Absolutely! A rod for his own back sums it up well.
It's always tough to judge an artist's newer work when his older stuff is so magnificent. For years, in my own mind, his solo work could never escape the shadow of The Smiths (not until 1994, for me). Inevitably it's weaker, particularly in a medium that's so heavily youth-oriented.
However, some questions you should ask are:
Does the artist's newer work show some kind of evolution or growth? In my opinion, "Ringleader" does that-- as far as his lyrics and voice go.
Does the artist's work somehow tarnish or negate his previous songs? No way. In fact, I think both "Ringleader" and "Quarry"-- and the accompanying promotions and tours-- strengthen his legacy with his older solo work and The Smiths.
Does the artist's newer work seem relevant to the present? Yes, "Ringleader" is relevant-- remembering, of course, that Morrissey's lyrics have always put forward a sensibility "just a country mile behind" the rest of the world.
Would you love the artist if his latest album was his debut? This is a trickier one to answer, but I'll say yes on this one. The reason it's tricky is that Morrissey's new album exists in the context of not only his own back catalog but an indie/alternative scene he helped create. It's impossible to imagine "Ringleader" in a world that had not already had 20 years of Morrissey and The Smiths.
The one area where I think Morrissey has disappointed is musically. In no way is this a knock on Alain, Boz, and the others as musicians-- they're probably better than they've shown-- but Morrissey's music is increasingly undistinguished and intentionally muted. The recent email offered an extraordinary nugget, a line which indicates that Morrissey does conceive of himself as "apart from the music": that he is aware that he dominates (by his personality, voice, words) his own musicians.
In a funny way, his present situation is a little like those old Sandie Shaw records. You hear the voice, loud and clear, and the rest is background fodder. Decent accompanying tracks, tastefully arranged, but ultimately little more than scaffolding for the main attraction. The music isn't bad, it's just...there. The track I've been playing almost nonstop lately is "Song From Under The Floorboards", and I marvel as much at Morrissey's great vocals as I do at the listless backing music. For a long time I've believed that contrast to be intentional, and if I'm right that's somewhat disappointing because it means his current songs could be even better than they are.
But as for the fans in general, if there is a sense of disappointment, I think people should examine their assumptions. Art of any kind, and especially pop music, flourishes and thrives for an artist for a period of several years-- if they're truly talented-- and the rest is a long trek through the howling wastes. If someone is disappointed at Morrissey's recent work, what the hell kind of overblown expectations does he have, exactly? Which other artists have succeeded in carving out two or three decades of sterling work? Who else has done it?
No one. No, not even Def Leppard. Expecting a dozen or more great albums from one artist is ridiculous, especially over a span of 20-odd years. Like I said above, I think you have to think a little differently about the newer material. It took me a long time to get used to the idea that The Smiths weren't coming back, but that's because, at the time, I had thought that bands and singers released one incredible record after another for years and years on end. The Smiths' four-year recording lifespan seemed woefully short to me. I mourned over the band's being cut down in the bloom of youth. Years later I understood what Johnny had in mind, which is that bands only have about four years of greatness in them. Some maybe six or seven. But in any case, The Smiths weren't killed in the cradle, they were at least hobbling into middle age with ulcers, thinning hair, and incipient liver spots. The lives of rock bands should be measured in dog years.
In a sense, yes, I'm talking about listening to "Ringleader" with lower expectations, but I'm hoping to convey that there's no shame in that. He's done much, much more than the vast majority of other songwriters. Why hold him to an impossible standard, when no one else meets it either? Morrissey's back catalog does exist, it's sublime, and it's there for our consumption; his latest stuff is good in its own right; and he's as dynamic, intelligent, and beautiful as ever-- and thankfully he's still irritating all the right people. Taking the larger view there's no way his latest music is a let-down.
And the smaller view? You can hum it in the shower. End of story.
