyond a certain point, they're a brand, a mini-industry unto themselves. Pop music needs inspiration far more than technical skill.

For example, you mentioned U2. I distinctly remember them crossing a line in the late Eighties from talented amateurs to actual musicians. In interviews they'd talk about learning all the chords on the guitar and how to write "proper" songs. Certainly they continued making good music after, say, 1987, but their most exciting songs are the ones early in their career when they were just mucking about with sound. It was when they embraced the whole rock and blues traditions, and tried to become actual musicians (only Larry was a trained player), that they became both better and worse. Better from the standpoint of craftsmanship, worse in the way the music began to lack spirit and (pardon me) pop. You can see this on the much-maligned "Rattle and Hum", which is the "professionalized" version of "The Joshua Tree". They only regained their form (briefly) when they began experimenting with electronic music, that is, they went back to being amateurs for the space of an album or two.

You can more or less discern the same arc in New Order. When Barney tried to write proper lyrics for the last few albums, the songs nosedived. Zonked out of his mind on drugs, making up gibberish as he went along, he was a much better songwriter. :)

And to bring it back around to Morrissey, well, I've gone on the record many times with my opinion that his voice has never sounded better. Years of Refusal has some of his most technically strong work ever. Yet I still love-- and often prefer-- the older "substandard" vocals, even as far back as the early bootlegs from The Smiths' first shows.
 
Back
Top Bottom