Is Morrissey an "indie" act or is he "for the whole world"?

Do you consider Morrissey to be:


  • Total voters
    84

Electric

New Member
So apparently Morrissey wasn't too excited about being number 1 in the indie charts, cause as the latest interview with Canal + (thanks oliv) revealed, he does not consider himself to be an alternative or independent act, but rather the "music for the whole world".

What do you think?
 
I think Morrissey would like to be number 1 in every chart in the world.:) He would like to be as successful as Elvis Presley in his time.:p He want glory...
And I think he implied he didn't want to be seen as "indie", cause indie singers sing badly, according to him.:cool: (That is what I have understood he meant). Contrary to Morrissey, who "can sing very well"!:rolleyes:
 
"To quote a friend:
Elvis is the king of Rock 'n' Roll.
Jackson is the king of Pop.
Morrissey is the king of indie."

To the great mass his still pretty unknown and he's not doing "easy" music, he should be gratefull for what he has. He has done more and been more creative than people have done during their entire lives, despite all their efforts. There can only be one Elvis.

PS. If I've understood it correctly, isn't indie British and alternative american? DS.
 
He is alternative and almost completely unknown in today's generation of Americans. In Britain he has more of a concentrated following.

Indie all that way!!!
 
And I think he implied he didn't want to be seen as "indie", cause indie singers sing badly, according to him.:cool: (That is what I have understood he meant). Contrary to Morrissey, who "can sing very well"!:rolleyes:

Not only indie acts can't sing properly, they also can't play the instruments well, according to Morrissey. :p It looks like indie and alternative are synonyms to DIY in his mind.

These labels are pretty confusing, everybody seems to have their own interpretation. Like for me it's "indie" versus "mass pop" or something like that, but then again he always speaks about pop music.

Indie or not, I still think you have to have some certain trait in your personality to like Morrissey and "the whole world" just hasn't got it, no matter how good the band can play.
 
As much as Morrissey claims to be "for the whole world" he simply isn't because in order to be one nowadays, you have to be shallow mediocre sh*t with no talent or wit.

I hate the lable "indie" because it's so overused and abused but if I'd have to chose between the two I would go for "indie". Sorry Moz, you're just not everyone's cup of tea but if it makes you feel any better - that's why we love you the most.
 
he's not doing "easy" music

Oh, but he is! His lyrics are still "tough", but the music is pretty mainstream... It scares me sometimes to think this, but when I listen to most of his solo work it comes to my mind "this could be anyone" :confused:

DeliciousDemon, is that Munch? It looks awfully familiar...
 
Yes, it's his "Scream"

I am merely celebrating the fact that it has been retreived - undamaged! God bless.
 
'Indie' has to be the most meaningless genre in the history of music. Nearly all other musical genres can be easily defined or recognised (e.g. funk, blues, soul, funk, jazz, dance etc) but indie means absolutely nothing.
It's really just been a means of marketing 'cool' pop groups since the mid 1980's.

Bands by indie albums are likely to encompass a whole range of musical styles; acoustic folk songs, songs with glam-rock guitars, jangly guitar pop (as pioneered by 1960's bands like the Byrds), a quiet verse/distorted chorus sound (developed by Pixies made popular by Nirvana, Wannadie, Blur's woo-hoo, Feeder etc), a symphony pop song (arranged with violins), songs with a disco drumbeat. Verily, there is no such thing as indie!

It's ridiculous that bands like The Scissors Sisters are considered 'indie'. They are no different to the Bee Gees; they are all over XfM and Virgin yet when did either station last play the Bee Gees? Similarly, The Feeling are, to all intents and purposes a mid-70's easy listening/soft rock band (not necessarily a bad thing), yet they too have been embraced as a modern indie band.

In the 80's, indie was supposed to be a kind of intellectual and reflective alternative to mainstream pop music but then in the 90's along came brainless, bigoted idiots like Liam Gallagher in bands who were bafflingly marketed as indie!

If the Beatles first appeared in 2006, they too would be considered an indie band, yet they have never been called one coz indie wasn't a known term in the 60's.

And that, frankly, is all I have to say on the matter!
 
Morrissey's music is not bland because he intends to be timeless. Majority of pop music often fail to achieve it due to heavy usage of gimmicks.

He doesn't want to be called indie or alternative, but mainstream scene and his style are totally different. If he wants to achieve world domination, he has to compromise many things which he's always resisting. He doesn't have to be like Madonna, who does anything in order to achieve her goals.

