Andrew Collins and Morrissey

You really think using "Bigmouth Strikes Again" is an example of great journalism?

I actually think the best bit (though nobody here will agree) is the 'Oh dear. Not again.'

If you were aware of the original 1992 Moz-NME rift, it makes sense, and makes you want to read it.
If you weren't, it provokes the response of "again? what's happened again?", and makes you want to read it.
 
Hang on, so you're saying that there can be one set of rules for Morrissey, and another for the rest of the world?

It isn't a question of 'rules' or preferential treatment. Surely you can't explore the things someone has said without placing them within the broader context of just who that someone is.

This someone was Morrissey. Morrissey is different. Therefore, we should take full account of that when exploring his song lyrics and the comments he makes in interviews.

For example:

To ask the question "What does 'reggae is vile' mean?" is hardly worth the effort. The question must be "What does Morrissey mean by 'reggae is vile'?"

The 'rest of the world' simply doesn't come into it.

It's the difference between robust enquiry (proper journalism, if you like) and tepid questioning.

The question at the heart of the NME piece wasn't "Is it risky to play artistically with notions of race, racism and national identity?" The question was "Is Morrissey racist?"

Morrissey. Not simply some faceless representative of 'the rest of the world', but a very specific individual.
 
Well Andrew, since you're here:

Grass was awesome and I'd give my left nut for another series.

Not Going Out is f***ing wank.

The infamous NME piece was also f***ing wank. I would certainly agree that Morrissey frequently talks bollocks and does things that are ill-advised, but the piece was just shit-stirring nonsense.
 
Yes, there is a slight bias to the collection of article - that's the beauty of opinion pieces: the whole point of them is to convey an opinion. A lot of people on here obviously don't agree with the opinion expressed (I'm undecided on the matter), but it is a matter of opinion.

Why is it that you insist on the distinction between fact and opinion or news and editorial, but stop there?

"Morrissey is an intelligent man and a provocative artist who may have gone too far this time in appropriating imagery normally associated with bigots, creeps and fascists, leaving him vulnerable to the charge of racism. Though we think he is not a racist, we view his position as ambiguous and consequently inappropriate for the troubled times in which we find ourselves".

"Morrissey is a sad bastard past his prime who deserved to get bottled off at Madstock".​

Both of these are opinions. Both are opinions expressed differently. There are distinctions not only between fact and opinion but different kinds of opinions, in substance and in presentation.

I don't believe anyone here is knocking the NME for daring to express a negative opinion about Morrissey's use of dangerous imagery. I think I speak for most of us when I say that the articles were, at best, unfairly presented, and, at worst, hit-and-run tabloid journalism at its most idiotic and malicious. Trust me. We all know the difference between news and op-ed.

You're right. It was seventeen years ago. We should all be able to call it what it was and move on. Many of us have. But now it's clear, again, that a few souls are apparently unwilling to do so. They're pretending the NME's coverage of Finsbury Park represented a serious piece of op-ed writing. Dele Fadele probably thinks so, but then again I'd love to know how thrilled Dele was when his mostly intelligent and well-intentioned op-ed was accompanied by articles rife with baseless conjecture, hearsay, shitty reporting, an entire section in which some jilted mediocrity is allowed to vent his spleen because his fifteen minutes of fame ended at fourteen, and another in which the cost of a canceled show is added up for the benefit of the "gullible, stupid, lamblike" Morrissey fan who isn't smart enough to figure out these things for herself. I'm sure Dele was ecstatic that the NME treated his opinion with the gravitas it so richly deserved.
 
Last edited:
Listen, I'm glad I came here. It's been fascinating, and infuriating, to follow this dialogue. I knew already, but this further proves, that you are passionate people. And boy, do you love Morrissey. (Although I love music, I can honestly say that I don't love any single artist or band as much as some of you love Morrissey. I take my hat off to you. I love David Bowie, but if he did something I didn't like, it wouldn't pain me to say so. He is just a really talented man who has given me much pleasure in my life.)

Equally, when one of you writes, "It really doesn't matter what some little man writes to further his career along because real art will always prevail. And real art doesn't have to answer back either," it reminds me why you don't need me. If "real art" doesn't have to answer back, why must you answer back on real art's behalf?

