Why Such Negativity?

everydayslikesunday

Junior Member
Whilst I am only a casual observer and infrequent downloader (thank you to all, especially Codreanu and BoyRacer) of this wonderful site, I am surprised at the amount of negative comments thrown in Mozza's direction.

I can understand the odd [sic] loser pretending to be a fan just so they can use the forums to hurl abuse around, but it appears as if there are a fair number of fans(?) queuing up to verbally assault Morrissey's ever decision. Before you say it, I am not completely blinded by my love of the great man and will admit that his hasn't always made the right decisions (the release of a fourth single off ROTT being the latest). However I certainly wouldn't use such negative and abusive language on this forum to voice my views.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but surely everyone has the capabilities to put together a constructive arguement?
 
I am surprised at the amount of negative comments thrown in Mozza's direction.

My guess is that many of Morrissey's most ardent fans mimic him in various ways, and one of his main characteristics is running hot and cold, never tepid, about certain subjects like pop music, politics, and books. He shows passionate, unyielding, devoted support to a few cherished idols and the most scornful vitriol for the many unworthies and crashing bores who are ruining the world. I see a lot of that on this board, so the general air of negativity isn't surprising.

Also, the love that his fans have shown him has been so absolute that any disappointments on his part are bound to have a more negative impact on them. When someone so brilliant comes up short here and there-- and he has, he has-- you feel the sting all the more, whereas with lesser artists you almost assume that they'll have fallow periods, hit bum notes, make bad wardrobe choices, get caught screwing the wrong men's room valet, etc.

These things, plus his childlike but at times horribly nasty demand to be blindly loved, means that his fans, maybe more than other artists, need to vent their frustrations. Morrissey has acknowledged mistakes in the past, but only on a few occasions. Far more often he's given the impression that any criticism of him by fans is a sign of outright disloyalty. This irritates a lot of people who have spent years and untold amounts of cash in what amounts to a love affair only to be disappointed in some way and told, when they raise their voice to question him, that the fault wasn't on Morrissey's side and, anyway, they should quiet down and be grateful for they've got.

In another thread someone was wondering for the upteenth time why Julia was favored above all others. The answer is simple. She's obsessively loyal to him, through thick and thin, and that's the sort of intense, passionate sort of fan he likes: an apostle whose love is blind, absolute, and uncritical. You sort of have to pass a test to win his love; I think all of us (to some degree) would like to think we'd pass that test, yet most of us know we probably wouldn't. Result: anger and resentment.

Having said all that, most of the negativity on this board is the flip-side of love and devotion to him as an artist. Aside from a few crazies and trolls, I think even the angriest sourpuss on the site would still leap in front of a flying bullet for him. Me, I have not shied away from criticizing him in the past, but I would hope it's clear my admiration for his work comes through as well. I'm not sure I'd jump in front of a flying bullet for him-- I wouldn't do that for anyone-- but I'd hurl a sofa cushion in its flight path at the very least. So I hope I wouldn't fall into the "negative" camp. But I will end by saying, as I have many times before, that this site has done many more positive things for him than negative.

EDIT/P.S.: I also think the negativity has something to do with the nature of the Internet. On message boards across the web I think negativity is the dominant mood when the subject brings out such passion in people. As a movie lover, I frequent Aint It Cool News and they have a community of fans ("fanboys") as crazed as any Morrissey audiences. A controversial topic is George Lucas and "Star Wars". Any mention of the SW franchise and nearly all of the most bitter people you could imagine spring from the woodwork to heap their anger on Lucas, partly for his newer films, and partly for his tampering with the originals. Longtime readers of the site's Talk Back section have witnessed this forever. It's become something of a running joke. At some point, I think after the Special Edition was released (the one where Greedo shoots first, not Han Solo), some mewling basket case who hadn't aged beyond 17 complained that by putting in this revision he had spoiled not only the present but the past. "George Lucas raped my childhood!" he wailed, and now this has become a standard line to trot out whenever a movie comes out that doesn't live up to expectations. The SW animosity has become a mode of expression, a language all to itself.