Sadly, majority of pop music fans don't have good taste and intelligence.
Morrissey can challenge them, but it's really tough.
At least his music keep bringing some new fans which he should proud of!;)
 
Oh dear. So it had been stolen. I must stop living under this rock :confused:

Indeed chica you should :D

It was missing for about 2 years (I think?) due to an armed robbery which made world headlines for days. I traveled to Norway and managed to see it slightly before it was stolen and I really lost all hope that I will ever see it again. Luckily, my skepticism isn't running the norwegian police as they managed to find it some weeks ago! If you ever visit Oslo it's a must see.
 
Working out the multi-button ;)

If you ever visit Oslo it's a must see.

Roger that, Ma'am.

'Indie' has to be the most meaningless genre in the history of music. Nearly all other musical genres can be easily defined or recognised (e.g. funk, blues, soul, funk, jazz, dance etc) but indie means absolutely nothing.

According to David Hesmondhalgh (yeah, you can mail him ;) ), it's a mutated version of rock, gone through the experience of punk, known as alternative pop/rock in other countries. If you take it that way it can be easily recognized, only Moz definitely doesn't fit in. The Smiths do.
 
Last edited:
as much as i would like to think he is for the whole world, i dont believe it. the way he presents himself, his music (subject matter, the way he sings, etc) it just doesnt appeal to the mass. but for the fraction it does appeal to , its amazing.
 
So apparently Morrissey wasn't too excited about being number 1 in the indie charts, cause as the latest interview with Canal + (thanks oliv) revealed, he does not consider himself to be an alternative or independent act, but rather the "music for the whole world".

What do you think?

I think you are a c@ck

what a ridiculous poll, i would rather know the size of your c@ck.
 
"Indie rock takes its name from "independent," which describes both the do-it-yourself attitudes of its bands and the small, lower-budget nature of the labels that release the music. The biggest indie labels might strike distribution deals with major corporate labels, but their decision-making processes remain autonomous. As such, indie rock is free to explore sounds, emotions, and lyrical subjects that don't appeal to large, mainstream audiences -- profit isn't as much of a concern as personal taste (though the labels do, after all, want to stay in business). It's very much rooted in the sound and sensibility of American underground and alternative rock of the '80s, albeit with a few differences that account for the changes in underground rock since then. In the sense that the term is most widely used, indie rock truly separated itself from alternative rock around the time that Nirvana hit the mainstream. Mainstream tastes gradually reshaped alternative into a new form of serious-minded hard rock, in the process making it more predictable and testosterone-driven. Indie rock was a reaction against that phenomenon; not all strains of alternative rock crossed over in Nirvana's wake, and not all of them wanted to, either. Yet while indie rock definitely shares the punk community's concerns about commercialism, it isn't as particular about whether bands remain independent or "sell out"; the general assumption is that it's virtually impossible to make indie rock's varying musical approaches compatible with mainstream tastes in the first place. There are almost as many reasons for that incompatibility as there are indie-rock bands, but following are some of the most common: the music may be too whimsical and innocent; too weird; too sensitive and melancholy; too soft and delicate; too dreamy and hypnotic; too personal and intimately revealing in its lyrics; too low-fidelity and low-budget in its production; too angular in its melodies and riffs; too raw, skronky and abrasive; wrapped in too many sheets of Sonic Youth/Dinosaur Jr./Pixies/Jesus & Mary Chain-style guitar noise; too oblique and fractured in its song structures; too influenced by experimental or otherwise unpopular musical styles. Regardless of the specifics, it's rock made by and for outsiders -- much like alternative once was, except that thanks to its crossover, indie rock has a far greater wariness of excess testosterone. It's certainly not that indie rock is never visceral or powerful; it's just rarely -- if ever -- macho about it. As the '90s wore on, indie rock developed quite a few substyles and close cousins (indie pop, dream pop, noise-pop, lo-fi, math rock, post-rock, space rock, sadcore, and emo among them), all of which seemed poised to remain strictly underground phenomena."

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2687
 
Mainstream tastes gradually reshaped alternative into a new form of serious-minded hard rock, in the process making it more predictable and testosterone-driven. Indie rock was a reaction against that phenomenon

This is my criterion:

unhappy music= alternative
(Muse, Placebo, Radiohead, Interpol, The Editors)

happy music=indie
(Mando Diao, Franz Ferdinand, Kaiser Chiefs, The Subways, The Killers, Maximo Park, We Are Scientists, Arctic Monkeys)

And brit pop and indie pop in between :D
 
No man who can get in the top 10, is a self-proclaimed pop artist and is on the same label as Elton John and Kiss can really be considered indie (a term which is basically defunct now).
 
From myspace:

Member Since 12/21/2004
Band Website morrisseymusic.com
Influences Get Morrissey Merchandise:
USA
United Kingdom
Sounds Like Get the new album, Ringleader of the Tormentors, here.
Record Label Sanctuary Records Group
Type of Label Indie
 
Back
Top Bottom