All I am is that "little man". I was never trying to further my career by my work on the August 1992 cover story, other than, it was already my job, it was already my main source of income. My job was features editor of the NME. My contributions to the cover story were not sexy. They were not important. It took no effort to tot up the numbers or find the quotes - this was donkey work; it didn't even merit a byline. I maintain that the important bit was Dele's editorial, and I will continue to maintain that. The ideal cover story would always have been an interview with Morrissey, perhaps conducted by Dele Fadele, or Danny Kelly, who had written so well about the Smiths. We wouldn't have needed all the other stuff, the donkey work. (Easy to dismiss Peter Hooton in your bitchy way, but his band were prominent at the time and Hotton was more intelligent than many. You don't help your own case by dismissing him as a nonentity just because you don't like what he said. It comes across as childish.)

Although I have constantly made myself available to try and contextualise the story - the only contributor who has really done so - the weight of responsibility threatens to drag me down. We are all "little men," or women. There is only one "artist" here. And we are all arguing without him.

I don't believe, in all that time, I have made claims that the NME piece was Pulitzer Prize-winning journalism. (If I have, I'm sure one of you will scour the internet, find it, and tell me. But it seems unlikely.) It was a response, written by five people, over a couple of days, to a perplexing situation. If it suits your version of events to imagine that we plotted to bring Morrissey down, nothing I say to the contrary will spoil that image. We didn't. Interestingly, it is the attractive myth Morrissey himself perpetuates. If he really thought that we five had made a decision to end his career, why did he ever speak to any of us again? (I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer to that question, as it falls into a very big grey area, and you're not very good on grey areas, if I may risk a generalisation.) If Morrissey is the man of principle he appears to be - he boycotted the NME - these are elastic principles - he did not boycott the people who wrote the offending piece. That, to me, either makes him calculatingly career-minded, or - more preferable - just an easygoing, sensible bloke getting on with his life.

Worm, you are a very accomplished writer and thinker. You are prepared to devote an inordinate amount of time and energy to the source material. Nobody could accuse you of flying off the handle, as some do, or basing your argument on vague memories of what was written, as some do. I thank you for virtually transcribing the whole cover story here, so that it now exists in the public domain for fans either too young to properly remember it, or unlucky enough not have the issue to hand. I don't know anything about you, personally, but if you are not a professional journalist, you should be.

Equally, you might step back for one moment, and ask why you're devoting so much time to a series of articles written 17 years ago. So much has changed in those 17 years. (I was 27 then, I'm 44 now. I'm a different person. You must all surely be different people to the ones you were in 1992. Even Morrissey must be.) You could argue that I brought this latest chapter of the never-ending argument upon myself because I defended my comedy partner against charges of racism. I did. But again, not to go into in Worm-standard detail, he was interviewed and misrepresented by a newspaper, then allowed to write a rebuttal which was printed, and the dialogue continues on internet forums; in 1992 we ran a piece that should have contained an interview, but didn't, and had to rest upon editorial and speculation, and no rebuttal ever came. How much more satisfactory the outcome of the Richard Herring case, which was dealt with, in public, in five days and now we all know where everybody stands. It will not be written about in 2026.

If Morrissey's career was ended by the piece, it would be historic. Morrissey's career was not ended; indeed, today, it flourishes in new and exciting ways. The NME had its own new spat with Morrissey and, ironically, this was much more similar to the Richard Herring story, in that it was based upon an interview, and came down to misrepresentation. And it went to court. Nobody went to court in 1992, because there was nothing to go to court over. (And yet the trial continues, you might say.) So, the piece is not historic; it is a mere curiosity - it makes me a footnote in the robust Mozipedia, nothing more. It remains one of the very few NME covers that people remember from the 90s, and do you know why? Because 99% of NME covers were, and are, nice photos of bands, advertising their latest record or tour. Like it or loathe it, the August 1992 cover was an attempt at news; an instant reaction to events. I say an attempt, because a decent news story has input from the protagonists of the story - at the very least a statement. Ours had nothing of the sort.