But this is the key point, which the smarter Talk Backers have figured out: no matter how many times George Lucas tampers with the original SW movies, or releases subpar new ones, they will devote hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars to buy and support these products. Even the "childhood rape" whiners are still buying 12" figurines, lunchboxes, toys, books, and movie tickets. Recently some of them even paid good money to own special DVDs of unmolested SW movies that were nothing more than cheap transfers from VHS! The Internet has given a big population of fans an outlet to voice their anger and frustration about their favorite artists, but don't be fooled or put off, these people are still fans, first and foremost.
 
Last edited:
I think that in some way a lot of Morrissey fans think Morrissey owes them something for their devotion.

You've only got to read the way some people go on about Julia and how he shouldn't acknowledge her because it will upset other fans. It's like they are children competing for a parent's love.

Of course Morrissey can never give them what they want because all their needs are different. If he tried he'd lose himself in the process. That's why they get angry.

Personally, I don't think Morrissey has ever encouraged this. He has always tried to keep a certain distance. It's something that happens to some stars. People get too emotionally involved and lose a sense of perspective. It has nothing to do with the artist. They just have to put up with it and learn to live with it.
 
'In another thread someone was wondering for the upteenth time why Julia was favored above all others. The answer is simple. She's obsessively loyal to him, through thick and thin, and that's the sort of intense, passionate sort of fan he likes: an apostle whose love is blind, absolute, and uncritical. You sort of have to pass a test to win his love; I think all of us (to some degree) would like to think we'd pass that test, yet most of us know we probably wouldn't. Result: anger and resentment.'

Not sure I would entirely agree with this, and that's not being negative, but attempting to stimulate healthy debate!
Do you really think that's the kind of fan he likes? Isn't it a little juvenile to hero-worship in this way? Though very touching all the same.

I wouldn't use the infamous phrase 'apostle' for myself. It's more that I can see all the flaws, but love him regardless. :)

Yours
Angry Sourpuss.
 
Do you really think that's the kind of fan he likes? Isn't it a little juvenile to hero-worship in this way? Though very touching all the same.

Well, yes, but it's somewhat complicated. I think Morrissey would say that he likes intelligent, critical fans who can think for themselves rather than bleating sheep. If you pay attention to his comments about his own favorite artists, you know that he of all people is aware that even geniuses are not immune from mediocrity and disappointing career turns (see his remarks about Bowie). And I don't think I was totally fair when I said he only criticized himself now and then. I mean, in terms of frequency that's true, but to go on the record as being disappointed in the production of "The Smiths" and admitting that he had released a few less-than-scintillating solo singles shows that he has at least some grasp of reality, and would expect the same of his fans.

Where I see him wishing more loyalty from his fans is not so much in blindly ignoring his faults, exactly, but in forgiving him completely in view of his endless battle against the pressure, lies, and corruption of the music industry. Generally I think he'd like his fans not to complain, but when they do, I think he has the unrealistic expectation that we're going to understand that a promoter lied about a gig that was never actually booked, or that the producer was awful, or that one of the musicians was off his head on smack, or that the record company is putting out shoddy product to make a few dollars, or whatever the case may be. I feel he avoids responsibility. The tenor of his True To You emails is very warm and entertaining, because he invites you into his world for a few paragraphs and lets you see how ugly things are in the music business, but of course in doing this he obscures his own role. "You're disappointed? Look what I'm up against here!", he seems to say.

