"Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guardian Music Blog

Found this in The Guardian website...

Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it? by Stephen Kelly - The Guardian Music Blog
After a 5,000-mile trip from LA to Copenhagen, a Morrissey fansite owner was looking forward to seeing his favourite artist in concert. Instead he was refused entry and given a lifetime ban
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Oh, the semantic point of not replying to yourself, while replying multiple times in a thread in quick succession in a thread to bolster a position and make it look like more than one person is supporting a previous point is entirely a different matter, My apologies.

Just as smug and pathetic as your 'friend'.
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Ok lets not get carried away and lose the focus here. The problem is that this site bann posts that critizie "Janbaxer/Walter ego" and reveals that he runs the fake blog.

BUT this site admits to post things about how people wish Morrissey had cancer.

I think that is quite serious. It would be good if you could try to solve this somehow as the site also has a lot of useful info about Morrissey for "real" fans

Actually, he does not. I know the IP and geographical location of the person that makes those posts, and it ain't him, so stop it.
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

No. Oh and it's ok to hope Morrissey gets cancer? No reply to whoever asked that?

You did post multiple times in quick succession anonymously to make it look like more people were supporting your point. Ask another question and evade my point again, would you please?
 
Wow this story has been bringing out a lot of the old Morrissey fans and associates of yesteryear! Everyone has been talking about it. I personally just find the whole thing extremely sad, for Morrissey as well as David. We all know of Morrissey's long history of excommunicating friends, associates etc., but I think that even this has caught many people off guard. This story couldn't have come at a worse time for him either I am afraid, in the middle of a tour and searching for a label. I personally feel that this isn't the way to attract new fans nor labels to the music; most of his older, long-time fans and friends are gone. I struggle to think of many fans that were actually there from the very beginning on the first solo tour that still follow him around, save people like Hugh, Chris, Manuel, Greg, Russ, and a few others that pop up here and there, etc. (Julia was not around in the beginning). If he keeps this up, I am afraid he might lose out on many new fans, because it was quite great after Quarry was released to see so many new and younger fans gaining interest. He needs to sort himself out.
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

You did post multiple times in quick succession anonymously to make it look like more people were supporting your point. Ask another question and evade my point again, would you please?

I REPLIED to OTHER PEOPLE who also think the same. I haven't got 'another question' for you, and nor would I ever post or visit this page again, because if anything is proof of how low this place has sunk, it's the cancer post that has seemingly been allowed/ignored. No wonder Solo is mostly visited by the vicious and crazy element of Morrissey 'fans'. Enjoy your pathetic power trip, I hope Solo goes down sooner rather than later because clearly you're all in on it together, the so-called 'mods' and a select few weirdos. It must burn to know your idol cannot stand you.
 
I saw this story a few days ago, but I am not 100% sure what to say about it (Hey, what if Moz finds out who I am and bans me from his shows?).

For the first several years of his career, we could all buy "I'm ignored/attacked by the media because I'm not the Flock of Seagulls" line because it was plausible. There were only a few media outlets in comparison to today, and you either got on TOTP or you were relegated to no-man's land. It didn't hurt that the media played their dutiful part in making fun of him. Additionally, he could cut down the "dreck" on the radio as being unworthy challengers because he was the young upstart who sold his music to a smaller (yet, supposedly more intellectual) crowd than Frankie Goes To Hollywood. This philosophy is the complete underpinning of the entire indie music scene where the kids dress up in retro clothes and pat themselves on the back for not listening to Top 40 radio.

Now, the game has changed. Today when he complains about the state of music, it's a bit like Tuesdays With Morrie. A reporter shows up and gets an obligatory quote from the old geezer about how it was back in 'Nam and they go on with their day.

"I'm here to interview Morrissey. What shall I talk with him about?"
"Ask him how the music was back in the day. He loves it when people talk about that!"

"So, Grandpa Moz, tell us what it was like back in the day when you were starting your career?"
"Back in my day, we wrote music! We didn't prance around like a bunch of fools! Why, we never would have stood for the likes of Michael Buble! *Hack* Hack* *Wheeze* We had real music in the top 40!"
"Cor blimey!"

I think that Morrissey understands this, and I think that a lot of the whining, lawsuits, and cease and desist letters is some attempt to try to convince people that he's not Grandpa Moz that journalists quietly nod in agreement during the interview before racing off to Lady Gaga's show. With each bit of moaning and lawsuits that he cooks up, he makes himself look like an actual threat to the establishment that the media and record labels continue to actively plot against. The media helps feed this because his outbursts against these plots are the lengthiest time they spend writing about him anymore.