I will always wish Morrissey had spoken to us that week, even though what's done is done and dwelling on the past causes tumours. This is not deflection of blame. We wrote what we wrote. But it could have been different, and it would have been better.

However, since he is enjoying a purple patch of creativity and critical respect in middle age and seems (how can any of us ever know, even those of us who've met him) happy and looks terrific, I don't feel guilty. It seems I am a little man after all. In which case, why bother hounding me?

Because some of you need me to feel guilty, you are frustrated. (You'd surely be a lot more frustrated if I didn't make myself available for comment. People who know me think I am mad for entering into a dialogue with you.) But there must be more important things going on in the world, right now, that could use some of your passion and energy.

Thanks for private messages of support and kindness. They make quite a difference. I will never again make the mistake of thinking all Morrissey fans are the same.
 
No one is hounding you, you sound like Morrissey after a lukewarm review. A few people disagreed with you and you created a new blog entry about it, then specifically registered on another forum to carry on the argument.

If you want to attack Worm for spending too much time on this (subtext "you sad bastard", you are not as subtle as you think) then maybe you should consider how much time you are devoting to it. You can't really attack Worm's argument because he has very cleverly revealed how weak the original publication was.
 
Equally, when one of you writes, "It really doesn't matter what some little man writes to further his career along because real art will always prevail. And real art doesn't have to answer back either"

what's "real art"? And why should real art be dumb?


We are all "little men," or women. There is only one "artist" here. And we are all arguing without him.

I beg to differ, I'm a little dog.
And I think you need to realize that artists can sometimes be little men too. (As conversely, "little" can be "great". Sometimes). Anyway, I think you know that what is at the core of all this, is merely the quest for power, and who gets the microphone or the column in the newspaper. All this heated debate, which I don't mind saying is frankly ridiculous seen from abroad, boils down to that. Morrissey wants to have the last word, the journalists want to have the last word, and you're all going to die and hope someone will remember this epic battle between the racist and the non racist in say, a hundred years. Well I doubt anybody will, because even the hardcore Morrissey fans are mortal, you know.
The reason why he doesn't argue is because he's not very good at following a conversation, and saying something relevant back. Not all artists are like that, mind. Just some of them. If he does/ says silly things, it's to be remembered. If you were silly enough to follow him on that path, well you only have yourselves to blame, and wonder why you did it for. You just shouldn't have taken the bait, but the journalists that can resist taking the bait from Morrissey are very very hard to find, aren't they? That's actually how some of us measure intelligence.

However, since he is enjoying a purple patch of creativity and critical respect in middle age and seems (how can any of us ever know, even those of us who've met him) happy and looks terrific, I don't feel guilty.

Nah. That's Prince.

But there must be more important things going on in the world, right now, that could use some of your passion and energy.

And yours.:thumb:


I haven't followed the Morrissey Racism Rat Race in all its intricate details. And I am never going to make you think I'm so good at researching meticulously and summing things up for all to see that I could be a journalist.:straightface:

However, one thing I can tell you, is that, when you take a step back, it's sad. And it's not grown-up stuff. Certainly not. Behind these are people with personal issues and huge egos, and that's the real problem, not the fact that England has been thrown away or not.

Regards from across the sea, and, oh: Dogland for the Doglish, and all that. Of course.
 
Andrew lets keep it simple:

In 1992 you were clearly in the wrong - morrissey was not being imflamatory or flirting with dangerous imagery, any one with half a brain could see that - he was addressing an issue poetically and sensitively.

the fact that he didn't respond directly to you isn't important - stop going on about it - you don't have the right to demand he defends himself - you are a little man

Your argument that he continued to communicate with the journalist who wrote the piece in 1992 is also not relavant - so what? - your article is still rubbish. If he speaks to you again is that an admission of guilt or an act of forgiveness - no

lets just focus on the article itself - it was a terrible hatchet job wasn't it Andrew - reading it again must be embarrassing - i bet you wish it would just go away.

The reason this argument keeps coming up in your life is because you continue to lose the argument and yet you never take any reponsibility

Say in with me Andrew "The NME article was a hatchet job - Morrissey was not and is not racist - i'm sorry i contributed"

Just stop squirming and say it Andrew, stop defending your limp words with weak argument designed to distract from the truth of the matter - you got it badly wrong - you will feel better i promise and you will never have to lose this argument again.
 
