Andy Rourke RC interview - April, 2022

Text reproduction of his interview in "Record Collector presents: The Smiths" special (April 21, 2022).

"ACE OF BASS

It all began with a Neil Young badge pinned to his school blazer. In this brand new interview, Andy Rourke tells Lois Wilson about the call from an old mate that would change his life forever...


I met Johnny at school when I was 11. I was really into Neil Young at the time and he was wearing a Neil Young Tonight's The Night lapel badge. This was when everyone else seemed to be into Jethro Tull and heavy metal, so Neil Young was a conversation opener and pretty soon we were spending all our spare time together, either playing music or listening to music or talking about music. We formed a band together, Freak Party. It was me on bass, Johnny on guitar and funky Si Wolstenscroft on drums, and the music did get funky. The Clash's Sandinista! had just come out and we were jumping on that vibe. We rehearsed every night until kicking out time, we got stoned a lot and jammed a lot. They were good days, but we auditioned countless frontmen to no avail and eventually Johnny quit out of frustration as it became clear we weren't going anywhere.

Not long after he quit he called me up. He had a new band called The Smiths. Did I want to join. They'd already played their first gig at the Ritz in Manchester with Dale Hibbert on bass. Some mates of mine had gone along but I hadn't. I met up with Johnny, he said it didn't work out with Dale and he gave me a demo tape which had two songs on it - Suffer Little Children and The Hand That Rocks The Cradle. It wasn't what I was expecting but I could hear something great in there, something different and I really liked what Johnny was doing, The first recordings I did with The Smiths were the demos for Handsome Devil and Miserable Lie and these were done in the downstairs of a studio in Chorlton called Drone. That's when I first met Morrissey and Mike. When I got there, Mike was saring up his drums. He was chatty, easy to get on with. Then, as I was setting up Morrissey arrived, he introduced himself as Stephen, shook my hand then shuffled into the corner and started going through his bag of lyrics and sandwiches and stuff. People often called him aloof at that time, but I think he was painfully shy, he just wasn't used to meeting new people. Our first gig was at Manhattan Sound in Manchester (on 25 January 1983) and it was utter chaos. There was no stage, the sound was terrible, the audience were right in your face, virtually touching you and I was so nervous I really didn't enjoy it at all. But we played OK. James Maker introduced us. He was our go-go dancer. I wasn't comfortable with his role and I am pretty sure Mike and Johnny felt the same. It was an unnecessary distraction and I think it cramped Morrissey's style. There wasn't much scope for him when James was jumping around.

Johnny and I used to go to The Hacienda pretty much every night. In those days it was really quiet and it was freezing cold. People sat in their own corner. There was the drug dealing corner, the gay corner, the extrovert corner and when we got a gig there [on 4 February 1983] it felt like a big deal, and in many ways our first proper gig. We had monitors and a stage and a set list and Morrissey ordered a shit load of gladioli and he threw half out to the audience, and half he stuck in his back pocket and that became a thing and the boxes got bigger and bigger and his back pockets got bigger and bigger and eventually he had half a tree in there.

After that Hacienda gig, we really took off, there was no stopping us. We were a had total belief and we had a real "us versus them" attitude. Not being on Factory, there was a sense we stood apart from the other Manchester bands like A Certain Ratio, New Order, Durutti Column. We were our own separate thing.

I don't remember the exact point Steven became Morrissey but I know he first broke the news to Johnny and Johnny gave us the heads up we weren't to call him Steven or, worse still, Steve, which he hated. At first it was really awkward calling him Morrissey, and he'd get embarrassed and then he'd call me Rourke and I wouldn't be sure if we were to revert back to calling him Steven but eventually it became normal and we even got down to just Moz and Mozza.

Going on Top Of The Pops with This Charming Man was another big deal. I'd grown up listening to the Top 20 on the radio with my mum and it had been everything to me so I was overjoyed, we all were, but we were all nervous too. We went down to the studio. It was very surreal and we weren't prepared for the total fakeness of it - the miming, the fake audience dancing (and if they didn't dance they got thrown out). We went into the make-up room and we'd bought Marks & Spencer sweaters for the occasion and they said, "What are you going to be wearing for the show?" and we were like, "This is it." We went on in our black jeans and sweaters. We definitely stood out.

Ironically, Strangeways, Here We Come is my favourite album. It's the one on which we completely gelled. We had come of age and we were in our element and ready to take on the world and then of course we split up. There was no inkling Johnny was going to leave but in hindsight I can see the frustrations, but I was too busy getting on with my own thing to realise the gravity
of the situation. When he left the impact was huge and I think we were all traumatised and probably still are. No one knew how to react. I didn't know whether to call him or leave him alone. It was a really awful time, horrible. for everyone concerned.

