posted by davidt on Wednesday March 17 2004, @10:00AM
An anonymous person writes:

The new issue of GQ, with Viggo Mortensen on cover, has a new interview with Morrissey, plus several pictures of Moz in various suits.
This PR Newswire story was posted on the general discussion board by Southpaw Granny on Mar. 15 (link).

Smiths Legend Morrissey Speaks With GQ About a Reunion, Getting Older and Why David Bowie Is No Longer Glamorous

NEW YORK, March 15 /PRNewswire/ -- In the April edition of GQ, editor-in-chief Jim Nelson was granted a rare opportunity to visit with Smith's legend, Morrissey, at his home in Los Angeles, to talk about the release of his first solo album in seven year and his former band, the Smiths:

* On the formation of the Smiths: "I had absolutely nothing else. And it was also a calling, because it instantly became successful, and it didn't require a great deal of effort. Preparation, yes, but not the effort."

* On the break-up of the Smiths: "It is commitment, because for me it was a huge emotional investment, and then Johnny [Marr] simply said 'It's over.' And I don't think he understood the investment that I had made in it.

* On the re-formation of the Smiths: "I get tired of being asked about re-formations, because there's really only one way to answer on a given question, and I feel I gave the answer 112 years ago, but people still ask me, and I can't understand why."

* On getting older: "I absolutely love it. The older I get, the better I feel. I'm fascinated by people in their eighties and nineties. Especially those who are still creating and living in an interesting way.

* On David Bowie: "(He is) not the person he was. He is no longer David Bowie at all. Now he gives people what he thinks will make them happy, and they're yawning their heads off. And by doing that, he is not relevant. He was only relevant by accident."

Jim Nelson's piece, Morrissey Returns! is in the April issue of GQ on newsstands nationwide on Tuesday, March 23, 2004. GQ is the leading men's general-interest magazine and part of the Conde Nast Publications, Inc.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Don't know how David will react to that last comment - ouch mozza... the festivals will be interesting ....
    Anonymous -- Wednesday March 17 2004, @10:15AM (#90810)
  • Fantastic!

    Does anyone know if the NME with Moz on the cover is out yet, or might I have missed it?
    Anonymous -- Wednesday March 17 2004, @10:23AM (#90812)
    • Re:Great news by Johan de Witt (Score:1) Wednesday March 17 2004, @11:13AM
    • Re:Great news by Anonymous (Score:0) Wednesday March 17 2004, @11:16AM
  • Our man is certainly becoming more stylish in his old age!!
    Anonymous -- Wednesday March 17 2004, @11:15AM (#90825)
  • "editor-in-chief Jim Nelson was granted a rare opportunity to visit with Smith's legend, Morrissey, at his home in Los Angeles"

    So I guess those rumors of him selling his L.A. home and moving back to England aren't true then?

    half-a-person -- Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:22PM (#90841)
    (User #69 Info)
    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of lifes problems
    • Re:L.A. Home by Anonymous (Score:0) Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:07PM
      • Re:L.A. Home by Anonymous (Score:0) Thursday March 18 2004, @06:24AM
        • Re:L.A. Home by Anonymous (Score:0) Thursday March 18 2004, @08:58AM
  • it sounds like the human league!!
    Anonymous -- Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:39PM (#90849)
  • Sorry but I am slightly confused.
    I bought the "april" edition of GQ and there was nothing Morrissey-esqye in it?
    Don't ask me who was on the cover either, some model that looks the same as any other model.

    So how can it be on sale from 23rd march, or whatever.

    Anonymous -- Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:50PM (#90853)
    • Re:What by Johan de Witt (Score:1) Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:14PM
      • Re:What by uncleskinny (Score:1) Wednesday March 17 2004, @03:17PM
        • Re:What by Anonymous (Score:0) Wednesday March 17 2004, @06:07PM
          • Re:What by Johan de Witt (Score:1) Thursday March 18 2004, @04:24AM
            • Re:What by Maladjustedx (Score:1) Thursday March 18 2004, @09:51AM
              • Re:What by Anonymous (Score:0) Thursday March 18 2004, @10:05AM
  • ...funny, I saw the magazine and read the whole interview yesterday so it obviously has been released. I think this Viggo guy from LOTR is on
    the cover. The interview is very long but I thought it was kind of dull. Nothing really interesting. And the interviewer was terrible.
    Anonymous -- Wednesday March 17 2004, @02:07PM (#90863)
  • Morrissey sickens me! Bowie is 1,000% better then Moz will ever be. Moz is just a jealous old queen.

    He has the nerve to say Bowie gives people what he thinks will make them happy....well at least he cares enought to make the people happy, Moz hasnt released nothing but regurgitated compliations and never changes his lame wit at every oppurtunity to open his mouth!

    May he drive his Jag right off a cliff! Loser!
    Anonymous -- Wednesday March 17 2004, @06:26PM (#90888)
  • I agree with his comments on David Bowie.
    Bowie was much more interesting & musically creative when he was off his face during the seventies on drugs etc.
    This 'clean' version of Bowie IS boring!

    Anonymous -- Wednesday March 17 2004, @07:28PM (#90895)
  • ok people, can I just say that David Bowie is still very relevant today, he has influenced at last two generations of artists, and I can tell you he is an amazing singer when he performs live (saw him in London last November)and whatever happens his contribution to music is undeniable, I doubt Morrissey will be remembered the same way, I am a big fan of both Morrissey and David Bowie,I just think Moz has not recover from the incident during the "Outside Tour" but please can people try to be a little a bit more objective, who cares anyway ? Time to grow up folks!!!
    Anonymous -- Thursday March 18 2004, @03:36AM (#90923)
    • Re:Bowie/Morrissey by Anonymous (Score:0) Thursday March 18 2004, @04:41AM
    • Re:Bowie/Morrissey by Anonymous (Score:0) Thursday March 18 2004, @10:10AM
    • Re:Bowie/Morrissey (Score:2, Interesting)

      I totally agree with you. Anyone who has seen Bowie live in the last couple of years could see quite clearly that the man is doing exactly what he wants, and that it makes him very happy.

      Morrissey, I think, worries far too much about his own relevance, and it breeds dishonesty within himself. I love Moz, obviously, but sometimes his slagging off of other artists is just tiresome.
      Ms.Golightly -- Thursday March 18 2004, @03:02PM (#91020)
      (User #9821 Info |
      JSR, running with the dogs today...
    • WHAT about Bowie/Morrissey? by Anonymous (Score:0) Thursday March 18 2004, @03:29PM
  • "I can have both
    There's no need to choose
    I can have both"
    Anonymous -- Thursday March 18 2004, @04:34AM (#90931)
  • I was told about the so called deleted track by the smiths and after searching for a while found a track on call "the smiths - deleted track (rare).mp3" it is certainly a good track and is not on any of my albums. Can any body tell me what it is called. You can find it on the alternative tab under music downloads.
    Anonymous -- Thursday March 18 2004, @10:20AM (#90985)
  • Courtesy of 'an old brown shoe' (Thanks btw) on the discussion board:

    transcript []

    image 1 []

    image 2 []

    image 3 []

    image 4 []

    image 5 []

    image 6 []
    nonesoever -- Friday March 19 2004, @03:53AM (#91071)
    (User #8448 Info)
    "... turn popular song into sickness"
  • As much as I love Moz, I think he's definitely on a no-winner with his latest Bowie's comments. Coming off the back of a current successful world tour and two critically acclaimed albums, I don't think Bowie's much bothered at all. Infact, he's been relatively discreet about the whole 'Outside' tour fall-out, whilst Moz still seems pretty chewed up by it all.....SEVEN years on . Infact - and I hate saying this - Moz needs to chill out a bit, concentrate on Meltdown, perhaps give David a ring, have a heart to heart and call a truce. After all, they do have something in common. They're both the greatest solo artists this country has produced. Bowie's huge musical legacy speaks for itself, as does Moz's.
    Anonymous -- Friday March 19 2004, @11:13AM (#91128)
  • Is there anything on TV you like?

    He has to be talking about "FRIENDS"..which I recall he went to a taping of back in the mid 90s with his friend.. Charlie Sheen???!??!?!?! has to be the Simpsons or The Andy Griffith Show :)
    Anonymous -- Friday March 19 2004, @06:12PM (#91181)
  • yeah bowie was a great artist in the seventies and has some excellent past matieral...but its all(to various degrees) either been just acceptable or garbage since then...tin machine, the whole eighties, his forays into the rubbish that was the eighties...he is a nostalgia act now...all fans want to hear is his old classics at shows, not the new boredoms...Morrissey is right to distance himself from this and continue to be a relevent artist relying on his latest attempts...who cares if bowie is a critics darling...he is no longer relevent...when I see bowie live I don't want to hear his new stuff, unlike a moz performance, where I'm gasping at every new verse and the last glimpse at moz's new material showed he is still relevant, not boring...bowie was great...moz still is...bottom line Moz's new material is the bomb, bowie's is just a crashing bore!(I hate to say that about a legend I respect, but reality baby!)
    defari -- Saturday March 20 2004, @06:47AM (#91213)
    (User #10050 Info)
  • Bowie has spent has spent the last twelve years kow-towing to every fad and bandwagon he possibly can.

    In 1995, he jumped on the drum and bass bandwagon with 'Outside', one of the most pretentious and irrelevant records ever made. PC technology and the Internet started to become part of mainstream culture, so he decided to have a computer randomly construct the lyrics...thus avoiding having to sing about anything in a way which might constitute an 'opinion'. Which is one criticism you could never aim at Morrissey at any point in his career.

    Quite frankly, the day Morrissey starts alligning himself with the cap-wearing, 'urban' scene, anti-intellectual graffiti-writing culture which seems inescapable in England (although we all know where it started) which Bowie has sold his soul to, will be the day I lose all hope in humnaity.
    ranierimustgo! -- Saturday March 20 2004, @08:53AM (#91219)
    (User #9990 Info)
  • As a fan of both, all this "Bowie v Moz" smacks of childishness to me. For a man of 57 Bowie is still going great guns, whatever people's personal opinions of his work maybe. Ditto Moz. To say one or the other is no longer "revelant" means nothing. I seen Bowie live last year for the first time and he was absolutely brilliant, mixing old material with new, playing to a capacity audience of young and old, male and female. The trouble is some die-hard Moz and Bowie fans feel they have to take "sides", just because the two of them had a fall-out of sorts on the Outside tour. Well, isn't life tough? Get real. The bottom line is this: whatever your PERSONAL view of Bowie's current work or Moz's current work, they are both still "revelant" ie. making NEW music, touring, still managing to elicit interest in this ever-fickle business we call the Music Industry. I'll be going to see Bowie headlining at T in The Park this summer and Moz, if and when he tours soon. I like and respect both artists still and regret that (currently) they're not the best of friends. But so what? It's sure not going to stop me from being "disloyal" to one by "siding" with the other. That, I'm afraid, would be the behaviour of a saddo. I just celebrate the fact that both are still going strong. Perhaps it's time for a few others to do the same.
    Anonymous -- Saturday March 20 2004, @01:14PM (#91234)
  • Mmmmmm..... Yes, Bowie was very relevant
    when i was a teenager and if he's not relevant
    now well maybe that's just bad luck.
    And after all, maybe fame,popularity, "relevance",
    are a rather fated thing....
    Anonymous -- Saturday March 27 2004, @07:02AM (#92539)

[ home | terms of service ]