Why Such Negativity?

Just the fact that Marr came across as the everyman normal bloke makes me more suspicious of him I'm afraid. And the fact that everyone seems to accept his version of events without question. It's very easy to put yourself in a good light if you've got those advantages. It's very easy to blame everything on "the weirdo".

Ian Dury was a lovely bloke who everyone wanted to go down the pub with. He was also a complete bastard to everyone around him. I'm not suggesting Johnny is a bastard but look to comments made by Craig Gannon about how Johnny treated him to get an alternative view.

He left The Smiths by informing the NME. He didn't bother to get in touch with any of the other three members and let them know personally. Just that fact makes me suspicious of him.

As for going down the pub with him, you do know he is a teetotal vegan into alternative spiritualities these days?
He is?? ( I forgot to ask this before.) It makes sense for someone who used to have a drinking problem to be teetotal, but I didn't know that he'd become a vegan... and what kind of 'alternative spiritualities' is he into? (To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what it could mean.)

In any case, it's an interesting transformation. Apparently, he's not very sociable nowadays, and Beth Orton, who's worked with him recently, says that he spends most of the time reading books.

Did you ever get the impression that Morrissey and Marr had a lot more in common than people usually think? I never believed they were polar opposites as people say. Sure, they are very different in some ways, but they seemed to share a lot (for instance, in musical influences), which is usually a case with people who complement each other well.
 
Did you ever get the impression that Morrissey and Marr had a lot more in common than people usually think? I never believed they were polar opposites as people say. Sure, they are very different in some ways, but they seemed to share a lot (for instance, in musical influences), which is usually a case with people who complement each other well.

Sure do. Much of this impression, for me, actually comes from the fact that they both had that semi-androgynous, original-to-the-point-of-oddity styles of dress (Moz' plus-sized blouses are often mentioned, but you also had Johnny in his crystal necklaces and knee-length sweaters over drainpipe jeans...) - they also shared a dry wit, a disinterest in being identified excessively with sexual orientation, and this unquestioned if slightly tongue-in-cheek opinion that they were set on this earth to be Rock's redeemers...even if some of these were a question of mutual influence, that influence had to take seed in something.

Knowing all of that - it doesn't seem that unlikely that they'd have similar outlooks on certain things. They've taken wildly diverging paths in life, but I could certainly see the theory that they diverged because their personalities became more fully realized, and they realized they had different ideas of how they wanted to live - not because they weren't made of the same basic stuff.
 
Last edited:
I'd sort of thought Moz probably shaped Marr in alot of ways, at the beginning of the Smiths I always thought Marr seemed to be almost in awe of Mozs personaility and all his ethoses (vegetarianism, sexual ideals, attitudes towards music, imagery) and as the Smiths went on it seemed he sort of lost his fascination in Moz and the relationship weakened. But if you look at Marr now he does have alot of those traits and if there was the question of them working together if u remove the bitterness, you can imagine them getting on.
 
I'd sort of thought Moz probably shaped Marr in alot of ways, at the beginning of the Smiths I always thought Marr seemed to be almost in awe of Mozs personaility and all his ethoses (vegetarianism, sexual ideals, attitudes towards music, imagery) and as the Smiths went on it seemed he sort of lost his fascination in Moz and the relationship weakened. But if you look at Marr now he does have alot of those traits and if there was the question of them working together if u remove the bitterness, you can imagine them getting on.

Maybe he didn't lose his fascination, maybe he just couldn't take the pressure of everything he had to do in the band (that's what he said himself), maybe he felt Morrissey was too demanding...

