i came across an interview with Peter Hook from New Order and he talked about how he hated Morrissey and the Smiths. i was kind of taken aback, i mean i know people got the right to believe in whatever they want to but it seems people often love both the Smiths and NO, even though they're both quite unique in thier own sound.
peter hook and Moz beef
- Thread starter Weare138
- Start date
Worm
Taste the diffidence
I think that's more personal animosity than anything else. The Smiths seemed to thumb their noses at Factory when they emerged on the scene in '83. That wasn't really true, by most accounts-- Tony Wilson says he passed on them, they say they didn't like Factory-- but either way there was bad blood between The Smiths and New Order from the get-go. Maybe more accurate to say between Morrissey and New Order. Johnny is obviously chummy with them, and was so almost from the beginning.
Not entirely on topic, but he briefly mentioned JD (in their Warsaw days) in a concert review in 1977:
"Of the new bands, Warsaw, The Worst, The Drones and the Fall look the most likely to make any headway. Warsaw were formed some times ago by vocalist Ian Curtis and have performed alongside more prominent bands like The Heartbreakers. Although they offer little originality with Ian's offstage antics resembling one Iggy Pop, highliting (sic) their set is 'Another Kill' which is at least memorable, if slightly typical."
At least he didn't say that the bass player sucked.
Thanks to Passions for the reference.
"Of the new bands, Warsaw, The Worst, The Drones and the Fall look the most likely to make any headway. Warsaw were formed some times ago by vocalist Ian Curtis and have performed alongside more prominent bands like The Heartbreakers. Although they offer little originality with Ian's offstage antics resembling one Iggy Pop, highliting (sic) their set is 'Another Kill' which is at least memorable, if slightly typical."
At least he didn't say that the bass player sucked.
Thanks to Passions for the reference.
dallow_bg
the one he left behind
mspendl828
Banned
I know Hooky had a problem with The Smiths getting that photo done at the Salford Lads Club as, unlike Hooky, none of the band were actually from there and he accused them of 'slumming it'.
Bluebirds
Well-Known Member
Sorry to be pedantic but I've been on one. You can't be QUITE UNIQUE.
Dougal
Junior Member
Can I be doubly pedantic here? If it's 'quite' as in totally, completely, entirely then surely it's correct? If the intended meaning is quite as in 'somewhat' or 'partly' then not. Who's to say??
Albion
Me
Bluebirds
Well-Known Member
sustained
Hmm fair enough. I'm in a minority of one!!!
For many grammarians, unique is the paradigmatic absolute term, a shibboleth that distinguishes between those who understand that such a term cannot be modified by an adverb of degree or a comparative adverb and those who do not. These grammarians would say that a thing is either unique or not unique and that it is therefore incorrect to say that something is very unique or more unique than something else. Most of the Usage Panel supports this traditional view. Eighty percent disapprove of the sentence Her designs are quite unique in today's fashions. But as the language of advertising in particular attests, unique is widely used as a synonym for “worthy of being considered in a class by itself, extraordinary,” and if so construed it may arguably be modified. In fact, unique appears as a modified adjective in the work of many reputable writers. A travel writer states that “Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco,” for example, and the critic Fredric Jameson writes “The great modern writers have all been defined by the invention or production of rather unique styles.” Although these examples of the qualification of unique are defensible, writers should be aware that such constructions are liable to incur the censure of some readers. See Usage Notes at absolute, equal, infinite.
So you're all slaves to advertising and I am a paradigm of Communist virtue!
Worm
Taste the diffidence
The grammarians are basically correct. One should not say "quite unique".
However, consider the question this way.
"Unique" can be a relative term, one capable of being modified, if one gets more, not less, pedantic.
After all, everything in the world is unique. Even "identical" things are distinguished by iteration, version, or context. So, as the basis for comparisons shift, a thing can become more or less unique.
For example, say you have a room with two kittens in it, a black tuxedo kitty and an orange tabby. Each is unique. Their difference is pronounced and obvious.
Then, if you filled the room with 200 kittens of various colors, the criteria for "unique" changes. Each kitten is still unique, but now the group is more homogenous, and each kitten seems less unique.
But let's say 199 of the kittens were black, and one were orange, you would then have 200 unique kittens but one would be particularly unique.
This is the meaning of the grammarian's allowance for the sentence "Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco". New York, San Francisco, and Chicago are all unique, but in the wider comparison (all American cities) they are similar in that they stand apart. The unstated assertion is that other American cities are not unique, which is not strictly true. The use of "unique" is therefore already a relative matter subject to the shifting conventions of discourse.
Still, the best answer is not to say "quite unique". More so because "quite" is generally thought to be a sloppy cliche, a placeholder that weakens the sentence.
However, consider the question this way.
"Unique" can be a relative term, one capable of being modified, if one gets more, not less, pedantic.
After all, everything in the world is unique. Even "identical" things are distinguished by iteration, version, or context. So, as the basis for comparisons shift, a thing can become more or less unique.
For example, say you have a room with two kittens in it, a black tuxedo kitty and an orange tabby. Each is unique. Their difference is pronounced and obvious.
Then, if you filled the room with 200 kittens of various colors, the criteria for "unique" changes. Each kitten is still unique, but now the group is more homogenous, and each kitten seems less unique.
But let's say 199 of the kittens were black, and one were orange, you would then have 200 unique kittens but one would be particularly unique.
This is the meaning of the grammarian's allowance for the sentence "Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco". New York, San Francisco, and Chicago are all unique, but in the wider comparison (all American cities) they are similar in that they stand apart. The unstated assertion is that other American cities are not unique, which is not strictly true. The use of "unique" is therefore already a relative matter subject to the shifting conventions of discourse.
Still, the best answer is not to say "quite unique". More so because "quite" is generally thought to be a sloppy cliche, a placeholder that weakens the sentence.
Jukebox Jury
Retired
Not correct I'm afraid.
The two bands did play on the same bill twice in 1986 at Liverpool (from Manchester With Love, along with The Fall) and The Festival of the 10th Summer at G-Mex.
Jukebox Jury
konstantinl
Junior Member
For a vegetarian Morrissey has a strong track record for attracting 'beefs'.
nightandday
New Member
Many vegetarians attract 'beefs', especially when they speak about their vegetarianism.
In the last year's Mojo Classic/Q Classic special on Manchester, Hooky said he liked The Smiths and that Morrissey's lyrics are so great you just have to like them, but that Morrissey is a c*** who's badmouthed Joy Division and New Order many times.
Oops, sorry, I forgot this was a thread about the word "unique".
nightandday
New Member
I don't get the 'slumming it' part, I mean the Smiths were hardly of a posh background?
C
Cemetry Gates
Guest
Was this the interview from the magazine devoted to the music of Manchester by Q? I read partial parts of an article there which indicated that Morrissey wasn't exactly cool about people liking Joy Division who weren't there to really experience it and it was like what was the hype all about? Hey though, I am older but, I wasn't born when the band was around but, why should that make me indifferent to liking them? I can appreciate their emotionalism & music, not just b/c of the tragedy/mystery of the band.
the more you explore me!
retired :)
he prefers to have a nutroast with people!
Similar threads