"Morrissey complained bitterly about something. Film at 11."

Yes, Moz hates the media, Michael Buble, the state of the radio, scientists who test on animals, etc. They buy him space in the papers while they drop in a tag about how he's on tour or has a new compilation in stores.

But this isn't the entirety of the story about why the media only covers his complaining. He used to get the cover and several pages in magazines where he discussed a range of topics. Since the NME fiasco and his conspiracy theories, the media has learned to keep it short and light and hit all of the things that they know he'll be happy with.

"So you hate today's music, right?"
"Yes, bloody awful!"
"How is the tour?"
"I love my fans! They keep me going despite not having a label."
"Ok. I know you're a busy man, and I've got a plane to catch. Thank you for your time."

Notice that the last time that he was on the radio that he accused the DJs of purposefully editing his interview of all of the royal wedding comments because of a greater conspiracy to put a happy face on the occasion. Yes, maybe. But who knows what else he said? Considering what happened with the NME fiasco where he accused them of editing him comments in a way to make him look racist, they may have simply found it easier just to cut out the entire segment. After all, you can't sue if the DJs make you look boring as opposed to keeping only select bits that he can use to accuse them of portraying him in the wrong light.

Banning DavidT from the shows was probably in the making for quite some time. However, it probably came to a head after it became apparent that this site was the only place that anybody offered any discussion about the new material. I haven't read that closely to what has been going on, but I presume that the journalistic world was not set afire with discussion. If you happened to read page 4 of the entertainment section of some paper on that particular day, you might have seen a blurb about it. Since the media basically ignored it, he needed to go after people who didn't ignore it.

Some people point out that Moz is out of touch with the current state of the media. He could cultivate a "real" website and release his music on iTunes without a label. Many people just assume that he's an old geezer who doesn't know how the kids do it these days. I don't necessarily buy that. Whenever he is asked about it during interviews, he gives silly excuses about how this is how he expects things to be done as if this was still 1985 with a proper label and publicity tour....which is the equivalent argument of refusing to use computers because they no longer make software for Commodore 64s. There may be cheaper, faster, and much more advanced systems out there, but by damned, I'm going to keep with a Commodore 64 and complain that it takes 5 hours for it to print out 3 sheets of paper.

He wants things done as they were back in 1985 because that's what his shtick was designed for. It wasn't designed for the internet where a band can simply put their music out there and attract their own fan base without having to beg the radio for airplay. It wasn't designed for 200+ cable channels, videos on demand, and thousands of music blogs that can be read around the world. It wasn't designed for not having to wait until TOTP asks him to perform his new song where it then airs one afternoon on British television when he could simply upload something on YouTube and be instantly seen at any time by anyone around the world.

His entire marketing ploy since the early days of his career was that the mainstream media and the record labels exclude him from the sort of riches that Lady Gaga received. If he turned around and released his own music on his own label and enjoyed some level of economic success from the venture, that would be like showing that the emperor has no clothes. Part of what keeps him going is being able to shake his fist at some record company executive and convince his fan base that they duped him into recording an album so they could mischievously dump every copy of his new album in the Thames as opposed to letting his "intelligent" music share the same airwaves as Michael Buble. He wants to win by the "old" rules. As such, this is why Morrissey actively ignores the progresses made in media and stubbornly holds on to how it was in the old days.

Frankly, it probably bothers him that his fan base can simply come to a website like this by the thousands and circumvent having to plead with NME for tiny scraps of media coverage.

"I didn't know you were on tour!"
"Gosh darn journalists conspired not to report that I was on tour!"
"But why?"
"Because I'm too intelligent for their audience and they want to keep me away from my potential sizable fan base!"
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

You did post multiple times in quick succession anonymously to make it look like more people were supporting your point. Ask another question and evade my point again, would you please?

How about you answer his question regarding why it's ok to post here that you hope Morrissey gets cancer?
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Point out the post where that is and we'll deal with it. We rely on users to report posts using the report post button (the exclamation mark in a triangle) if they think they see something that breaks the rules. If nothing gets reported, we don't deal with it, as we can't see and react to every single post. If you report it, we'll discuss it as a group and come to a decision, just like we do with every other reported post.
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

How about you answer his question regarding why it's ok to post here that you hope Morrissey gets cancer?