Almost immediately after he left, Morrissey asked me and Mike to play on his solo stuff-a big kick in the eye for Johnny and it made me feel even more awkward about speaking to him. I felt like I had betrayed him so it was a long while before we spoke again. We had been best friends and then we weren't talking. I hadn't fallen out with him, but I felt guilty. It's not a time I fondly recall.

In The Smiths when we were getting songs together, Johnny already knew how the music would sound and he would play his guitar part. I would write the bass part and that was as far as my writing went. Morrissey brought out the songwriter in me. He believed I could do it and he made me believe I could do it and we ended up writing together. We started off with a blank page and a blank cassette and from that we wrote Yes, I Am Blind and Girl Least Likely To.

After Morrissey, there was Freebass (with Mani and Peter Hook) and D.A.R.K. I also wrote the music for Anthony Bourdain's Raw Craft TV series and worked with James Franco putting his poems inspired by The Smiths to music. I am currently playing in Blitz Vega with KAV from the Happy Mondays. We've got a single coming out this year called Strong Forever to be followed by an EP."



Regards,
FWD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ketamine Sun

WATCH IT SUCKA! ; )
"Maybe to you, but if the lyrics and vocal are the songs “only essential components” then why does Morrissey or most pop singers even bother with having musicians backing them?"

What an odd question. Because, quite obviously, backing music supports and embellishes the song. That doesn't mean that it is the song - by definition, it means that it's distinct from the song.
Yes the music supports the sung words it is an essential component to the sung words and the song itself. It’s an essential component to the listener and audience too. The music part of the song is essential to the making of what the song is once created, released. Suedehead wouldn’t have been the hit if it was originally a cappella. The music part of the song is much more than just embellishment.
"If you change the music, the emotion of the song changes."

No, it doesn't. Emotion is subjective to the listener. The mood of the song will change, of course, but to say that because X can change the mood of Y, then X is the same thing as Y, is simply not true. In fact, the opposite follows from the premise. If X has an effect on Y, then by definition it's something distinct from Y. That different backing music can change the mood of a song is testimony to the fact that song and backing music are not one and the same thing.

"And so the aim of Morrissey’s words will change or will contradict his intention and vision."

No, they won't. Firstly, Morrissey's were often written before he'd even heard the music, and secondly, none of us know what the aim of his words were in any given song"

lyricists will sit on words until the right music comes along. The good ones have a vision. The music they are looking for as the right music is vital in supporting their words, vision. And in turn the music shapes what melody they come up with, the vocal melody comes after hearing the chosen music. These things go together, the music and words become the songs and together Marr and Morrissey are the songwriters.

Morrissey alone is not a songwriter or writer of songs, he needs to co-write with another artist to create the songs as we know them.

Yes the title will be the same, but the song as a whole will be very different. So no, it will not be the same song if you change the music that originally goes with those words."

Yes, it will. As long as it has the same vocal melody and lyrics, then it will be the same song. That's kind of how cover versions work. Or are you saying that a cover version is a different song?

I don’t think Suedehead would have been the hit or song we love if those lyrics were put to the music of say Margaret on the Guillotine or Ordinary Boys. It would be a different song if the music part of the song was changed. Change the music and the vocal melody will change, change the music and that will also affect the words and the song as a whole and it’s emotional impact on the listener or even the direction the vocalist wanted to take the listener in.
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yes the music supports the sung words it is an essential component to the sung words and the song itself. It’s an essential component to the listener and audience too. The music part of the song is essential to the making of what the song is once created, released. Suedehead wouldn’t have been the hit if it was originally a cappella. The music part of the song is much more than just embellishment.


lyricists will sit on words until the right music comes along. The good ones have a vision. The music they are looking for as the right music is vital in supporting their words, vision. And in turn the music shapes what melody they come up with, the vocal melody comes after hearing the chosen music. These things go together, the music and words become the songs and together Marr and Morrissey are the songwriters.

Morrissey alone is not a songwriter or writer of songs, he needs to co-write with another artist to create the songs as we know them.



I don’t think Suedehead would have been the hit or song we love if those lyrics were put to the music of say Margaret on the Guillotine or Ordinary Boys. It would be a different song if the music part of the song was changed. Change the music and the vocal melody will change, change the music and that will also affect the words and the song as a whole and it’s emotional impact on the listener or even the direction the vocalist wanted to take the listener in.