These are just my observations on the negative culture of fandom surrounding Morrissey. On the plus side no one has been more honest with his audience, no one has made as strong a connection, and no one has consistently rewarded his audience as richly as Morrissey has over twenty-three years. Twenty-three years. There are plenty of great things he does for his fans, most recently this long, grueling tour which has given many thousands of fans a chance to see him live. Indeed, if you asked me which pop stars treat their fans the best I'd put Morrissey near the top of the list. I'm just offering some theories on why there's so much ill will sometimes, because I think it's an apt observation from everydayslikesunday. The negativity is not outright hatred or resentment, but something more complicated, and I find it an interesting subject. Leave it to Morrissey to bring out the best and the worst in people.
 
Last edited:
Well, he did sing "I don't want to be judged, I'd rather be blindly loved"...

I'm not sure that it is as simple as that. Of course he enjoys it when someone is loyal to him and treats him with utter, unwavering adoration... but who wouldn't enjoy it? It's not strange that he acknowledges and repays such devotion. I find it a bit childish when people get so upset about that... is it really so important to have your name mentioned in concert? There are so many devoted Morrissey fans, of course he can't know all their names. As for the way he accepts/does not accept criticism, he might be willing to listen to the criticism when it sounds constructive and well-meaning. But there have been so many vicious attacks on him in the press, on Internet, you name it, that it might be difficult sometimes to tell the difference. Put yourself in his shoes, it you have had so much the crap written and said about you over the years, you would probably be quite touchy about it. I felt he was right when he called this site 'Morrissey So Low', in fact, I hated it at that time,too (I used to lurk back then), as it was full of trolls and many of the discussions/comments were utterly stupid and gutter-level. He would probably change his mind about it now.
 
'The negativity is not outright hatred or resentment, but something more complicated, and I find it an interesting subject. Leave it to Morrissey to bring out the best and the worst in people.'

(Sorry haven't worked out this quoting lark yet!)

Absolutely! The trouble with expecting blind devotion (assuming he does) is that you are also asking to be put on a ridiculous pedastal that you can't hope to stay on. He can never please us all. And yes, I agree that he does try much harder to please his fan- base (horrible word) than many artists.
He will inevitably disappoint sometimes (if we are completely honest), but then he will do or say something completely wonderful and you love him all over again.
God forbid the day that he's ever predictable! Who would really want that?
 
God forbid the day that he's ever predictable! Who would really want that?

"We live in an age in which only the dull are taken seriously, and I live in constant fear of not being misunderstood". (Wilde)

In an era of soulless conformity and suffocating consumerism, the necessary evil Morrissey fans must live with is that the surest guarantee of his artistic and spiritual integrity is his unprofessionalism. It is precisely his wilful, stubborn insistence on being himself, even when it occasionally comes at the expense of those who love him most passionately of all, that most endears him to his fans.
 
"We live in an age in which only the dull are taken seriously, and I live in constant fear of not being misunderstood". (Wilde)

In an era of soulless conformity and suffocating consumerism, the necessary evil Morrissey fans must live with is that the surest guarantee of his artistic and spiritual integrity is his unprofessionalism. It is precisely his wilful, stubborn insistence on being himself, even when it occasionally comes at the expense of those who love him most passionately of all, that most endears him to his fans.

I don't think he is unprofessional. Someone on here said recently you can virtually set your watch by what time he will appear onstage. Everyone who's ever worked with him has never faulted his professionalism.

I think this is an example of Morrissey fans not having a clue about how other artists behave. Have there ever been any stories of Morrissey being drunk or drugged up on stage? Such stories are regularly reported about other bands.

Ocassionally he makes a decision his fans don't like. That's nothing to do with professionalism. Unless you equate being professional as behaving like a doormat.
 
"We live in an age in which only the dull are taken seriously, and I live in constant fear of not being misunderstood". (Wilde)

In an era of soulless conformity and suffocating consumerism, the necessary evil Morrissey fans must live with is that the surest guarantee of his artistic and spiritual integrity is his unprofessionalism. It is precisely his wilful, stubborn insistence on being himself, even when it occasionally comes at the expense of those who love him most passionately of all, that most endears him to his fans.

Sorry to be of topic, but Worm that is a wonderful Wilde quote. I think I will steal it.

And what you say about Morrissey is so true...he is unloveable, therefore he is so loveable (I suspect that has been said a thousand times before?).
 
Danny, come on. If I sounded like he was permanently, 100% unprofessional-- a rambling wreck, pissing on street corners and kicking stagehands-- then that was not my intention. I did point out he is going through a long, laborious tour for the sake of his fans.

But I don't know how anyone can call him professional after all the stories we've gotten from close associates over the years. Have you forgotten the many ways in which The Smiths were doomed because of business decisions-- i.e. lack of professionalism? The non existent contract for The Bass Guitar and The Drums, for one. Or how about the European tour that was canceled while the other Smiths were in Heathrow ready to leave? Or Morrissey suddenly vanishing from London back to Manchester? Canceled gigs? Fired managers? His general refusal to play the game for the record companies?

My argument here is, no, he's not a doormat and nor should he act like one-- and we have to take the good and the bad that comes with that. And please note, above, that I said he was at the top of the list of pop stars who treat their fans well. I simply mean that compared to most other stars of his stature, who have become veritable corporations, he has remained steadfastly himself. I salute him for his individuality and force of will, but that doesn't take away from some of the disappointments fans have had to deal with over the years.
 
Last edited:
Worm- you've hit a series of nails quite beautifully on their darling little heads. It's deeply satisfying to 'hear' someone say exactly what I think/ feel- and so eloquently. Very therapeutic. Clever you!
 
Danny, come on. If I sounded like he was permanently, 100% unprofessional-- a rambling wreck, pissing on street corners and kicking stagehands-- then that was not my intention. I did point out he is going through a long, laborious tour for the sake of his fans.

But I don't know how anyone can call him professional after all the stories we've gotten from close associates over the years. Have you forgotten the many ways in which The Smiths were doomed because of business decisions-- i.e. lack of professionalism? The non existent contract for The Bass Guitar and The Drums, for one. Or how about the European tour that was canceled while the other Smiths were in Heathrow ready to leave? Or Morrissey suddenly vanishing from London back to Manchester? Canceled gigs? Fired managers? His general refusal to play the game for the record companies?

My argument here is, no, he's not a doormat and nor should he act like one-- and we have to take the good and the bad that comes with that. And please note, above, that I said he was at the top of the list of pop stars who treat their fans well. I simply mean that compared to most other stars of his stature, who have become veritable corporations, he has remained steadfastly himself. I salute him for his individuality and force of will, but that doesn't take away from some of the disappointments fans have had to deal with over the years.

I think a lot of the early "unprofessionalism" was a lot more to do with being an uneducated working class kid who didn't have a clue what he was doing more than anything. Coupled with the need to pretend that he DID know what he was doing to keep the vultures at bay. And not having a contract with your bandmates at a point when you thought they were you only friends in the world probably seemed reasonable to someone with no experience in the music business. Especially if there were a thousand and one other things to do. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that it seems an elementary mistake.

I find fan's dissapointments are often blown out of all proportion to what they are. I find quite often some of the vicious criticism's are childish and worryingly needy.

What about fans taking a look at themselves before they start with the recriminations? What about taking some responsibility for themselves. If you spend too much money on an artist it's YOUR fault. It's about having a bit of intelligence.

What about them realising Morrissey isn't an omnipotent being or even a very powerful artist? The way some of them talk you'd think he has all the power of U2 and Madonna combined rather than being a medium selling singer on a failing label. How dare he not release only standalone singles on one format only! :p
 
I think a lot of the early "unprofessionalism" was a lot more to do with being an uneducated working class kid who didn't have a clue what he was doing more than anything. Coupled with the need to pretend that he DID know what he was doing to keep the vultures at bay. And not having a contract with your bandmates at a point when you thought they were you only friends in the world probably seemed reasonable to someone with no experience in the music business. Especially if there were a thousand and one other things to do. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that it seems an elementary mistake.

I find fan's dissapointments are often blown out of all proportion to what they are. I find quite often some of the vicious criticism's are childish and worryingly needy.

What about fans taking a look at themselves before they start with the recriminations? What about taking some responsibility for themselves. If you spend too much money on an artist it's YOUR fault. It's about having a bit of intelligence.

What about them realising Morrissey isn't an omnipotent being or even a very powerful artist? The way some of them talk you'd think he has all the power of U2 and Madonna combined rather than being a medium selling singer on a failing label. How dare he not release only standalone singles on one format only! :p

I agree with just about everything you said in that post, Danny. I'd be the last one to claim all Morrissey fans are sane and levelheaded people. You're right, we're due criticism too. I myself have responded to singles released with four lame live B-sides by not buying them, or "special edition" albums, etc. I did that with "You Are The Quarry", exercising restraint in what I purchased, and still I went to a concert that was cut short during "There Is A Light That Never Goes Out"-- the one song I wanted to hear more than any other that night-- because a security guard gave a menacing scowl to some girl in the front row. Did I fume about it? A little. Then I laughed: that's Morrissey. Which slightly eased the disappointment of having the one song I'd waited twenty years to hear sung live suddenly cut short after a minute and a half because Morrissey got upset over nothing.

So, yes, the fans should try and maintain some balance in their perspective and expectations.

The one thing I disagree with is your explanation of Morrissey's early years. No doubt he was overwhelmed. You or I would be, too, but that's why you turn things over to managers. You accept that you're going to cede some control of the band's business affairs in order to ensure that everything runs smoothly artistically. You approach it like you would a business venture. From everything I've read Morrissey never quite allowed that to happen with The Smiths, which is a kind of way of putting it, considering the speculation that he was actually meddlesome and capricious.
 
Last edited:
I agree with just about everything you said in that post, Danny. I'd be the last one to claim all Morrissey fans are sane and levelheaded people. You're right, we're due criticism too. I myself have responded to singles released with four lame live B-sides by not buying them, or "special edition" albums, etc. I did that with "You Are The Quarry", exercising restraint in what I purchased, and still I went to a concert that was cut short during "There Is A Light That Never Goes Out"-- the one song I wanted to hear more than any other that night-- because a security guard gave a menacing scowl to some girl in the front row. Did I fume about it? A little. Then I laughed: that's Morrissey. Which slightly eased the disappointment of having the one song I'd waited twenty years to hear sung live suddenly cut short after a minute and a half because Morrissey got upset over nothing.

So, yes, the fans should try and maintain some balance in their perspective and expectations.

The one thing I disagree with is your explanation of Morrissey's early years. No doubt he was overwhelmed. You or I would be, too, but that's why you turn things over to managers. You accept that you're going to cede some control of the band's business affairs in order to ensure that everything runs smoothly artistically. You approach it like you would a business venture. From everything I've read Morrissey never quite allowed that to happen with The Smiths, which is a kind of way of putting it, considering the speculation that he was actually meddlesome and capricious.

There are enough stories about bands turning business over to their managers and never seeing a penny again. Dodgy people are attracted to the music business because they know it is easy pickings. Loads of stupid young people willing to trust the first person that strokes their ego.

My guess is Morrissey had (obsessively) read enough biographies of ripped off artists to know it was a mistake to trust managers. Maybe he was too suspicious but how do you tell if you've had no previous experience? At least at the end of The Smiths there was actually some money to argue over. Many bands would want to be in the same position.

And it's not as if the Smiths were ever in the position that they could attract a top flight manager. They were an indie band at a time when there was plenty of money to be had with more wealthy artists. Chancers were probably the only option they had. Either that or do it themselves.
 
Worm, I enjoy your posts, and agree with much of what you have said. Danny, good debate.

It’s good to remember we are talking about a fallible human being here. (One of my friends yesterday criticised “those Christians, they’re all hypocrites” because one had been rude to her. Judging them all by higher standards than she was prepared to apply to her own behaviour!)