How is that different than hoping someone 'ends his days very soon in an M3 pile-up'?
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Point out the post where that is and we'll deal with it. We rely on users to report posts using the report post button (the exclamation mark in a triangle) if they think they see something that breaks the rules. If nothing gets reported, we don't deal with it, as we can't see and react to every single post. If you report it, we'll discuss it as a group and come to a decision, just like we do with every other reported post.

here's one:

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threa...t-show?p=1986662019&viewfull=1#post1986662019
"It's tragic that all those "Morrissey is ill" and "has cancer" rumours didn't containt a bit more truth to them."
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

here's one:

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/threa...t-show?p=1986662019&viewfull=1#post1986662019
"It's tragic that all those "Morrissey is ill" and "has cancer" rumours didn't containt a bit more truth to them."

Morrissey said once: "Personally I hope Johnny Rogan ends his days very soon in an M3 pile-up."

It appears what you want is a double standard.

* note in case it isn't clear, it does not mean I agree with either statement just because they appear on this site.
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Morrissey said once: "Personally I hope Johnny Rogan ends his days very soon in an M3 pile-up."

It appears what you want is a double standard.

* note in case it isn't clear, it does not mean I agree with either statement just because they appear on this site.

Your last sentence is very telling.... you may not agree, but you, personally, have provided the platform for the offending poster to say that he wished Morrissey had cancer. When Morrissey says he wants Johnny Rogan dead, or Margaret Thatcher's head lopped off on a guillotine, or a lot of other things that he says, he often takes a lot of stick for it... right up to being investigated by the police for various comments if memory serves. But in any case he accepts the consequences of his free speech without hiding behind other people. Complaining that he was taken out of context by a journalist is very different from complaining that his unedited words aren't his responsibility.

By your comment that you disagree, it sounds as if you want it both ways - you want to have (and by extension your posters to have) free speech, but you refuse to take responsibility for and feel slighted when you have to suffer from the consequences of providing a very public platform where comments wishing harm on Morrissey (or other posters - the only time that kind of thing seems to be taken down is when it applies to a mod) is tolerated, free of consequence.

It would even be different if this site were called "musicchat.com" or something like that, and it were a general forum for discussing anyone and most importantly (since the "other music" forum exists) if it DIDN'T HAVE HIS NAME ALL OVER IT. You are using HIS NAME to direct traffic to this site - essentially using his name to advertise this site as a place for discussion, and therefore he has the right to complain when it becomes a platform for hate directed at him, other posters, and generally projecting a very bad impression - through the comments posted here onto HIS NAME. I'm not even saying that he has a legal right to stop it, because I'd assume if he did this site would be gone by now. But he has an ethical right to stand up for himself in the way that he has, and the atmosphere in the site where deathwish statements such as the above, just as one small example, are tolerated is YOUR responsibility, because you make the rules here.
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Your last sentence is very telling.... you may not agree, but you, personally, have provided the platform for the offending poster to say that he wished Morrissey had cancer. When Morrissey says he wants Johnny Rogan dead, or Margaret Thatcher's head lopped off on a guillotine, or a lot of other things that he says, he often takes a lot of stick for it... right up to being investigated by the police for various comments if memory serves. But in any case he accepts the consequences of his free speech without hiding behind other people. Complaining that he was taken out of context by a journalist is very different from complaining that his unedited words aren't his responsibility.

By your comment that you disagree, it sounds as if you want it both ways - you want to have (and by extension your posters to have) free speech, but you refuse to take responsibility for and feel slighted when you have to suffer from the consequences of providing a very public platform where comments wishing harm on Morrissey (or other posters - the only time that kind of thing seems to be taken down is when it applies to a mod) is tolerated, free of consequence.

It would even be different if this site were called "musicchat.com" or something like that, and it were a general forum for discussing anyone and most importantly (since the "other music" forum exists) if it DIDN'T HAVE HIS NAME ALL OVER IT. You are using HIS NAME to direct traffic to this site - essentially using his name to advertise this site as a place for discussion, and therefore he has the right to complain when it becomes a platform for hate directed at him, other posters, and generally projecting a very bad impression - through the comments posted here onto HIS NAME. I'm not even saying that he has a legal right to stop it, because I'd assume if he did this site would be gone by now. But he has an ethical right to stand up for himself in the way that he has, and the atmosphere in the site where deathwish statements such as the above, just as one small example, are tolerated is YOUR responsibility, because you make the rules here.