Again, your argument here is based on the notion that the music is important, but it doesn't follow from that that it's integral to the song. 'Suedehead' the record was a hit record in part, I'm sure, because of the music. But that doesn't change the fact the 'Suedehead' the song consists only of the vocal melody and lyrics, which is why a cover version wouldn't need to employ the music heard on the record.

Morrissey doesn't need to co-write, and doesn't co-write. He writes his lyrics on his own. He then uses backing tracks to create his vocal melodies. So it's true that he can't conjure vocal melodies out of thin air - he needs inspiration. Which is the music, for which those who created the music should be credited.

But it's still Morrissey who then creates the actual song.

I'll quote your own words back at you here:

"lyricists will sit on words until the right music comes along. The good ones have a vision. The music they are looking for as the right music is vital in supporting their words, vision. And in turn the music shapes what melody they come up with, the vocal melody comes after hearing the chosen music."

None of this contradicts what I've just said.
 

Ketamine Sun

WATCH IT SUCKA! ; )
Again, your argument here is based on the notion that the music is important,
There’s no ‘argument’ or ‘notion’. The music is important.
but it doesn't follow from that that it's integral to the song. 'Suedehead' the record was a hit record in part, I'm sure, because of the music.
Yes the music was integral to the song. Words and music are the song.
But that doesn't change the fact the 'Suedehead' the song consists only of the vocal melody and lyrics,
No, Suedehead the song consists of music and words.
which is why a cover version wouldn't need to employ the music heard on the record.
Then it would be a variation (by interpretation) on the original music or even a cappella, which would create a different impact on the listener.
Morrissey doesn't need to co-write, and doesn't co-write.
He co-writes with another artist’s contribution. In regards to songwriting and The Smiths, he needs to co-write in order for their to be the songs….
Words/music = Morrissey/Marr.
He writes his lyrics on his own.
He writes his lyrics on his own, and Marr writes the music on his own.
He then uses backing tracks to create his vocal melodies.
In a similar way Joyce and Andy use the music to create their musical contributions.
So it's true that he can't conjure vocal melodies out of thin air - he needs inspiration.
Same with Joyce and Rourke.
Which is the music, for which those who created the music should be credited.
Should? In a different world their may be in addition to the words and music writing credit, a creation credit that may even include the engineer and producer’s names.
But it's still Morrissey who then creates the actual song.
In collaboration with Marr, as in, the words and music writing credit states.
I'll quote your own words back at you here:

"lyricists will sit on words until the right music comes along. The good ones have a vision. The music they are looking for as the right music is vital in supporting their words, vision. And in turn the music shapes what melody they come up with, the vocal melody comes after hearing the chosen music."

None of this contradicts what I've just said.

No where did I say that Morrissey ‘creates the actual song’. In that which you are quoting, I’m saying the right music is essential to the lyricist, for it compliments, reshapes, guides, inspires (etc, etc) their contribution.
 

Ketamine Sun

WATCH IT SUCKA! ; )
Again, your argument here is based on the notion that the music is important,
There’s no ‘argument’ or ‘notion’. The music is important.
but it doesn't follow from that that it's integral to the song. 'Suedehead' the record was a hit record in part, I'm sure, because of the music.
Yes the music was integral to the song. Words and music are the song.
But that doesn't change the fact the 'Suedehead' the song consists only of the vocal melody and lyrics,
No, Suedehead the song consists of music and words.
which is why a cover version wouldn't need to employ the music heard on the record.
Then it would be a variation (by interpretation) on the original music or even a cappella, which would create a different impact on the listener, and it’s chart position.
Morrissey doesn't need to co-write, and doesn't co-write.
He co-writes with another artist’s contribution. In regards to songwriting and The Smiths, he needs to co-write in order for their to be the songs….
Words/music = Morrissey/Marr.
He writes his lyrics on his own.
He writes his lyrics on his own, and Marr writes the music on his own.
He then uses backing tracks to create his vocal melodies.
In a similar way Joyce and Andy use the music to create their musical contributions.
So it's true that he can't conjure vocal melodies out of thin air - he needs inspiration.
Same with Joyce and Rourke, in regards to their musical contributions.
Which is the music, for which those who created the music should be credited.
Should? In a different world there may be in addition to the words and music writing credit, a creation credit that may even include the engineer and producer’s names.
But it's still Morrissey who then creates the actual song.
In collaboration with Marr, as in, the words and music writing credit states.
I'll quote your own words back at you here:

"lyricists will sit on words until the right music comes along. The good ones have a vision. The music they are looking for as the right music is vital in supporting their words, vision. And in turn the music shapes what melody they come up with, the vocal melody comes after hearing the chosen music."

None of this contradicts what I've just said.