A friend of mine worked with Morrissey briefly. He was unusually reluctant to say much about it. He did say M was professional, considerate, polite and generous. But he got no sense at all of who Morrissey was beyond a professional working relationship. I think I saw something similar in a Visconti interview?

What Morrissey does is work in the Music Business. He uses his own life, experiences as material, as well as journalistic storytelling. It must be difficult to keep the right balance, privacy and product, keeping the audience happy, wanting more, while keeping enough back to remain authentic, separate from the public image.

Those around in the business too often indulge the whims of their artists in order to continue the show. This is not always good for the artist. Meeting resistance is good for creativity and character. The “capriciousness” attributed to M may simply be he has become accustomed to being indulged and now sees less than that as disrespectful? Or perhaps it’s all part of the act?

:)
 
There are enough stories about bands turning business over to their managers and never seeing a penny again.

Fair enough, but weren't they being helped by Joe Moss? His departure was odd. From this article (http://foreverill.com/interviews/post87/firsttour.htm):

"Johnny Marr (guitarist, The Smiths): It was our first real tour, but we'd just lost our manager, my old school friend Joe Moss, so Morrissey and I were looking after the business side of things. Joe said his wife was about to have a baby and he wanted to spend more time with his family, but in fact there was friction between him and Morrissey. So, being a good friend of mine, rather than let that friction cause problems between me and Morrissey, he took himself out of the picture. But as a result of losing Joe, we were a bit like a rudderless ship."​

And then...

"11 FEBRUARY: Despite Scott Piering's appointment the previous day, American agent Ruth Polsky announces that she is now The Smiths' manager.

Geoff Travis: Ruth was a booking agent from New York. She'd booked The Smiths over there, and adored them. To my surprise, one day, Ruth walked into my office and said she was their manager.

Johnny Marr: Somebody in the band must have told her she could be our manager, but it certainly wasn't me."

Now, okay, this isn't an open and shut case. We don't know Morrissey's side of things. And certainly Moss may have left because of his wife-- I can believe that much. But we're also supposed to believe that the friction with Morrissey didn't enter into Moss's leaving the group behind? Mind you, Moss was a friend of Johnny's-- wasn't that trustworthy enough? And what happened with Ruth Polsky? Morrissey hires a booking agent from New York as The Smiths' agent without consulting Marr?

Admittedly, this is kind of an endless debate, since we don't know Morrissey's side and only have the word of other people around The Smiths, and in any case I don't disagree with your basic points about the music industry. And I wanted to mention, too, that your point about Morrissey being on a failing label is completely right and not brought up often enough. You'd think that he was Madonna or someone based on people's expectations, but at some point you kind of pause and go, "Wait a minute-- he sells 100k records at most and is on Sanctuary!"
 
Worm, I enjoy your posts, and agree with much of what you have said. Danny, good debate.

Thank you left out (and thank you Dougal)!

I absolutely agree with what you wrote, and were this thread titled "Morrissey-- the bestest most honestest hardest working lad in showbiz, bar none!" I could have produced posts in tribute to his hard work, kindness, and consideration for the fans. Really. When I think about how shy he's always been, to do what he's done is nothing less than miraculous, and as a shy person myself I do have some small sense of the personal sacrifice his career has brought. He really has given his blood sweat and tears (and buckets of each I'm sure). I have no doubt that any disappointments he's caused his fans couldn't possibly have been avoided from his point of view. I think the main thing I've tried to put forth in my side of the debate is that it's not as simple as saying "Morrissey has a bunch of assholes defaming him on Morrissey-solo". By insisting on his individuality and getting his way, he has, I think, put together a career of remarkable honesty and passion, all too rare in his industry, but in a curious twist it has also left him vulnerable for some sharp criticism from his fans, and that's what I've been tossing around some ideas about.
 
Back
Top Bottom