I remember an interview in which Marr says that the press assumed that he wanted to make the Smiths into a big stadium band and that Morrissey was against it, while in fact Morrissey was the one who loved performing live and hated working in the studio, and as Marr says, "I was a studio rat". It seems to have been a part of the stereotype of Morrissey as an introversted, depressed intellectual and Marr as an extroverted "rock'n'roller". I think that Marr (in a mid-80s interview) used the metaphor of a mirror to describe his and Morrissey's behaviour on and off the stage: Morrissey being withdrawn off-stage but wild on stage, and Marr the other way round. I also get the impression that the public opinion has always underestimated not just Johnny's intelligence and sense of humour, but his ego as well. Much is made of Morrissey's ego, but when did Johnny show a willingness to share songwriting credits for the musical part of the song with anyone? He certainly wasn't happy when Craig Gannon wanted to be credited as co-writer on "Ask" (I'm not saying he had any foundation for his claim, because I don't know), and he didn't get along with Gannon at all. And - I know I'm (re)opening a can of worms now, but I don't understand why is Morrissey always the only one blamed for the Smiths financial arrangements, and Johnny seems to be regarded as an innocent who had nothing to do with the division of royalties, or gained nothing by it?
 
I think some of the reasons he was blamed so much for the Smiths finacial arrangements was to do with Joe mace. Moz was pretty stuborn about it and I think the moment marr left the group he paid Mace personally.
I think the medias always liked to protray Marr as the 'normal bloke' to mozs 'excetric'. I mean at times Marr's clothes were more androyonous then Mozs and he publically shared that love for sexual ambuity, its just Moz outshined him because well that's wat Moz does :) There's always been a dislike for Moz in the media and therefore journalists like to put Marr up as a victim to prove Moz's evilness :mad: Like u said he was just as responsible with Joyce but eveyone stepped over that nicely
 
why is Morrissey always the only one blamed for the Smiths financial arrangements, and Johnny seems to be regarded as an innocent who had nothing to do with the division of royalties, or gained nothing by it?

Very true!! It extends to Mike Joyce's litigation, also - I think people forget (well, the media certainly did) that Johnny did NOT want to pay Mike his 25% either (same goes for Andy, though he pulled out and accepted 10%). Morrissey was painted as the one who had supposedly short-changed Mike Joyce when, if you read The Severed Alliance, Johnny was every bit as adament as Morrissey that Joyce should receive nothing more for his efforts in The Smiths.
Yet it's Morrissey who is portrayed in the media as a miser even though Johnny is standing in court contesting Joyce's claims also!
 
Last edited:
Very true!! It extends to Mike Joyce's litigation, also - I think people forget (well, the media certainly did) that Johnny did NOT want to pay Mike his 25% either (same goes for Andy, though he pulled out and accepted 10%). Morrissey was painted as the one who had supposedly short-changed Mike Joyce when, if you read The Severed Alliance, Johnny was every bit as adament as Morrissey that Joyce should receive nothing more for his efforts in The Smiths.
Yet it's Morrissey who is portrayed in the media as a miser even though Johnny is standing in court contesting Joyce's claims also!


I think that the simple answer to your point is that Johnny hasn't banged on about Mike Joyce incessently ever since this business. Moz ony gets a bad rap because he never shuts up about it. That doesn't make me feel anything bad towards Moz personally but it is the reason why Moz gets a bad press over it wheras Johnny doesn't.
 
I think that the simple answer to your point is that Johnny hasn't banged on about Mike Joyce incessently ever since this business. Moz ony gets a bad rap because he never shuts up about it. That doesn't make me feel anything bad towards Moz personally but it is the reason why Moz gets a bad press over it wheras Johnny doesn't.

I don't think that's true. The focus was all on Morrissey when the trial was going on. I think one of the reasons Morrissey is so pissed off about it is because he was made out to be the only bad guy, not the other way round.

And the reason you hear Morrissey talking about it is because journalists ask him about it all the time. He certainly doesn't bang on about it all the time. The last time Johnny was asked about it he made it very clear his feelings towards Joyce are not very warm.

Morrissey gets the bad press over it because he's the easy target and because Johnny and his friends have been quite successful over the years in painting him as the villain of The Smiths.
 
Here are some quotations taken from various news articles about the court case:

Even Morrissey's own counsel, Ian Mill, admitted that his client's attitude had on occasion "betrayed a degree of arrogance."

...

Judge Weeks said all four had no business experience, having left school between the ages of 15 and 16 with few qualifications, but that Morrissey took all the decisions. At 23, he was four years older than the other members and more assertive and although he controlled the group's finances, he "lacked the will" to tell Rourke and Joyce of his decisions over profit sharing.

"He left it to Mr Marr to give the unpalatable news to the other two," the judge said.

...

[Morrissey] was the dominant character who kept a tight grip on the purse strings. He treated the lesser known members of the band merely as session musicians, it was claimed.​

Of course, it was clear to at least one observer that Marr, too, was not exactly innocent:

The judge described Marr as "a more engaging character. He was probably the more intelligent of the four, but seemed prepared to embroider his evidence."...​

Be that as it may, in perception and probably also in fact, Morrissey was the more controlling of the two when it came to business matters. Sure, it's silly to absolve Marr of all blame. Clearly he wasn't honest either. But from most accounts Morrissey was the more dominant of the pair, and that's why he takes more grief over the case. Plus, as (our) Albert Finney rightly noted, Marr kept his mouth shut and Morrissey kicked and screamed.

I had to check one of my old posts for this one, and when I read it I came across something I'll repeat: there's no harm in looking into the court case and deciding that Morrissey acted badly. One could take a charitable view and say that he didn't know what he was doing, and that he did what he thought was best but was understandably errant in his judgments. Or one could agree with the judge's infamously cutting decision about Morrissey's integrity. Either way, it doesn't make a bit of difference to Morrissey's quality as an artist. We'd all love to believe the artists we like are good people as well as great singers, writers, or whatever, but does it really matter if they're not?
 
Here are some quotations taken from various news articles about the court case:

Even Morrissey's own counsel, Ian Mill, admitted that his client's attitude had on occasion "betrayed a degree of arrogance."

...

Judge Weeks said all four had no business experience, having left school between the ages of 15 and 16 with few qualifications, but that Morrissey took all the decisions. At 23, he was four years older than the other members and more assertive and although he controlled the group's finances, he "lacked the will" to tell Rourke and Joyce of his decisions over profit sharing.

"He left it to Mr Marr to give the unpalatable news to the other two," the judge said.

...

[Morrissey] was the dominant character who kept a tight grip on the purse strings. He treated the lesser known members of the band merely as session musicians, it was claimed.​

Of course, it was clear to at least one observer that Marr, too, was not exactly innocent:

The judge described Marr as "a more engaging character. He was probably the more intelligent of the four, but seemed prepared to embroider his evidence."...​

Be that as it may, in perception and probably also in fact, Morrissey was the more controlling of the two when it came to business matters. Sure, it's silly to absolve Marr of all blame. Clearly he wasn't honest either. But from most accounts Morrissey was the more dominant of the pair, and that's why he takes more grief over the case. Plus, as (our) Albert Finney rightly noted, Marr kept his mouth shut and Morrissey kicked and screamed.

I had to check one of my old posts for this one, and when I read it I came across something I'll repeat: there's no harm in looking into the court case and deciding that Morrissey acted badly. One could take a charitable view and say that he didn't know what he was doing, and that he did what he thought was best but was understandably errant in his judgments. Or one could agree with the judge's infamously cutting decision about Morrissey's integrity. Either way, it doesn't make a bit of difference to Morrissey's quality as an artist. We'd all love to believe the artists we like are good people as well as great singers, writers, or whatever, but does it really matter if they're not?
Morrissey may not be the nicest person in the world, and his behaviour in regards to the case certainly wasn't commendable, but the issue is whether he had all the control over the business matters of The Smiths, or if it was Morrissey & Marr. Marr may have been four years younger, but he was still an adult and I doubt that Morrissey forced him to accept the 40:40:10:10 deal. In fact, as it has been already said, he seemed as sure as Morrissey that he was entitled to that money. He just stays wisely in the background and generally acts more in a more reasonable way, while Morrissey's attitude makes it easier for people to paint him as the villain. In Mike Joyce's words - Morrissey "didn't do himself any favours" in court. As usual, people just see him as arrogant and are ready to believe the worst about him. I think that the judge confused intelligence with common sense - Johnny is intelligent, but I would certainly never call him more intelligent than Morrissey; but he has infinitely more common sense. I don't know what to make of that description of Marr - what bearing does his being "a more engaging character" have on the issue?
 
Anyone who's read the appeal verdict and used a bit of deduction knows that Marr lied in the original court case to try and make his case stronger.

The whole TOTPs episode was a fabrication. Marr said that Joyce asked him for more money while they were watching TOTPs one night, so he called Morrissey to ask him about it and Morrissey rejected the request. This would have strengthened their case which all hinged on whether Joyce knew what he was getting paid.

Morrissey said he didn't remember that ever happening.

Everyone who's ever met Morrissey says he has an incredible memory. He's even remembers fans names after only meeting them once before.

So Morrissey said he didn't remember that incident because he knew Marr lied about it. He wasn't prepared to go along with the lie just to make their case stronger, but he didn't want to call Marr a liar in court.

That's why Morrissey was pissed off with Marr as well as Joyce after the court case.
 
Anyone who's read the appeal verdict and used a bit of deduction knows that Marr lied in the original court case to try and make his case stronger.

The whole TOTPs episode was a fabrication. Marr said that Joyce asked him for more money while they were watching TOTPs one night, so he called Morrissey to ask him about it and Morrissey rejected the request. This would have strengthened their case which all hinged on whether Joyce knew what he was getting paid.

Morrissey said he didn't remember that ever happening.

Everyone who's ever met Morrissey says he has an incredible memory. He's even remembers fans names after only meeting them once before.

So Morrissey said he didn't remember that incident because he knew Marr lied about it. He wasn't prepared to go along with the lie just to make their case stronger, but he didn't want to call Marr a liar in court.

That's why Morrissey was pissed off with Marr as well as Joyce after the court case.
Where did you read the text of the appeal verdict? Can it be found on the web?
 
the breakpoint was that after the tiresome big tour [1986], sadly their last,
they went on with recording strangeways, if their had been a good manager,
they would've sent the band on a half year vacation.
Marr wanted to do some other stuff, he got invites from other bands, and
that was against the sore leg of Morrissey, the manager at that time, Ken Friedman choose Johnny's side and that was the stone bucket did flood by
Morrissey, who started to neglect Marr in the studio, where they individually
worked on Strangways till the NME bomb dropped, and forced Johhny to make a descision
 
the breakpoint was that after the tiresome big tour [1986], sadly their last,
they went on with recording strangeways, if their had been a good manager,
they would've sent the band on a half year vacation.
Marr wanted to do some other stuff, he got invites from other bands, and
that was against the sore leg of Morrissey, the manager at that time, Ken Friedman choose Johnny's side and that was the stone bucket did flood by
Morrissey, who started to neglect Marr in the studio, where they individually
worked on Strangways till the NME bomb dropped, and forced Johhny to make a descision
How did Morrissey 'neglect' Marr? And I really don't remember any of the biographies or articles mentioning that Morrissey did anything to show that he had a problem with Johnny working with other musicians. That infamous NME article mentions it as a rumour, but I don't think anyone ever named any specific instance when Morrissey showed his supposed irritation with Marr's session work.
 
How did Morrissey 'neglect' Marr? And I really don't remember any of the biographies or articles mentioning that Morrissey did anything to show that he had a problem with Johnny working with other musicians. That infamous NME article mentions it as a rumour, but I don't think anyone ever named any specific instance when Morrissey showed his supposed irritation with Marr's session work.

its a well known fact that they worked apart on strangeways, and that
Morrissey was not pleased with Marr's plans to work woth other musiicians,
in a period when they had enough problems with their own band
Its also a well known fact that Marr was very iritated with Morrissey neurotic
behaviour concerning handling the Smiths, he went crazy after he was
interupted at a session when someone came in who asked for the bill for
a rent truck.
and there a few other facts that the bond between Marr and Morrissey
was tense in those days.

i think we have to wait till Morrissey [and maybe others] gives his opinion about those period, and Marr also hasnt been really open about it.

and the story continues...
 
its a well known fact that they worked apart on strangeways.

No it's not. Not any more than they always wrote apart. :confused:

It's well documented that the whole band thought that Strangeways was the happiest studio experience they'd ever had and none of them had a clue that they were going to split.
 
No it's not. Not any more than they always wrote apart. :confused:

It's well documented that the whole band thought that Strangeways was the happiest studio experience they'd ever had and none of them had a clue that they were going to split.


i rest my case, Morrissey and Marr had a very troubled working relationship during strangeways, much more than the other studioalbums
 
its a well known fact that they worked apart on strangeways, and that
Morrissey was not pleased with Marr's plans to work woth other musiicians,
in a period when they had enough problems with their own band
Its also a well known fact that Marr was very iritated with Morrissey neurotic
behaviour concerning handling the Smiths, he went crazy after he was
interupted at a session when someone came in who asked for the bill for
a rent truck.
and there a few other facts that the bond between Marr and Morrissey
was tense in those days.
What are your sources?

It is one of those "well known facts" about Morrissey that are based only on rumour and legend, and have never been corroborated by a statement from anybody from the band or the crew. The NME article "Smiths to split" claimed that Morrissey was not pleased with Marr for working with other musicians and a few other things, not naming any sources. The so-called "insider" (described as "friend of Johnny Marr") was never identified, and, as it turns out, the article was entirely based on rumours.

Marr was absent more than usual because he was doing session work, but none of the band members or the crew is known to have said that they had bad time or that there was any kind of conflict during the recording of "Strangeways". And BTW the photo of Morrissey working in the studio, from the "Strangeways" inside sleeve, was taken by Marr's wife, how did this happen if Morrissey and Marr were on such bad terms?
 
Morrissey may not be the nicest person in the world, and his behaviour in regards to the case certainly wasn't commendable, but the issue is whether he had all the control over the business matters of The Smiths, or if it was Morrissey & Marr. Marr may have been four years younger, but he was still an adult and I doubt that Morrissey forced him to accept the 40:40:10:10 deal. In fact, as it has been already said, he seemed as sure as Morrissey that he was entitled to that money. He just stays wisely in the background and generally acts more in a more reasonable way, while Morrissey's attitude makes it easier for people to paint him as the villain. In Mike Joyce's words - Morrissey "didn't do himself any favours" in court. As usual, people just see him as arrogant and are ready to believe the worst about him. I think that the judge confused intelligence with common sense - Johnny is intelligent, but I would certainly never call him more intelligent than Morrissey; but he has infinitely more common sense. I don't know what to make of that description of Marr - what bearing does his being "a more engaging character" have on the issue?

If Morrissey has "infinitely" more common sense than Marr, that would be another way of saying that Morrissey has very little common sense, which is I think exactly how most of us see him: brilliant, sensitive, unique to the point of almost being, as it were, an alien trapped on our planet. A person of that description would make for a great artist but a fairly poor businessman. A person of that description would make for a legendary pop star but would leave a trail of broken and twisted relationships with people who didn't see the world in the special way he did. Put that person in control of his band's finances, even as a co-signer with an equal partner who had common sense but was inexperienced, and you'd have serious trouble. Which is exactly what happened. It's well established The Smiths, operationally speaking, were dysfunctional. No one's saying Marr isn't to blame for that, just that Morrissey was more to blame.

Whether or not the dysfunciton was caused by honest mistakes or not is a difficult question to answer, but that's where Morrissey's arrogance comes into play. He obviously loved Johnny but felt the others were replaceable. The decisions he made reflected that, not only in what was decided upon but how he and Marr went about telling the others. The attitude seems to have been, "We're the talent. We'll tell them what's happening on a need-to-know basis, and they don't need to know, ever". This is why Morrissey withheld money from the others "because they weren't interested". Was Marr as guilty of this? Of knowingly profiting off the imbalance, yes, but maybe not in terms of arrogance. I agree with others who say he has carefully built up a media image of the innocent companion to the devious Morrissey. That's probably a serious exaggeration to say the least. But when I consider his "common sense", his apparent loyalty to his mates, and the simple fact that he was much closer to Andy and Mike than Morrissey was, I tend to believe that Morrissey is due for more share of the blame than he is. The records are no less perfect.
 
Back
Top Bottom