Sorry Mr Collins, forgot to say something vaguely important.:D ("oh now it's coming" indeed!:thumb:)

I'm actually super glad you're here because for 17 years (amusing coincidence) I've been looking for a journalist to speak to. Not been looking very hard, I'll admit it, but, I thought, journalists, it's THEIR job to look for things, not yours, so you know, I thought, might as well take it easy.

Well turns out I was completely wrong. Journalists don't investigate and put two and two together, as I thought they did. No no. it's nothing like that. Journalists, and music journalists in particular, and British music journalists if we want to be even more specific, all they do, is sit all day on what they think they know is the truth, or, on what they've decided is the truth, and keep that warm under their arses while the truth is out there and goes about its business, takes trains in and out of countries, without ever being stopped and questioned by any of your colleagues.

If journalists had a genuine interest in Morrissey, they would have researched things a bit more. Then, this little Cat and Mouse game would have become really interesting. Instead, it's like "the Mousetrap" by Agatha Christie, not exactly news. (Not that I have seen the Mousetrap- is it any good? but I digress).

See you had ammunition lying about doing nothing that could have taken this "Foreigners in England" issue to an interesting and amusing new level. The whole "Foreign" theme was like a goldmine, but you never bothered digging, none of you. You could have come up with interesting, challenging questions, opened a whole new perspective on things.

But no. For 17 years, noone ever asked a question to Morrissey about that. And yet, there is a foreigner allright, and a foreigner it is, more foreign than a Pakistanese living in England in a way,and complete with foreign accent as well. So a real foreigner, that could throw away England just by taking the Eurostar.

So...why none of you used that ammunition? Morrissey has been handing it to you for seventeen years, in his inimitable subtle way. How come none of you ever saw it?

Is it because, as the little shop around the corner once put it, you all belong to a shoegazing nation?

Is it because, a great British Icon like Morrissey has nothing to do with them foreigners?

Were you blind? Were you in denial? Did you just not pay attention? Were your seat and your prejudice about Morrissey too comfy to ever stand up to look for the truth?

All these questions are highly amusing to me. You lot just have no idea of the irony of the situation. Morrissey fans may not be "all the same", but Morrissey-obsessed journalists, and authors, well, they are. To me.


So anyway, now you can go back to sitting on your arses. If you wait for Morrissey to spill the beans about foreigners, you'll wait a long time.

And, as you never asked anyone else, well, all we can do really, is laugh at you.

If you wanted to embarrass him on the subject of "foreigners", you really didn't have to look very far...
What would have been interesting would have been to interview a Foreigner on the subject of racism, xenophobia, skinheads, lemon curd at the same time as Morrissey. Would have been a right giggle, that, no? A "Foreigner vs Morrissey" interview? I'm sure Foreigners can come up with as many silly ideas as Morrissey! Aaaah...You should have tried them. The fun! the controversy! The wit you would have witnessed! Instead of that self-righteous shitty piece of journalism you came up with...

Only God knows why no journalist ever had the idea of putting a foreigner and Morrissey in the same room at the same time? (Oh no, it's not a real question! Go back to sleep and dream of... Kylie Minogue. Forget you ever saw that comment. It doesn't exist. Oops! Look, magic, it's gone! "Journalists, your eyelids are heavyyyyyy...")



signed/

The last Truly Foreign person you'll ever...never...Want to know. :guitar:
 
...Lastly, since the planets have aligned, and we have a Foreigner, an Artist and a Journalist vaguely in the same place at the same time, bear with me Andrew while I ask Morrissey a question:

Frankly...Don't you think it's time?

Or, are you waiting for the Pope's album?


That will be all. Thank you all for your :)eek:) attention.
 
Equally, you might step back for one moment, and ask why you're devoting so much time to a series of articles written 17 years ago. So much has changed in those 17 years. (I was 27 then, I'm 44 now. I'm a different person. You must all surely be different people to the ones you were in 1992. Even Morrissey must be.) You could argue that I brought this latest chapter of the never-ending argument upon myself because I defended my comedy partner against charges of racism. I did.

1. Thanks for the nice words.

2. I already said above that I have moved on from this and do not bear a grudge against the NME or against you. I know, I know: if this is me having "moved on", what am I like when I really care? Forums like this can be deceiving; don't mistake the ability to type 100 words per minute and a few hours to kill for extreme anger.

3. You defended your friend very well. As I read your blog I nodded my head in agreement with most of your statements. My question, which you have not answered, is why couldn't the same defense you gave your friend been made on Morrissey's behalf in 1992? Even if Morrissey himself did not make a statement? The NME's justification was that dangerous times demanded clear statements. Are you saying that a piece of performance art by a comedian which makes fun of Pakistanis is less perilous now than it was in '92?

4. In 1992 you ran an interview that should have contained an interview, but didn't. You call it "instant reaction" and "an attempt at news" that was hobbled because Morrissey wouldn't comment. Another point I made above that was maybe lost in the shuffle: in dealing with an artist like Morrissey there is always another side of the story to tell-- it's in his songs. The NME should have told that side of the story. Dele (or one of the editorialists) actually said that Morrissey had once been on the side of the outcast and the outsider. How could he have changed into this boorish bastard? But wouldn't it have been better to attempt to figure out how the lover of outsiders had not turned his back on them, but was expressing himself in a new way that wasn't completely clear and demanded some critical grunt-work? This was the complex but very workable angle you should have explored.

5. I stated that you and your colleagues "went after" Morrissey not because I assumed you were plotting his downfall but because I read the articles. It's frustrating that nobody is bothering to read the articles closely. They were grossly unfair even as op-ed pieces. Maybe you don't have time to go into "Worm-like detail" in a rebuttal-- fine, I know you have much better things to do-- but I stand by my reading of the articles. I don't know you or what your motivations are. If anything, over the years I've associated your byline with quality music writing. It's in the words, though. Any sensible person reading what the NME published would have to conclude that you were attacking him personally for reasons that only tangentially had to do with skinhead imagery. You wrote it yourself long before Madstock: "Moz is history".

6. My bashing of The Farm was childish. But it felt damn good in light of how my horse has been whipped over the years. And while I possibly went too far, I stressed the stupidity of Peter Hooton's section because it did not belong in a serious article about racism. It only went to prove that Morrissey had changed and become a villain ("Machiavellian schemer"). It was a sleight-of-hand-- like the bits about Derek Ridgers, the cost of the cancellation, and others-- used to smear Morrissey's character in an attempt to make the primary racism charge stick.

7. Nobody is hounding you. You came here. Best of luck with your endeavors, Andrew. And please don't punish Morrissey for our sins. :)
 
Last edited:
Andrew lets keep it simple:

In 1992 you were clearly in the wrong - morrissey was not being imflamatory or flirting with dangerous imagery, any one with half a brain could see that - he was addressing an issue poetically and sensitively.

the fact that he didn't respond directly to you isn't important - stop going on about it - you don't have the right to demand he defends himself - you are a little man

Your argument that he continued to communicate with the journalist who wrote the piece in 1992 is also not relavant - so what? - your article is still rubbish. If he speaks to you again is that an admission of guilt or an act of forgiveness - no

lets just focus on the article itself - it was a terrible hatchet job wasn't it Andrew - reading it again must be embarrassing - i bet you wish it would just go away.

The reason this argument keeps coming up in your life is because you continue to lose the argument and yet you never take any reponsibility

Say in with me Andrew "The NME article was a hatchet job - Morrissey was not and is not racist - i'm sorry i contributed"

Just stop squirming and say it Andrew, stop defending your limp words with weak argument designed to distract from the truth of the matter - you got it badly wrong - you will feel better i promise and you will never have to lose this argument again.

Brief and to the point. Thank you.

th_Clapping-MontyPythonApplause.gif
 
No one is hounding you, you sound like Morrissey after a lukewarm review. A few people disagreed with you and you created a new blog entry about it, then specifically registered on another forum to carry on the argument.

If you want to attack Worm for spending too much time on this (subtext "you sad bastard", you are not as subtle as you think) then maybe you should consider how much time you are devoting to it. You can't really attack Worm's argument because he has very cleverly revealed how weak the original publication was.

I make the "sad bastard" argument quite well on my own, thanks. :rolleyes:

I only blabbed about all this and came up with questions to ask because I assumed a professional writer would find words easy to come up with to defend, explain, counter-attack, and maybe open new channels of conversation. I'd have thought the words would have, y'know, poured out of him.

But then again he is a busy man and this story is seventeen years old.

Plus-- and I'm just guessing here-- I would imagine that when editors make a judgment call they just close the book on it forever. "This was the case. I went with my gut. Based on the facts at hand, we did what we could. I stand by it and don't feel guilty about the aftermath". Professional defense mechanism. If it's good enough for the President of the United States, I guess it's good enough for the editor of a music weekly.
 
I think we're expecting a bit much if we think we'll ever get to the bottom of this. The Fog of War, and all that.

But I think we should give Mr Collins the same benefit of the doubt we afford Morrissey. That is to say, place his comments and actions in the broader context: he is a fine journalist, a rather funny man and, by all accounts, a decent individual (was anyone else leaping to Mr Herring's defence?).

He may not be able to admit (or perceive) his error, but I think it would be churlish not to allow him his error.
 
Andrew lets keep it simple:

In 1992 you were clearly in the wrong - morrissey was not being imflamatory or flirting with dangerous imagery, any one with half a brain could see that - he was addressing an issue poetically and sensitively.

Hang on a second, isn't the whole point that he didn't deal with any issue in any way whatsoever? He just waved a flag around.

In my opinion I think he waved a Union Flag on the Finsbusry Park stage in 1992 because he thought it would look cool (and to this day, it goes with his gold shirt rather well). Two years (or so) later, the NME (and everyone else) decided waving a Union Flag around did look rather cool so in that sense Morrissey was right.

While I'm here, does anyone not think the reason Morrissey was bottled off the stage at Madstock was because the skinheads in the crowd took exception to the son of an Irish immigrant being there at all, never mind waving the Union flag? And if so, was choosing to wave the flag not a brave thing to do?

(Of course, I don't think it was an act of bravery, I think he just thought it would look cool as stated above)
 
Hang on a second, isn't the whole point that he didn't deal with any issue in any way whatsoever? He just waved a flag around.

In my opinion I think he waved a Union Flag on the Finsbusry Park stage in 1992 because he thought it would look cool (and to this day, it goes with his gold shirt rather well). Two years (or so) later, the NME (and everyone else) decided waving a Union Flag around did look rather cool so in that sense Morrissey was right.

While I'm here, does anyone not think the reason Morrissey was bottled off the stage at Madstock was because the skinheads in the crowd took exception to the son of an Irish immigrant being there at all, never mind waving the Union flag? And if so, was choosing to wave the flag not a brave thing to do?


(Of course, I don't think it was an act of bravery, I think he just thought it would look cool as stated above)

At last..... a voice of reason.....
Though I'd say the reason he was bottled off was not because of his Irish ancestory (I'm sure the average thick head skinhead was not even aware of that!) but because they saw it as Morrissey trying to ''get down with the kids'' but they also saw Morrissey as some big homosexual puffter which just totally went against their image of the hardened macho skinhead..... so Morrissey ''appearing'' to be wanting to be one of them was just too much to bear for the crowd.....

Jukebox Jury
 
At last..... a voice of reason.....
Though I'd say the reason he was bottled off was not because of his Irish ancestory (I'm sure the average thick head skinhead was not even aware of that!) but because they saw it as Morrissey trying to ''get down with the kids'' but they also saw Morrissey as some big homosexual puffter which just totally went against their image of the hardened macho skinhead..... so Morrissey ''appearing'' to be wanting to be one of them was just too much to bear for the crowd.....

Jukebox Jury

Cheers.

It would certainly explain why Morrissey chose not to talk about it afterwards. Far from having a sinister motive that he rather not discuss, perhaps he was simply embarassed about the entire thing. And then to have his embrassment splattered across the front page of a widely distributed national music paper, well, I'd want to keep a low profile too.
 
Tags
tldr
Back
Top Bottom