Nowhere did I say that Morrissey ‘creates the actual song’. In that which you are quoting, I’m saying the right music is essential to the lyricist, for it compliments, reshapes, guides, inspires (etc, etc) their contribution.
 
Last edited:
V

Vegan Cro Spirit 555

Guest
o_O

the music and chords are NOT essential for a song only lyrics and melody which are Moz dept.
you can do a song in a different key with different chords, slow it up or down and yet the lyrics and melody remains the same song.:lbf:

its done all the time. what is NOT done anytime is for the 3 lawnmowers to make ONE melody/lyrics song none of pep so called songs remotely have anything resembling a melody and the lyrics are all pap:hammer:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There’s no ‘argument’ or ‘notion’. The music is important.

Yes the music was integral to the song. Words and music are the song.

No, Suedehead the song consists of music and words.

Then it would be a variation (by interpretation) on the original music or even a cappella, which would create a different impact on the listener, and it’s chart position.

He co-writes with another artist’s contribution. In regards to songwriting and The Smiths, he needs to co-write in order for their to be the songs….
Words/music = Morrissey/Marr.

He writes his lyrics on his own, and Marr writes the music on his own.

In a similar way Joyce and Andy use the music to create their musical contributions.

Same with Joyce and Rourke, in regards to their musical contributions.

Should? In a different world there may be in addition to the words and music writing credit, a creation credit that may even include the engineer and producer’s names.

In collaboration with Marr, as in, the words and music writing credit states.




Nowhere did I say that Morrissey ‘creates the actual song’. In that which you are quoting, I’m saying the right music is essential to the lyricist, for it compliments, reshapes, guides, inspires (etc, etc) their contribution.

You're just reiterating your misconceptions:

"There’s no ‘argument’ or ‘notion’. The music is important."

There are two arguments (cases) - yours and mine. That the music is important is something we both agree on. Therefore the second sentence in the above quote is a non-sequitur.

Yes the music was integral to the song. Words and music are the song.

This is simply a re-statement of your opinion. Repeating your opinion doesn't make it any more or less true. Backing your opinion up with a reasoned and logical counter-argument (which you haven't done) is what makes it true.

No, Suedehead the song consists of music and words.

And the same applies to the above: this is simply a re-statement of your opinion.

Then it would be a variation (by interpretation) on the original music or even a cappella, which would create a different impact on the listener, and it’s chart position.

That's right, yes it would - none of which detracts from argument that the song and the backing music are not one and the same thing. In fact, once again, you are simply confirming what I'm saying, because you're acknowledging that the backing music is not integral to the song, and can be changed or dropped altogether. It should really go without saying that impact on the listener and chart positions cannot determine the definition of what a song is.

He co-writes with another artist’s contribution.

No, he doesn't. He creates the song using music created by another artist, or artists, whose creation (the music) is something distinct from the song. Neither Johnny Marr nor anyone else has ever co-written Morrissey's lyrics, nor co-created his vocal melodies, and it's the lyrics and vocal melodies that constitute a song, because they are all that a song requires in order to be a song.

In regards to songwriting and The Smiths, he needs to co-write in order for their to be the songs….

No, he doesn't. He needs music in order to create his songs. See above.

Words/music = Morrissey/Marr.

Pointing to the existing credit (or the credit as it existed on the first Smiths album) is rather futile, as we're debating whether or not that credit is correct and fair.

He writes his lyrics on his own, and Marr writes the music on his own.

That's correct, yes. Morrissey wrote his lyrics on his own, and Marr created at least some of the initial backing tracks on his own. Neither of these points disproves what I'm arguing.

In a similar way Joyce and Andy use the music to create their musical contributions.

That's right, and as you say, they made musical contributions - in Rourke's case, melodic contributions that in many case were as significant as Marr's. For which he deserves a musical co-credit.

Same with Joyce and Rourke, in regards to their musical contributions.
In reference to my acknowledging that Morrissey doesn't just pluck vocal melodies out of thin air, but needs musical inspiration in order to create his songs. Yes, the above is true - Rourke likewise didn't just conjure his bass melodies out of thin air. That, however, is not an argument for saying he doesn't deserve a co-credit for what those bass melodies contributed to the finished musical backing track. As for Joyce, I think it's a bit extreme to say that Marr's initial music 'inspired' his drums patterns.

"Should? In a different world there may be in addition to the words and music writing credit, a creation credit that may even include the engineer and producer’s names."

Yes, that's what the word "should" entails - discussion of a different world, a hypothetical world. What is your point here? That if something is hypothetical and has therefore not yet come to pass, it should never exist, and no case should be made for it?

In collaboration with Marr, as in, the words and music writing credit states.

Again, if your argument as to why Marr is morally (as opposed to legally) entitled to a co-credit for the songs of The Smiths is "Because that's what the credits state on the records", then I'm not very impressed. Do you apply this mentality to all walks of life, and do you always simply do as you're told and believe what you're told and read?


Nowhere did I say that Morrissey ‘creates the actual song’. In that which you are quoting, I’m saying the right music is essential to the lyricist, for it compliments, reshapes, guides, inspires (etc, etc) their contribution.


Again, you're missing the point, which is that your own words are not saying what you think they're saying. You think you're saying that the music must be an essential component of the song, because "the right music is essential to the lyricist, for it compliments, reshapes, guides, inspires (etc, etc) their contribution". But this doesn't actually demonstrate that the music is an integral component of the song. It emphasises that the music is something distinct from the vocal melody because, as you yourself acknowledge, it can complement (correct spelling), guide and inspire the vocal melody (not sure how you figure it can re-shape the vocal melody). So evidently, as you yourself also acknowledge, music and vocal melody are distinct entities. And of those two distinct entities, only one of them (the vocal melody) is an integral part of what constitutes a song, because - as pointed out before - a vocal melody and lyrics is all that a song requires, in order to be a song.

You're getting hung up on the fact that there was a creative process which preceded the creation of the songs - that being the creation of the music - and taking this to mean that they are one and the same thing, and entitle the respective creators (of music and vocal melody/lyric) to the same credit. But they shouldn't. They should only entitle the creators of the music to the credit 'music' and the creator of the vocal melody/lyric to the credit 'song'.

Again, you're still evidently not understanding that music can't be integral to a song if- as yourself acknowledge - it can subsequently be removed altogether from later recordings or performances, and yet the song remains intact.
 

Ketamine Sun

WATCH IT SUCKA! ; )
You're just reiterating your misconceptions:

"There’s no ‘argument’ or ‘notion’. The music is important."

There are two arguments (cases) - yours and mine. That the music is important is something we both agree on. Therefore the second sentence in the above quote is a non-sequitur.

Yes the music was integral to the song. Words and music are the song.

This is simply a re-statement of your opinion. Repeating your opinion doesn't make it any more or less true. Backing your opinion up with a reasoned and logical counter-argument (which you haven't done) is what makes it true.
You’ve also been restating your opinion. Repeating your opinion doesn't make it any more true. Backing your opinion up with a reasoned and logical counter-argument (which you haven't done) is what makes it true.
No, Suedehead the song consists of music and words.

And the same applies to the above: this is simply a re-statement of your opinion.
Because it’s true. A song consists of music and words.
Then it would be a variation (by interpretation) on the original music or even a cappella, which would create a different impact on the listener, and it’s chart position.

That's right, yes it would - none of which detracts from argument that the song and the backing music are not one and the same thing. In fact, once again, you are simply confirming what I'm saying, because you're acknowledging that the backing music is not integral to the song, and can be changed or dropped altogether. It should really go without saying that impact on the listener and chart positions cannot determine the definition of what a song is.
* Just because the music in a song can be changed does not mean it’s not important to the song. And of course it could be dropped if done a cappella, because even when dropped the listener still hears the music that was once there, and if the listener never heard the original version, the music that was once there still informs the musicality and impact of the now solitary vocal. And even a cappella, it is not the song, it is simply a version of the song. Also words or sung melodies can be changed, that, like the music, doesn’t make them any less integral to the song. And yes it should go without saying, for I didn’t say that the impact on the listener or chart position defines what a song is or isn’t.
I’m saying that the music does have an impact on the listener and surely will affect its chart position. So Suedehead would not be the same song if say it’s words were put to the music of
Margaret on the Guillotine or Ordinary Boys.
He co-writes with another artist’s contribution.

No, he doesn't. He creates the song using music created by another artist, or artists, whose creation (the music) is something distinct from the song.
Creates? writes? Both Morrissey and Marr come together to write the songs. Everyone know this.
I think what you’re looking for is a ‘creation credit’ let’s call it, where everyone that took part in creating the song gets a credit. If it existed outside of your brain, I’d be fine with that. Though the song writers (words/music)
would still in most cases like a larger chunk
of the profits.
Neither Johnny Marr nor anyone else has ever co-written Morrissey's lyrics, nor co-created his vocal melodies,
No one said that he has. And no one has said that Morrissey has co-written Marr’s musical contribution. But they do influence each other. Also, when one says co-write it usually means bringing the words and music together to form a song.
and it's the lyrics and vocal melodies that constitute a song, because they are all that a song requires in order to be a song.
Lol. This is simply a re-statement of your opinion. Repeating your opinion doesn't make it any more true. Backing your opinion up with a reasoned and logical counter-argument (which you haven't done) is what makes it true.
In regards to songwriting and The Smiths, he needs to co-write in order for their to be the songs….

