Andrew Collins and Morrissey

[Vauxhall Vixen]

Blimey, it's going to be harder than I thought to cut through all the hate. Maybe I over-estimated how objective I could be.

As for the old comments from Momus somebody has dug up - when he says Morrissey "cut the NME dead" because of Danny Kelly's "partisanship" for Marr - this would lead one to assume that Morrissey never spoke to the NME after the break-up of the Smiths, which he did, continually. The NME and Morrissey had a very good relationship up until 1992. (He agreed to appear on our 40th anniversary cover when we asked him.) It's amazing how history gets rewritten.

And nobody has answered my question about why Morrissey chose to work with myself, Danny Kelly and Stuart Maconie on Q - and, as I say, came up to the office to look at the photo session, where he was as nice as pie. Why would he do that if he bored a grudge against individuals? You may have some insight on this.

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.

Hear, Hear Smiler! your argument is well put. I think Collins probably realises he was wrong in the NME 1992 article but doesn't want to back down now after all these years.However if he WERE to admit to his mistake he would probably find it easier to put all this behind him and get our sympathy for his situation with Richard Herring. He doesn't like it when the boot is on the other foot.
He is coming to the wrong place if he expects us, on a Morrissey forum, to agree with the NME's stitch-up and his involvement in it.It is great that he felt he could come here for a debate but I don't think he could handle the likes of Worm and Danny! His veiled compliments to them reveal that.I would be surprised if we hear much more from him, after all he is so busy and he really wants to 'move on' and not get bogged down in such obsessiveness (even though he started it!)
What next, Little Man?

 

[marred]

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

Andrew Collins has quoted me there without actually "quoting" me so you'd have to read my post (or not) on page 5 for it to make sense

 

[Danny_]

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)

I've read quite a few reports on the internet from people who were actually there on the day that agree with your interpretation. These people have said that from where they were standing, Morrissey was getting grief because the Madness fans didn't think he was laddy enough to support their band. In other words, he was getting bottled for being "a bloody poof".

 

[lainey]

I've read quite a few reports on the internet from people who were actually there on the day that agree with your interpretation. These people have said that from where they were standing, Morrissey was getting grief because the Madness fans didn't think he was laddy enough to support their band. In other words, he was getting bottled for being "a bloody poof".

yet on the youtube coverage, it's looks like it goes alright.

 

[klivert70]

Andrew Collins has proved in his 12 posts here that he is a man of bravery and integrity, we may not agree with him but he argues his case as well as Morrissey ever could (but never did).
A different point of view is just that, a different point of view.

 

[Kewpie]

Re: Madstock

yet on the youtube coverage, it's looks like it goes alright.

It's the limitation of technology.

My friend's sister is a fan of Madness and Morrissey who travelled to see the gig from Tokyo.
She said that it was really sad to see people threw beer at Morrissey.

 

[Emotional Guide Dog]

Re: Madstock

It's the limitation of technology.

My friend's sister is a fan of Madness and Morrissey who travelled to see the gig from Tokyo.
She said that it was really sad to see people threw beer at Morrissey.

Throwing beer is just plain wrong. Drink the beer, piss in the glass or bottle & then throw it. Otherwise it's just a waste!

 

[Nats1977]

Re: Madstock

Throwing beer is just plain wrong. Drink the beer, piss in the glass or bottle & then throw it. Otherwise it's just a waste!

Very good - thats an Oasis fan's logic!!
Your points about Madstock are also spot on EGD - in the dark days of the early 90's we had no youtube or t'internet forums so we took the printed word as gospel. Like Lainey i recently watched the Madstock footage and thought the gig looked alright albeit the crowd seemed disinterested. It makes you wonder whether the bottling off was just impatience by the Madness fans who were not Morrissey fans, end of story?

 

[dunya]

AC's comments need to be taken in context.
At the time in 1992 the NME got away with a character bashing and stayed just the right side of the law. Morrissey chose not to respond. Several possible reasons above sound plausible, though we don't need to know exactly.

More recently the NME had the confidence to do the same again, perhaps relying on the fact that they'd got away with it before. If AC admits doubts now would it undermine the NME's current position, under legal challenge this time?

The contradiction in maintaining he was correct then, but defending a friend on similar accusations now is inescapable.

He may be geniunely convinced he was right. He may be unwilling to admit he was wrong out of pride, (and enough debate on this site goes on long after it has ceased being productive for the same reason). Or he may have talked himself into a corner, from which he is unlikely to emerge without some questions being raised over his character.

Just as AC cannot expect Morrissey to explain his beliefs and motivations, so we cannot expect AC to reveal all to us either.

 

[Emotional Guide Dog]

Re: Madstock

Like Lainey i recently watched the Madstock footage and thought the gig looked alright albeit the crowd seemed disinterested. It makes you wonder whether the bottling off was just impatience by the Madness fans who were not Morrissey fans, end of story?

I hadn't thought of it like that. I suppose Morrissey & Madness must have looked good on paper with both being 'British Institutions' but I guess Madness fans gave him the same respect they'd give any support act.

 

[Worm]

Andrew Collins has proved in his 12 posts here that he is a man of bravery and integrity, we may not agree with him but he argues his case as well as Morrissey ever could (but never did).
A different point of view is just that, a different point of view.

Except he didn't argue his case.

 

[Worm]

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?

A very likely explanation, although as JJ already said I don't think anyone knew he was the son if Irish immigrants.

However, I think Morrissey had done enough before that show to warrant fair questioning about his artistic choices. Personally, as a fan, I'd long been bothered by "Bengali In Platforms", for example, even if I'd also long ago decided that Morrissey wasn't racist. The 1992-era imagery, like the skinheads on the backdrop, as well as the songs on "Your Arsenal", made me uncomfortable. In hindsight it's all a silly question, but at the time there were some raised eyebrows, and rightfully so.

Then again, I wasn't too worried because the imagery could be explained away. I mean, in the case of the two skinhead girls, I guess I thought that in addition to being part of that culture they also looked like tough-as-nails-- ssssssssssssssh!-- lesbians. On a Morrissey t-shirt! Shock!

 

[Worm]

Just as AC cannot expect Morrissey to explain his beliefs and motivations, so we cannot expect AC to reveal all to us either.

Interesting point about the legal angle. I don't know enough about the law or this particular case to say whether or not you may have a point.

I think if we were worried about legal ramifications, he wouldn't have come here in the first place. Of course, by that logic, he wouldn't have come here to explain himself and then proceed not to explain himself in any but the most superficial and evasive terms, which he did. So I don't know.

What I do know is that I'd get a kick out of hearing that questioning in a courtroom began something like this: "Did you or did you not, sir, on the thirty-first of July, 2009, visit the Morrissey-Solo Forums..."

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Personally, as a fan, I'd long been bothered by "Bengali In Platforms", for example, even if I'd also long ago decided that Morrissey wasn't racist.

It never bothered me. I read it as, "I can't even fit in, you'll never manage."

 

[Worm]

It never bothered me. I read it as, "I can't even fit in, you'll never manage."

That's more or less my final reading of the song, too. But like "Asian Rut", which isn't racist either, you find yourself asking why ethnicity is a part of the song in the first place. Sans the word "Asian", and with maybe a touch-up of the lyrics, it could have been a disturbing, atmospheric track about a crime like, say, "Michael's Bones".

It doesn't matter. Morrissey isn't guilty of racism. I just think onlookers have a right to ask questions, that's all. I feel that way about most subjects Morrissey writes about, because (aside from meat) he usually writes with ambiguity or takes up some positions that are contradictory with his beliefs (e.g. being a gentle man who loves boxing).

The frustration felt by the NME is really their anger over Morrissey not fitting into their "liberal consensus" (their words, not mine). Nobody believed he was racist, yet he kept stoking the fires with his ambiguous lyrics and choice of imagery. Why the hell couldn't he just make unequivocal statements?

I don't know if this holds up to close scrutiny, but it's my little crackpot theory that The Smiths and Morrissey were once thought to be God-sends for the left-wing writers in the music press (break with 80s consumerism, the outcast vibe, the hate for Thatcher, vegetarianism, liberation for gays and women and-- lest we forget-- men) but as time went on they turned on Morrissey for failing to be a good little foot soldier for the left. Started in '86 with the disco fuss and continued with The Smiths leaving Rough Trade for a major. By 1992, when Morrissey was not only failing to fight the good fight for the left but also using right-wing imagery, it was too much.

If you think I'm reading too much into this, here's Andrew about one year ago on The Pigeon Detectives: "You can't grow up on a diet of The Pigeon Detectives and think you could topple the Government one day. If we end up with 20 years of Tory government, it'll be The Pigeon Detectives' fault."

Quite a funny line, actually. And you can get some sense of how Andrew views the role pop groups should play in society. I don't think he's alone in that. Tough going in the press if you're a man who "wants to turn the world on its head by staying in bed".

 

[Uncleskinny]

A very likely explanation, although as JJ already said I don't think anyone knew he was the son if Irish immigrants.

However, I think Morrissey had done enough before that show to warrant fair questioning about his artistic choices. Personally, as a fan, I'd long been bothered by "Bengali In Platforms", for example, even if I'd also long ago decided that Morrissey wasn't racist. The 1992-era imagery, like the skinheads on the backdrop, as well as the songs on "Your Arsenal", made me uncomfortable. In hindsight it's all a silly question, but at the time there were some raised eyebrows, and rightfully so.

Then again, I wasn't too worried because the imagery could be explained away. I mean, in the case of the two skinhead girls, I guess I thought that in addition to being part of that culture they also looked like tough-as-nails-- ssssssssssssssh!-- lesbians. On a Morrissey t-shirt! Shock!

And let's not forget the Our Frank video that was hidden away. Didn't Morrissey once say his ideal audience was skinheads in nail polish (I might be paraphrasing there). Could the simplest explanation be that he just wanted the hostile audience to like him? A showman adapts his performance according to the crowd - could it be that simple? "Oh oh - a bunch of hostile skinheads. I know what will get them on my side, I'll wave a Union flag at an apposite point in an apposite song - the one someone lobbed up here. Then I can go home safely". If that's true, it's a very naive strategy. Maybe Morrissey doesn't want to talk about it because he's embarassed by his simplistic gambit?

I am a simple man.

Peter

 

[Worm]

And let's not forget the Our Frank video that was hidden away. Didn't Morrissey once say his ideal audience was skinheads in nail polish (I might be paraphrasing there). Could the simplest explanation be that he just wanted the hostile audience to like him? A showman adapts his performance according to the crowd - could it be that simple? "Oh oh - a bunch of hostile skinheads. I know what will get them on my side, I'll wave a Union flag at an apposite point in an apposite song - the one someone lobbed up here. Then I can go home safely". If that's true, it's a very naive strategy. Maybe Morrissey doesn't want to talk about it because he's embarassed by his simplistic gambit?

I am a simple man.

Peter

I don't know if I agree with you as to his motives, but you do raise a great point that isn't discussed enough. Namely, that it might be infinitely simpler than we imagine. Whatever his intentions were, whatever was in his mind, maybe the fiasco at Finsbury Park was the result of a really, really bad decision. Like Madonna kissing Britney or Justin Timberlake horrifying the world with Janet's naked tit. It's funny the way we assume pop stars always know what they're doing. They have bad days at the office, too.

 

[Jukebox Jury]

And let's not forget the Our Frank video that was hidden away. Didn't Morrissey once say his ideal audience was skinheads in nail polish (I might be paraphrasing there). Could the simplest explanation be that he just wanted the hostile audience to like him? A showman adapts his performance according to the crowd - could it be that simple? "Oh oh - a bunch of hostile skinheads. I know what will get them on my side, I'll wave a Union flag at an apposite point in an apposite song - the one someone lobbed up here. Then I can go home safely". If that's true, it's a very naive strategy. Maybe Morrissey doesn't want to talk about it because he's embarassed by his simplistic gambit?

I am a simple man.

Peter

Peter
You are right...... artists do pander to the audience to seek approval..... I'm sick of bands / artists (usually American) name checking a ''certain football club'' from just outside the Manchester boundary in a cheap knowledge that there will be a cheer of approval..... New Kids On The f***ing Block disgracefully this year came on for the encore wearing the replica shirts of said team - a far bigger crime in my eyes than what Morrissey did and the twats probably played the following night in Birmingham and wore Villa shirts

I think Morrissey just read this one horribly wrong on the day.

Jukebox Jury

 

[lainey]

A very likely explanation, although as JJ already said I don't think anyone knew he was the son if Irish immigrants.

However, I think Morrissey had done enough before that show to warrant fair questioning about his artistic choices. Personally, as a fan, I'd long been bothered by "Bengali In Platforms", for example, even if I'd also long ago decided that Morrissey wasn't racist. The 1992-era imagery, like the skinheads on the backdrop, as well as the songs on "Your Arsenal", made me uncomfortable. In hindsight it's all a silly question, but at the time there were some raised eyebrows, and rightfully so.

Then again, I wasn't too worried because the imagery could be explained away. I mean, in the case of the two skinhead girls, I guess I thought that in addition to being part of that culture they also looked like tough-as-nails-- ssssssssssssssh!-- lesbians. On a Morrissey t-shirt! Shock!

I was never offended by the imagery, Morrissey and the lads were very rockabily at the time and as morrissey has always been obsessed by iconic
50's, 60's images. I felt morrissey thought the skins looked good (have a think about the fashions of the 80's and 90's, only the certain football gangs looked good/cool)
there is a homoerotic element to skinheads, maybe it the whole rough diamond/sweet and tender loving hooligan.....maybe he finds contrasting/complex types interesting. well he found Jake later on, so it wants on the inside which matters

 

[Nats1977]

Oh yes just like the time Ryan Adams pulled on a Celtic shirt in Glasgow for his encore and looked shellshocked when half the crowd booed and threw their drinks - "but i thought this was the local team?" he said