Yes. How dare David run a site relating to Morrissey and use the name Morrissey in the URL. It should be www.keithrichards-solo.com.
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Your last sentence is very telling.... you may not agree, but you, personally, have provided the platform for the offending poster to say that he wished Morrissey had cancer. When Morrissey says he wants Johnny Rogan dead, or Margaret Thatcher's head lopped off on a guillotine, or a lot of other things that he says, he often takes a lot of stick for it... right up to being investigated by the police for various comments if memory serves. But in any case he accepts the consequences of his free speech without hiding behind other people. Complaining that he was taken out of context by a journalist is very different from complaining that his unedited words aren't his responsibility.

By your comment that you disagree, it sounds as if you want it both ways - you want to have (and by extension your posters to have) free speech, but you refuse to take responsibility for and feel slighted when you have to suffer from the consequences of providing a very public platform where comments wishing harm on Morrissey (or other posters - the only time that kind of thing seems to be taken down is when it applies to a mod) is tolerated, free of consequence.

It would even be different if this site were called "musicchat.com" or something like that, and it were a general forum for discussing anyone and most importantly (since the "other music" forum exists) if it DIDN'T HAVE HIS NAME ALL OVER IT. You are using HIS NAME to direct traffic to this site - essentially using his name to advertise this site as a place for discussion, and therefore he has the right to complain when it becomes a platform for hate directed at him, other posters, and generally projecting a very bad impression - through the comments posted here onto HIS NAME. I'm not even saying that he has a legal right to stop it, because I'd assume if he did this site would be gone by now. But he has an ethical right to stand up for himself in the way that he has, and the atmosphere in the site where deathwish statements such as the above, just as one small example, are tolerated is YOUR responsibility, because you make the rules here.

Yes. How dare David run a site relating to Morrissey and use the name Morrissey in the URL. It should be www.keithrichards-solo.com.
 
I am pretty new to this forum malarky.... But it seems to me the ANONYMOUS posters that bitch & rant in 4 letter word expletives, are in need of help ! :confused:

If the sole reason is to come here, and shoot down Old Morrissey`s dodgy views on British royalty, his ropey lyrics, tone deffness to his own music, multiple excuses for Reissue failures, Jessie Chile reject, lard ass, man tits. Etc, etc etc. :crazy:

Then at least have the balls, reveal yourselves as Sith lords, so you can be exiled and have a Fatwa placed on you like the honourable David Tseng. :mad:

Dear David you`ve gone down in musical history, as the man spurned by the Asexual Moz. Removing anonymous posts returns it to a Fanzine, freedom of speech untouched. May be our Moz would have some respect for SoLow. :thumb:
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Your last sentence is very telling.... you may not agree, but you, personally, have provided the platform for the offending poster to say that he wished Morrissey had cancer. When Morrissey says he wants Johnny Rogan dead, or Margaret Thatcher's head lopped off on a guillotine, or a lot of other things that he says, he often takes a lot of stick for it... right up to being investigated by the police for various comments if memory serves. But in any case he accepts the consequences of his free speech without hiding behind other people. Complaining that he was taken out of context by a journalist is very different from complaining that his unedited words aren't his responsibility.

By your comment that you disagree, it sounds as if you want it both ways - you want to have (and by extension your posters to have) free speech, but you refuse to take responsibility for and feel slighted when you have to suffer from the consequences of providing a very public platform where comments wishing harm on Morrissey (or other posters - the only time that kind of thing seems to be taken down is when it applies to a mod) is tolerated, free of consequence.

It would even be different if this site were called "musicchat.com" or something like that, and it were a general forum for discussing anyone and most importantly (since the "other music" forum exists) if it DIDN'T HAVE HIS NAME ALL OVER IT. You are using HIS NAME to direct traffic to this site - essentially using his name to advertise this site as a place for discussion, and therefore he has the right to complain when it becomes a platform for hate directed at him, other posters, and generally projecting a very bad impression - through the comments posted here onto HIS NAME. I'm not even saying that he has a legal right to stop it, because I'd assume if he did this site would be gone by now. But he has an ethical right to stand up for himself in the way that he has, and the atmosphere in the site where deathwish statements such as the above, just as one small example, are tolerated is YOUR responsibility, because you make the rules here.

THE most intelligent post ever made on this website.

Uncleskinny, you're out of your league.
 
Re: Article: "Throwing out his own fans – has Morrissey finally lost it?" - The Guard

Morrissey hasn't finally lost it. He lost it a long time ago. He is an egomaiac of the most obscene kind. He despises anything and everybody who doesn't pander to him. He sees himself as a God.

He's a f***ing nutter and he needs help.

And that's obviously how you help the man?
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom