Johnny Marr's Healers made me ill

[LoafingOaf]

Browsing the newstand, I looked at a section of British pop
music magazines and, out of nostalgia for the days when
I actually read such nonsense, I started checking who was on the
covers and so forth. I noticed Uncut had a CD attached
and looked at the artists, seeing "Johnny Marr's Healers"
was the first one listed. Well, it's about time I finally get
to hear them, I thought, and paid the unreasonable 7 dollars
for the magazine. When I got home I pressed play on the CD,
jumped to the only track I was interested in, "The Last Ride,"
and quickly hit pause. Had to take a deep breath, hoping I'd
hear something to get excited about.

I hate to say it folks, but depression set in at the 30 second
mark. I can understand why the band is listed as "Johnny Marr's
Healers," because no one would give a damn about this track
if they called themselves simply "The Healers." Nor would anyone
be able to tell that a special talent such as Marr was leading this
band. It's not that the song is "bad" or in any way unpalatable.
If it came on the radio, I'd let it play without switching channels.
However, it's just so darned...generic. It's exactly like you usually
expect to find on these music magazine compilations. Just another
boringly fashionable song, like all the others. Chief among the flaws
is the the vocals. Unique vocals is one of the main things that
turns me on about bands, but Marr sounds like 10 million other singers. It was a fatal mistake not to find another singer. and it's also tragic that Marr is OK being just one of the crowd of pop
musicians playing trendy, pointless music. It was the same fatal
flaw of Electronic. Electronic wasn't horrible or embarassing,
just pointless. And what's my point? If you're expecting The Healers
to be a band to look forward to, or hoping that Johnny Marr has finally stopped wasting his talent trying to fit in with the "in" crowd and be "cool" like them playing their stupid music, well, unless they start again from ground zero, or unless their first single is in no way indicative of the rest of their album, you can count this band out. The only people who will buy their album will be doing so because of Marr's name and past glories. Johnny Marr's Healers. Ha. Better luck next time, Johnny.

What people like MArr need to understand is, we're sick of bands like this. Anyone could do a song like "The Last Ride." We don't need Johnny Marr for that. We want bands that mean something. That are special. With Morrissey AWOL, and Radiohead afraid to write pretty pop songs with Thom Yorke's voice the showcase anymore, it's especially frustrating these days. If it wasn't for Kirsty MacColl and Sinead O'Connor and a very, VERY few others, this year would have better have been skipped over completely.

[suzanne]

you may be valid, i don't know since i haven't heard anything by the Healer's yet (although spending $7 for a magazine just to get that CD was a bit tempting....amazing how you can get an entire compilation AND a magazine for that price while a "real" CD costs twice as much alone), but you know, loafing Oaf, I know you as an incredibly biased source. Any review where you feel better thinking that Johnny Marr has been a complete waste since he did that horrible thing back in 1987 can't really be that accurate.

> Browsing the newstand, I looked at a section of British pop
> music magazines and, out of nostalgia for the days when
> I actually read such nonsense, I started checking who was on the
> covers and so forth. I noticed Uncut had a CD attached
> and looked at the artists, seeing "Johnny Marr's
> Healers"
> was the first one listed. Well, it's about time I finally get
> to hear them, I thought, and paid the unreasonable 7 dollars
> for the magazine. When I got home I pressed play on the CD,
> jumped to the only track I was interested in, "The Last
> Ride,"
> and quickly hit pause. Had to take a deep breath, hoping I'd
> hear something to get excited about.

> I hate to say it folks, but depression set in at the 30 second
> mark. I can understand why the band is listed as "Johnny
> Marr's
> Healers," because no one would give a damn about this track
> if they called themselves simply "The Healers." Nor
> would anyone
> be able to tell that a special talent such as Marr was leading
> this
> band. It's not that the song is "bad" or in any way
> unpalatable.
> If it came on the radio, I'd let it play without switching
> channels.
> However, it's just so darned...generic. It's exactly like you
> usually
> expect to find on these music magazine compilations. Just
> another
> boringly fashionable song, like all the others. Chief among the
> flaws
> is the the vocals. Unique vocals is one of the main things that
> turns me on about bands, but Marr sounds like 10 million other
> singers. It was a fatal mistake not to find another singer. and
> it's also tragic that Marr is OK being just one of the crowd of
> pop
> musicians playing trendy, pointless music. It was the same fatal
> flaw of Electronic. Electronic wasn't horrible or embarassing,
> just pointless. And what's my point? If you're expecting The
> Healers
> to be a band to look forward to, or hoping that Johnny Marr has
> finally stopped wasting his talent trying to fit in with the
> "in" crowd and be "cool" like them playing
> their stupid music, well, unless they start again from ground
> zero, or unless their first single is in no way indicative of
> the rest of their album, you can count this band out. The only
> people who will buy their album will be doing so because of
> Marr's name and past glories. Johnny Marr's Healers. Ha. Better
> luck next time, Johnny.

