> Timing as simple as that. You have to look at the whole of the
> 1980's. Music was crap across the board. At least nowdays we all
> have a choice of what we listen to and it's much easier to
> access. Morrissey and Marr both needed each other and couldn't
> have made without, a fact often overlooked. There was no real
> image, The Smiths weren't manufacted and never had big bouffy
> hair, just a simple appearance. They spoke and still do for
> those who want a bit of intelligence in their pop culture in
> general. Nowadays there are some good bands around and so many
> of them cite the Smiths as a major infulence upon their bands.
but is that what this person is asking?
the interesting thing is that to me, Moz looks like a living caricature in those vids. The hair jutting. The obvious and out of style glasses. The large bouquet of flowers.
True, I have seen him in pics like that, but dancing and singing while wearing it is another thing. It is interesting and I start to understand why people who were there from the beginning start complaining about the band's absence. I mean, if this is the image of him you had, and then he goes into his boxing fetishism less than 10 years later, it is an odd evolution that many fans were probably not up to making.
It's not so far fetched. How many bands or musicians have you known to have evolved in that way? Madonna doesn't count because she always based everything on the sex angle. Elton John as well has been writing the nice little piano love songs for over 25 years.
I know that sounds like a while, but I'm trying to imagine what I would think of Belle and Sebastian if they broke up and Stuart started dressing in leather and writing lyrics like "running with the devil"
Maybe that's why Moz's career is so different in the US than in Britain. There, they embraced him as a flower, and in the US, they embraced him as rockabilly glam nut. And now, it looks like the more obvious and unusual bits he would overdo have been tamed.