Is Morrissey a national treasure?

[Iona Mink]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ional-treasure

Not sure if this deserves its own thread so mods, in your infinite wisdom, please move it if you feel so pressed.

Although this comes off the back of the Falklands comment, it is not strictly about it but perhaps harks back to The Culture Show's accolade a few years back.

[Amy]

I think I've just fallen in love with Peter Paphides. He's absolutely spot-on about Morrissey nurturing his own persecution complex, and then using his fans and his band as a shield against those same imagined enemies. Pete's meticulous analysis really shows up the Tony Parsons piece for the lazy bag of crap that it is. These words in particular hit home with me:

"These days, when Morrissey opens his mouth, the scale of his delusions is embarrassing. The world is only as generous and yielding a place as the outlook you bring to bear upon it. Ironically, there's no better example of that than Moz's ex-pal Johnny Marr – a musician whose absence of rancour seems to define him. (And if Morrissey's vegetarianism seems inseparable from his dislike of people, Marr's veganism is no less a function of that joie de vivre.) I understand how Morrissey gradually turned into a post-punk Count Olaf. I understand also that it helps him (barely) function as an artist, albeit a pantomime version of his former self. But it diminishes him as a person".

[Amy]

So I've spent a while trawling through the comments on that article - wow. He is absolutely hated, isn't he? He's also a wind-up merchant of the highest order, of course, but I was struck by one comment; "Without Marr, he has disappeared into the vacuum of his own arrogance". How depressingly accurate.

[Cornflakes]

(And if Morrissey's vegetarianism seems inseparable from his dislike of people, Marr's veganism is no less a function of that joie de vivre.)

Yes. I do get the feeling that if I told Morrissey I ate fish he would have me escorted from the building, whereas Johnny would probably give me a disapproving but friendly look and try to tempt me with a stuffed mushroom.

(Of course, in reality, they would probably both ask me why the fuck I thought they would be interested).

[the_kaz]

So I wonder not only if he gives a damn about being seen as a national treasure, but whether to give him that accolade would actually be the ultimate insult.

Come on, of course Morrissey wants to be considered a "national treasure"! This is Morrissey we're talking about! He practically feeds off adoration of any kind, and always complains that he doesn't get enough recognition.

[cornelius blaze]

[Orson Swells]

Bizarre piece. This whole idea of being a "nation treasure" is such toe-curling Late Review, middlebrow nonsense. As for the "we still love him, don't we?" subtitle - when was Morrissey ever this cosy Alan Bennett caricature that everybody loved? He never was and he never will be. As far as I am aware he has always been pretty much loathed by the vast majority. It's almost as if each generation comes up with a new reason to legitimate their dislike for him: being miserable, a vegetarian, monarchy-hating, left-wing, right-wing, etc.

Here Morrissey is critised for holding the same opinions he had 30 years ago - but surely being consistent about such matters is a good thing? The pious, self-importance of Peter Paedophides makes you wonder if there isn't another agenda behind his all-out character assassination. The Guardian really is a sad pantomime of the newspaper it used to be. I mean, what exactly is the article about? Morrissey in "Human Beings Have Opinions Shock". There seems no point to it. Unless it's to irk people like me. And I hate being irked on a Sunday morning.

[Dave2006]

I can't be bothered to wade through 9 pages of comments... but the second to last one (at present) sums it up for me, from Dougie1111:

Sometimes he talks crap and sometimes he talks sense. Given the fact we are force-fed anodyne karaoke, x-factor crap all the time (see today's article on Alexandra Burke) thank god we have people like Morrissey who at least have opinions and are not manufactured. And good on him for his comments on the awful royals. He's only expressing what so many of us think about '..this royal line that's still polluting..'

Dave

[Irregular Regular]

Morrissey is not a national treasure.
He is however, the last of the famous international playboys.

[Maurice E]

Here Morrissey is critised for holding the same opinions he had 30 years ago - but surely being consistent about such matters is a good thing? The pious, self-importance of Peter Paedophides makes you wonder if there isn't another agenda behind his all-out character assassination.

I think (90% certain) Morrissey dropped out of a Peter Paphides interview about two years ago at short notice. PP said that he was relieved, and that lots of journalists actually hate the prospect of interviewing Morrissey. Paphides is married to Caitlin Moran who has also turned into a bit of a Moz hater in recent times.
Your wider comments are interesting and largely true. However, I think one problem is that, back in the 80s, Morrissey seemed to have a pretty sharp intellect, and was always very witty. His politics were also generally consistent (radical left-wing). In recent times, the sharpness has gone, the wit has been blunted, and his politics are all over the place (coming across more like Jeremy Clarkson half the time e.g. moaning about speed cameras and paying taxes). Then you've got all of his clumsily expressed (and seemingly ill-informed) comments about immigration.
The other difference is that back in the 80s, he was co-writing and releasing new songs of an incredibly high standard every few months, so you could absolutely love the music even if you didn't like his opinions. Now he's putting out an album's worth of pretty patchy indie-pop every few years, so there's less of a focus on brilliant new music, and more of a focus on his frequently foolish/insensitive (and occasionally intelligent/amusing) proclamations.

[CrystalGeezer]

Opinions from theese people is meaningless. They may sound eloquent and wordy, but would've checked into a mental institution six monthes in if faced with fighting the same battle Morrissey fights. Ignore it.

[Amy]

Opinions from theese people is meaningless. They may sound eloquent and wordy, but would've checked into a mental institution six monthes in if faced with fighting the same battle Morrissey fights. Ignore it.

The difference is that Morrissey creates his own battles, willingly, and most people don't. Having created conflict, he then relishes the opportunity to portray himself as the victim. I think it's much more calculated than you're making out. "Moz against the world" is just a line that he's been peddling since the beginning; rarely has it actually been true. "If George Michael had to live my life for five minutes, he'd strangle himself with the nearest piece of cord".