> What people like MArr need to understand is, we're sick of bands
> like this. Anyone could do a song like "The Last
> Ride." We don't need Johnny Marr for that. We want bands
> that mean something. That are special. With Morrissey AWOL, and
> Radiohead afraid to write pretty pop songs with Thom Yorke's
> voice the showcase anymore, it's especially frustrating these
> days. If it wasn't for Kirsty MacColl and Sinead O'Connor and a
> very, VERY few others, this year would have better have been
> skipped over completely.

[hazard]

I think it's rather cruel of you to offer comments on a new band
in such a critical way - and Particularly - as Johnny has a
multitude of musical talents.

To be truthful, the musical arrangments in the Smiths took some time before they begin to write excellent songs and tunes.
I believe that Johnny did not receive that much publicity when he was in the Smiths - lead singers always seem to receive all the accolades - as well as all the flack and hassle.

Most people would be happy to be playing on the same stage as Johnny Marr. After all, if he ever feels that the singing is not going well, he would be the first person to realise. If he ever needs a singer, he can always turn to Kirsty Maccoll !

hazard

[Lifeguard Sleeping]

> I think it's rather cruel of you to offer comments on a new band
> in such a critical way -

What's wrong with offering critical comments on a new band? The product (old or new) is there for the offering. We (as listeners) have every right to express our opinions about the band/music.

"Cruel" is a rather strong word.

> and Particularly - as Johnny has a
> multitude of musical talents.

So we're supposed to blindly admire ANYTHING that Johnny puts out, just because of his (once-evident) talents?

By the way: was your post directed more towards Loafing Oaf than to Suzanne? She hasn't heard them yet, so I don't think she made any comments, one way or the other, with regard to the Healers.

[suzanne]

> What's wrong with offering critical comments on a new band? The
> product (old or new) is there for the offering. We (as
> listeners) have every right to express our opinions about the
> band/music.

> "Cruel" is a rather strong word.

> So we're supposed to blindly admire ANYTHING that Johnny puts
> out, just because of his (once-evident) talents?

To me, that's not the point.

It's the same thing people complain about with Morrissey and the journalists who run around touting that his best years ended in 1987, and therefore, any critical scoring will start not only from an incredibly high level of expectation of "here is this guy who single-handedly fought an army of the undead armed with nothing but a can of sweet peas and won" juxtaposed with "yes, but he no longer does that, doesn't he? so why is he wasting our time?"

> By the way: was your post directed more towards Loafing Oaf than
> to Suzanne? She hasn't heard them yet, so I don't think she made
> any comments, one way or the other, with regard to the Healers.

Damn right. I think Hazard forgot to hit the "back" button.

[LoafingOaf]

> you may be valid, i don't know since i haven't heard anything by
> the Healer's yet (although spending $7 for a magazine just to
> get that CD was a bit tempting....amazing how you can get an
> entire compilation AND a magazine for that price while a
> "real" CD costs twice as much alone), but you know,
> loafing Oaf, I know you as an incredibly biased source. Any
> review where you feel better thinking that Johnny Marr has been
> a complete waste since he did that horrible thing back in 1987
> can't really be that accurate.

I liked a couple of his The The songs....

[LoafingOaf]

> To me, that's not the point.

> It's the same thing people complain about with Morrissey and the
> journalists who run around touting that his best years ended in
> 1987, and therefore, any critical scoring will start not only
> from an incredibly high level of expectation of "here is
> this guy who single-handedly fought an army of the undead armed
> with nothing but a can of sweet peas and won" juxtaposed
> with "yes, but he no longer does that, doesn't he? so why
> is he wasting our time?"

> Damn right. I think Hazard forgot to hit the "back"
> button.

My only point was, if this was an anonymous band putting out the same song, no one would pay attention to it. Again, the album may offer
better tracks than the single indicates.

[hazard]

> I liked a couple of his The The songs....

I would say that personal vendetta's are not my cup of tea, so apologies for affending anyone here. I'm not au fait with the process of pressing the back button !

It does seem that new band takes time to gel together properly. Can you listen to the first singles from BBC's tapes of the Smiths ? - way way rough sounding crackling recordings and amps. You may agree or disagree, but this is pretty rough. The vocals sounded thin and lacked decent production.

Whatever happens, Johnny does deserve a great deal of credit for getting on with things and getting back to what he does best ie. writing songs etc. He is not sitting on his laurels.

hazard

[LoafingOaf]

> I would say that personal vendetta's are not my cup of tea, so
> apologies for affending anyone here. I'm not au fait with the
> process of pressing the back button !

> It does seem that new band takes time to gel together
> properly. Can you listen to the first singles from BBC's tapes
> of the Smiths ? - way way rough sounding crackling recordings
> and amps. You may agree or disagree, but this is pretty rough.
> The vocals sounded thin and lacked decent production.

The Smiths were distinctive and wonderful from the very first
song they wrote. Of course they were the greatest band to ever exist,
so I certainly didn't expect The Healers to be at that level.
I was just hoping for something interesting. Jury's still out
but it's not looking good.

> Whatever happens, Johnny does deserve a great deal of credit for
> getting on with things and getting back to what he does best ie.
> writing songs etc. He is not sitting on his laurels.

> hazard

I put the song on my latest mini-disc compilation for automobile
listening and it fits in OK. But I just know that after a week or two from now I'll never play the song again.

The Healers might've been better off finding a female singer.

[suzanne]

> I would say that personal vendetta's are not my cup of tea, so
> apologies for affending anyone here. I'm not au fait with the
> process of pressing the back button !

i knew what you meant. i just felt like being a jerk :^)

OK?

> It does seem that new band takes time to gel together
> properly. Can you listen to the first singles from BBC's tapes
> of the Smiths ? - way way rough sounding crackling recordings
> and amps. You may agree or disagree, but this is pretty rough.
> The vocals sounded thin and lacked decent production.

production or not, how boring is it to have a smoothly polished band that can't grow?

Belle and Sebastian: love them.
Belle and Sebastian: they're as good as they can get.

Album number 3 could have easily been shuffled up in release order to album number 1 and we would not know. We could have said, "ah, look how wisely they got rid of Isabelle Campbell's and the other Stuart's (sorry forgot his name) songs! Listen to how much better it is!"

I hadn't heard anything by the Healers. I want to for the hell of it.

> Whatever happens, Johnny does deserve a great deal of credit for
> getting on with things and getting back to what he does best ie.
> writing songs etc. He is not sitting on his laurels.

true! he understands what it takes to not be boring.

you can either say, "oh, why won't this guy apply himself and make loads of money?" vs. "this guy is doing his own thing and not being owned by the labels who wouldn't give him a lot of money anyway."

y'see?

Speaking of things that sucked, who else has seen the Blair Witch sequel?

[suzanne]

> The Smiths were distinctive and wonderful from the very first
> song they wrote. Of course they were the greatest band to ever
> exist,
> so I certainly didn't expect The Healers to be at that level.
> I was just hoping for something interesting. Jury's still out
> but it's not looking good.

After one song? His most radio-friendly song?

Well, i'll give you credit in the Electronic's last release was not that great. I wouldn't say he was pandering or anything because that stuff is Bernard's specialty, n'est-ce pas? Hell, if a musician i respected came up to me and wanted to be in a band, I would jump.

"No, not today. I have to find another band that can live up to my legacy. Get lost, Bernard."

And Marr basically discovered Oasis.

> I put the song on my latest mini-disc compilation for automobile
> listening and it fits in OK. But I just know that after a week
> or two from now I'll never play the song again.

Especially if its surrounded by songs you don't want to hear anymore!

> The Healers might've been better off finding a female singer.

Hey, I can do a Nico impersonation....Velvet's tribute with singer who is a foot too short for the roll. C'mon! It's fun!

[maladjusted]

I can't believe that so many seem to want to slag off the Healers. Then again, this one demo song that's going around is really indicative of how good/bad they're going to be. Way to give them a chance.

Now that I think about it, it is worse than the new Steps single.

Lloyd