No, he doesn't. He needs music in order to create his songs. See above.
I didn’t use the word create. But yes, he does need music to create/write songs. He co-writes, or would you prefer we say, he co-creates with Marr in order to bring the songs into existence?
Words/music = Morrissey/Marr.

Pointing to the existing credit (or the credit as it existed on the first Smiths album) is rather futile, as we're debating whether or not that credit is correct and fair.
The credit is correct if one believes as many do, that a song is words and music, that the writers of the song is Morrissey and Marr.

If you want to talk about being ‘fair’, as I said above, what you seem to want is a credit that includes everyone that took part in creating the songs.

He writes his lyrics on his own, and Marr writes the music on his own.

That's correct, yes. Morrissey wrote his lyrics on his own, and Marr created at least some of the initial backing tracks on his own. Neither of these points disproves what I'm arguing.
created? wrote? These words can be used interchangeably, or seem to be in our ‘debate’.

I would use the word ‘wrote’ to say that Morrissey wrote the words and Marr wrote the music, then putting the initial writing aside, we can then say, to be fair, that the song was ‘created’ by everyone that took part in bringing the song into existence, even the engineers and producers.
In a similar way Joyce and Andy use the music to create their musical contributions.

That's right, and as you say, they made musical contributions - in Rourke's case, melodic contributions that in many case were as significant as Marr's. For which he deserves a musical co-credit.
Yes, but a musical contribution however ‘significant’ is different than a writing credit.

Same with Joyce and Rourke, in regards to their musical contributions.
In reference to my acknowledging that Morrissey doesn't just pluck vocal melodies out of thin air, but needs musical inspiration in order to create his songs. Yes, the above is true - Rourke likewise didn't just conjure his bass melodies out of thin air. That, however, is not an argument for saying he doesn't deserve a co-credit for what those bass melodies contributed to the finished musical backing track. As for Joyce, I think it's a bit extreme to say that Marr's initial music 'inspired' his drums patterns.

Yes they should both get a co-creative credit, which would be different than, but not any less important than a writing credit.

But anyone of them on their own can come up with something that can be called musical. But it’s when each inspires and influences each other in the creative process is where it makes a difference in regards to the song.
I mean that Joyce’s contribution are just as important as Rourke’s, and in the same way, Joyce would not come up with what he did if he didn’t have the other parts of the song to inspire and influence him. But this can also be said for the engineer and producer too.

"Should? In a different world there may be in addition to the words and music writing credit, a creation credit that may even include the engineer and producer’s names."

Yes, that's what the word "should" entails - discussion of a different world, a hypothetical world. What is your point here? That if something is hypothetical and has therefore not yet come to pass, it should never exist, and no case should be made for it?
But I thought we were talking about what actually exists, in regards to the song writing credits between Morrissey and who he co-writes with.
In collaboration with Marr, as in, the words and music writing credit states.

Again, if your argument as to why Marr is morally (as opposed to legally) entitled to a co-credit for the songs of The Smiths is "Because that's what the credits state on the records", then I'm not very impressed. Do you apply this mentality to all walks of life, and do you always simply do as you're told and believe what you're told and read?
Lol. I’m not talking about what is fair or not.
I’m talking about the writing credits as they are actually being applied in this world to Morrissey and who he co-writes with.
Also, If I believed whatever it is I’m told or what I read, we wouldn’t be having this exchange.
Nowhere did I say that Morrissey ‘creates the actual song’. In that which you are quoting, I’m saying the right music is essential to the lyricist, for it compliments, reshapes, guides, inspires (etc, etc) their contribution.

Again, you're missing the point, which is that your own words are not saying what you think they're saying.
Oh really? Lol
You think
do I ? Lol
you're saying that the music must be
an essential component of the song, because "the right music is essential to the lyricist, for it compliments, reshapes, guides, inspires (etc, etc) their contribution". But this doesn't actually demonstrate that the music is an integral component of the song.
so to you it doesn’t.
It emphasises that the music is something distinct from the vocal melody because, as you yourself acknowledge, it can complement (correct spelling),🤓 guide and inspire the vocal melody (not sure how you figure it can re-shape the vocal melody).
Shape, or ‘re-shape’ as in the music will or can influence a vocal melody, and in turn a vocal melody or word can influence the music after they’ve been added to the song.
So evidently, as you yourself also acknowledge, music and vocal melody are distinct entities. And of those two distinct entities, only one of them (the vocal melody) is an integral part of what constitutes a song, because - as pointed out before - a vocal melody and lyrics is all that a song requires, in order to be a song.
Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m simply saying that the music and the words are important to the song and influence each other.
You're getting hung up on the fact that there was a creative process which preceded the creation of the songs - that being the creation of the music - and taking this to mean that they are one and the same thing, and entitle the respective creators (of music and vocal melody/lyric) to the same credit. But they shouldn't. They should only entitle the creators of the music to the credit 'music' and the creator of the vocal melody/lyric to the credit 'song'.
As we know it, Morrissey/Marr = words/music, these are the song writing credits.

Creation and how that word is used or fairness in a better world, is not really what I’m taking about.
Again, you're still evidently not understanding that music can't be integral to a song if- as yourself acknowledge - it can subsequently be removed altogether from later recordings or performances, and yet the song remains intact.

I’ve addressed this already above. See *
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just because the music in a song can be changed does not mean it’s not important to the song. And of course it could be dropped if done a cappella, because even when dropped the listener still hears the music that was once there, and if the listener never heard the original version, the music that was once there still informs the musicality and impact of the now solitary vocal.


And even a cappella, it is not the song, it is simply a version of the song.




Also words or sung melodies can be changed, that, like the music, doesn’t make them any less integral to the song.


And yes it should go without saying, for I didn’t say that the impact on the listener or chart position defines what a song is or isn’t.


I’m saying that the music does have an impact on the listener and surely will affect its chart position.


Creates? writes? Both Morrissey and Marr come together to write the songs. Everyone know this.
I think what you’re looking for is a ‘creation credit’ let’s call it, where everyone that took part in creating the song gets a credit. If it existed outside of your brain, I’d be fine with that.

No, where everyone who took part in the creation of the record is credited with their contribution. Morrissey created the songs.


Also, when one says co-write it usually means bringing the words and music together to form a song.

It usually signifies that, yes. But that doesn't mean that it's a fair reflection of how a song is created.

I didn’t use the word create. But yes, he does need music to create/write songs. He co-writes, or would you prefer we say, he co-creates with Marr in order to bring the songs into existence?

He co-creates, that's right. Marr created the music, Morrissey - inspired by the music - created the songs. So it was co-creation. But it wasn't co-songwriting. Credit where it's due.

The credit is correct if one believes as many do, that a song is words and music, that the writers of the song is Morrissey and Marr.

And naturally then, the credit is incorrect if one believes that the a song is words and vocal melody only.
If you want to talk about being ‘fair’, as I said above, what you seem to want is a credit that includes everyone that took part in creating the songs.

No, because only Morrissey created the songs, because the songs are only the vocal melody and the lyrics.



created? wrote? These words can be used interchangeably, or seem to be in our ‘debate’.

I would use the word ‘wrote’ to say that Morrissey wrote the words and Marr wrote the music,

Sure, they can, and are. But why use the term at all? It's a throwback to the days when songs really were mostly written by guys (or girls) who could read and write music, and literally wrote the song down on paper, music as well as words. The term was retained as pop music developed, but it doesn't reflect how most pop music is actually created.



then putting the initial writing aside, we can then say, to be fair, that the song was ‘created’ by everyone that took part in bringing the song into existence, even the engineers and producers.

No, the record was created by everyone, the song was created by Morrissey.


Yes, but a musical contribution however ‘significant’ is different than a writing credit.

That's a circular argument. You basically think Marr should get a 'writing' credit because you think his musical contribution was more significant. Why do you think it was more significant? You say it's more significant because Marr has a writing credit. Circular argument.

Yes they should both get a co-creative credit, which would be different than, but not any less important than a writing credit.

Agreed, and the credit should be for the music.

But anyone of them on their own can come up with something that can be called musical. But it’s when each inspires and influences each other in the creative process is where it makes a difference in regards to the song.

Why not then in regard to the music?

But I thought we were talking about what actually exists, in regards to the song writing credits between Morrissey and who he co-writes with.

Of course we're not, well I'm not. Do you think I'm actually trying to argue that Marr doesn't have a co-writing credit for the songs of The Smiths?

I’m talking about the writing credits as they are actually being applied in this world to Morrissey and who he co-writes with.

If that's all we were discussing, it wouldn't be much of a debate, would it? "Who wrote the songs of The Smiths?". "Hang on a minute, let me check the album sleeves. It says 'Morrissey/Marr'" "Okay, thanks".

I'm talking about the credits as they should be rightfully be given. 'Music by Marr/Rourke', 'Songs by Morrissey'.


Shape, or ‘re-shape’ as in the music will or can influence a vocal melody, and in turn a vocal melody or word can influence the music after they’ve been added to the song.

I agree with most of this, but obviously I would re-word it as follows:

" the music will or can influence the song (that is to say, the vocal melody/words), and in turn the song (that is to say, the vocal melody/words) can influence the music"

It can be a to and fro process, but it's not a chicken and egg thing, not in the case of Morrissey at least - obviously, music has to start the ball rolling, but once Morrissey has created the song (vocal melody/lyric) that will then be the basis for further developing the music, by adding harmonies.

Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m simply saying that the music and the words are important to the song and influence each other.

And I'm saying that both music, on the one hand, and words/vocal melody (that is, the song), on the other, are important, and influence each other.
 

marred

Member
I have a special Morrissey playlist made up of eleven songs that all share a certain vibe that I love listening to when I need to relax. Yes I Am Blind is one of them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Because it’s true. A song consists of music and words.

No, a song consists of vocal melody and lyrics.


* Just because the music in a song can be changed does not mean it’s not important to the song.

The music isn't in the song. That's why it can be changed, and yet the song remains the song.


And of course it could be dropped if done a cappella, because even when dropped the listener still hears the music that was once there,

It's a miracle!


and if the listener never heard the original version, the music that was once there still informs the musicality and impact of the now solitary vocal.

It's another miracle! So those who hear a song for the first time, a cappella, are somehow magically being affected by the now non-existent music.


And even a cappella, it is not the song, it is simply a version of the song.

So it's not the song, but it is the song. Right...

Either way, whether with musical backing or without, the song is the vocal melody/lyric. The backing music is the backing music.


Also words or sung melodies can be changed, that, like the music, doesn’t make them any less integral to the song.

They can be adapted, but not changed out of recognition. Change the vocal melody completely and you have different song. Change the words completely and you have a different song.



And yes it should go without saying, for I didn’t say that the impact on the listener or chart position defines what a song is or isn’t.
I’m saying that the music does have an impact on the listener and surely will affect its chart position.

Sure it will. And you're still not explaining why that makes the music part of the song. It simply makes the music part of the hit record. Again, you're failing to see and understand the distinction between a recording and a song.

So Suedehead would not be the same song if say it’s words were put to the music of
Margaret on the Guillotine or Ordinary Boys.

Of course not, because the same vocal melody couldn't be sung to those backing tracking. This does not contradict what I've been saying. The vocal melody is inspired by the backing music. But it's the vocal melody and words that constitute the song.
 

marred

Member
No, a song consists of vocal melody and lyrics.




The music isn't in the song. That's why it can be changed, and yet the song remains the song.




It's a miracle!




It's another miracle! So those who hear a song for the first time, a cappella, are somehow magically being affected by the now non-existent music.




So it's not the song, but it is the song. Right...

Either way, whether with musical backing or without, the song is the vocal melody/lyric. The backing music is the backing music.




They can be adapted, but not changed out of recognition. Change the vocal melody completely and you have different song. Change the words completely and you have a different song.





Sure it will. And you're still not explaining why that makes the music part of the song. It simply makes the music part of the hit record. Again, you're failing to see and understand the distinction between a recording and a song.



Of course not, because the same vocal melody couldn't be sung to those backing tracking. This does not contradict what I've been saying. The vocal melody is inspired by the backing music. But it's the vocal melody and words that constitute the song.
Wow all those replies and you still can't be bothered signing in as a member?
 

Ketamine Sun

WATCH IT SUCKA! ; )
I have a special Morrissey playlist made up of eleven songs that all share a certain vibe that I love listening to when I need to relax. Yes I Am Blind is one of them.

then you might like this too ….

 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conversely, it's jus
It’s easier to troll when one remains as guest.



Sorry. I’ve said what I had to say, and I will stop feeding that troll now.

Conversely, signing in and giving yourself a pseudonym is no guarantee that you're going to talk sense (as evidenced by your posts).
 

marred

Member
Why would I want to be ''bothered' to sign in as a member? As you point out, it's not stopping me posting messages.
It's so we can keep track of your bullshit is all. You may post something that makes sense one of these days, you never know. Otherwise you're Anonymous.
Stay hidden then.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's so we can keep track of your bullshit is all. You may post something that makes sense one of these days, you never know. Otherwise you're Anonymous.
Stay hidden then.

Says "Marred". Oblivious to the irony. That - coupled with the absence of any articulate counter-argument of your own - tells me all I need to know about you.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom