Dennis Herring (producer) / Twitter - Extraordinary story about the Smiths' songwriting and recording

This is something I've never heard before. The story is told on Twitter by Dennis Herring, who produced Modest Mouse.

 

[Verso]

Jesus Christ, do you losers bite into a slice of pizza and proceed to fall all over yourselves trying to decide if it’s the cheese or the tomato sauce or the dough or the crust that’s carrying the collective weight of the experience? Or do you simply enjoy the alchemy of the ingredients and savor what manifests when the elements combine to create something greater than the sum of its parts? Get a f***ing grip.

 

[gordyboy9]

Bloody hell. You need some anal beads to help you loosen up a little


..

that reminds me.

 

[Anonymous]

Jesus Christ, do you losers bite into a slice of pizza and proceed to fall all over yourselves trying to decide if it’s the cheese or the tomato sauce or the dough or the crust that’s carrying the collective weight of the experience? Or do you simply enjoy the alchemy of the ingredients and savor what manifests when the elements combine to create something greater than the sum of its parts? Get a f***ing grip.

You put a suspicious amount of thought into that for somebody who claims to just like eating pizza.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

You're hung up on the idea that because the music inspired the vocal melody, then the music itself is also the song. It doesn't follow.

An instrumental can be considered a song. A a cappella piece could be considered a song. A composition with both vocal and music combined can be called a song.

We both agree that Marr deserves credit for the creative process that produced the songs of The Smiths, we just don't agree on what that credit should be.

I agree that combined they worked together to write those songs.

You say that Morrissey needed the music in order to create his vocal melody. True. Marr needed a guitar in order to create the music. Should the guitar get a co-credit.

Lol. If a guitar can play itself? If it could, then yes it should get credit.

Morrissey used three instruments to create his vocal melodies: his voice, his lyrics, and the backing music.

That’s all?

Ask somebody to sing you a sing - any song - and they won't sing you the backing tracking. They'll sing you the vocal melody/words. And that's still the song.

We hear the rest in our mind. Their singing of the song reminds us of the actual full song and that’s what we hear also.

"Even if Marr released an album of instrumental music they would still be recognised as songs by most listeners". No they wouldn't. They'd be recognised as 'instrumentals' by most listeners. That's why the word exists.

Opinions vary,





“So an instrumental is not a song? That's (instru)mental!

Of course, it's a song. It's a piece of music. A composition. Who says it requires singing?”

Is an Instrumental, a "Song"?

When it comes to music, I consider a song a song whether there are vocals or not. However, in my music collection I do divide my music into...

forums.stevehoffman.tv

Some would say that Oscillate Wildly is a great song.

‘An instrumental arrangement of a songcould also meaningfully be called a song. There are some piano pieces by Felix Mendelssohn called Songs Without Words, but notice the “without words”, which indicates that he is not referring to what would normally be called a song. ... Yes, they are still considered songs.’

Can we call a piece of instrumental music a song? All kinds of instrumental music. For example, a piece of guitar or harp music or everything else which is just instrumental. Can we consider them 'So

Meet, interact, and learn with native speakers and language learners from all over the world on italki!

www.italki.com

And yes, I agree that Marr does write songs nowadays, but again the song 'The Messenger' is the vocal melody (such as it is) and the lyric (such as it is). So Marr composed the backing music and then created a song out of it.

Are you saying if Marr only released ‘The Messenger’ as a cappella then it would be called a song?

Maybe some would, but it wouldn’t be music to my ears.

 

[Anonymous]

An instrumental can be considered a song. A a cappella piece could be considered a song. A composition with both vocal and music combined can be called a song.

An elephant can be called a song. A book can be called a song. A Chinese takeaway can be called a song. Sure. But in defining what a song actually is, I opt for the Pascal's Razor approach. Vocal melody. Lyrics. These may indeed bring to mind the backing music, but if there are 12 different recorded versions of the song, each recorded by a different group of musicians with a different arrangement, which one of those backing tracks is the legitimate 'other half' of the song? And if only one of the (say, the original one) is the legitimate 'other half' of the song, then do the other 11 records only contain half a song? I'd venture to say 'bollocks'.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree that combined they worked together to write those songs.

Agree with who? What you mean to say is that you 'think' that combined they worked together to write those songs, you mean that that is your opinion. Sloppy use of language.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

An elephant can be called a song. A book can be called a song. A Chinese takeaway can be called a song. Sure.

Maybe, but some would have trouble dancing to anyone of those.

But in defining what a song actually is, I opt for the Pascal's Razor approach. Vocal melody. Lyrics. These may indeed bring to mind the backing music, but if there are 12 different recorded versions of the song,

It has nothing to do with legitimacy.

The person hearing just the vocal melody or words sung to them will
hear what version they know best.
and so they will hear the full song in
their head.

each recorded by a different group of musicians with a different arrangement, which one of those backing tracks is the legitimate 'other half' of the song? And if only one of the (say, the original one) is the legitimate 'other half' of the song, then do the other 11 records only contain half a song? I'd venture to say 'bollocks'.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you saying if Marr only released ‘The Messenger’ as a cappella then it would be called a song?

Maybe some would, but it wouldn’t be music to my ears.

Er... yes, that's what I'm saying.

Mind you, this reminds me of when The Flying Pickets released their a cappella 'Only You' around the time The Smiths were starting up. They had high hopes for what they thought would be a hit song but, like you, the world was confounded. "This isn't a song!" everyone said. "It's got no backing music". And so it died the death.

Oh, no, what am I saying - it went to No.1!

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

No, it's not. It's just a piece of music. You could take that piece of music

Just a piece of music that can be called a song.

and create/record an entirely new song out of it. Which I think is what some are suggesting was the case with 'Panic'.

Or take that backing track and add a flute melody on top, it still can be called a song.

 

[Anonymous]

Maybe, but some would have trouble dancing to anyone of those.


It has nothing to do with legitimacy.

The person hearing just the vocal melody or words sung to them will
hear what version they know best.
and so they will hear the full song in
their head.

Right, so it's only a song if you can dance to it.

And 'the full song' depends on which one of 12 different versions, with 12 different backing tracks, you listened.

You might want to think that through a bit more.

 

[Anonymous]

Just a piece of music that can be called a song.


Or take that backing track and add a flute melody on top, it still can be called a song.

Not for any meaningful reason. Why call it a song? Why not just stick with calling it a piece of music? What distinguishes 'a piece of music' from a 'song' in your mind? If there's no distinction, why do you have two names for the same thing?

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Bloody hell. You need some anal beads to help you loosen up a little


..

@Verso swallowed mine.

 

[Carlisle baz]

@Verso swallowed mine.

Anal beads, takeaways....
What time did this party start

 

[Vegan Cro Spirit .888]

You're hung up on the idea that because the music inspired the vocal melody, then the music itself is also the song. It doesn't follow.

We both agree that Marr deserves credit for the creative process that produced the songs of The Smiths, we just don't agree on what that credit should be.

You say that Morrissey needed the music in order to create his vocal melody. True. Marr needed a guitar in order to create the music. Should the guitar get a co-credit.

Morrissey used three instruments to create his vocal melodies: his voice, his lyrics, and the backing music.

Ask somebody to sing you a sing - any song - and they won't sing you the backing tracking. They'll sing you the vocal melody/words. And that's still the song.

"Even if Marr released an album of instrumental music they would still be recognised as songs by most listeners". No they wouldn't. They'd be recognised as 'instrumentals' by most listeners. That's why the word exists. And yes, I agree that Marr does write songs nowadays, but again the song 'The Messenger' is the vocal melody (such as it is) and the lyric (such as it is). So Marr composed the backing music and then created a song out of it.

there are 1000s of instrumentals copyrighted as songs not as non song instrumentals FFS.
tho most of 'instrumentals couldnt be copyrighted without moz, because of his nicking mania

 

[Damian Mango Morgan]

This is something I've never heard before. The story is told on Twitter by Dennis Herring, who produced Modest Mouse.

View attachment 73431View attachment 73432View attachment 73433View attachment 73434

Didn't Marr communicate with Morrissey musically via cassettes anyway? With a demo for him to write too. I think this is a bit of Moz-bashing. This Dennis guy smells fishy to me*

*Sorry

 

[Anonymous]

Didn't Marr communicate with Morrissey musically via cassettes anyway? With a demo for him to write too. I think this is a bit of Moz-bashing. This Dennis guy smells fishy to me*

*Sorry

I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of those loony left Commies.

Although that may just be a red herring.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Er... yes, that's what I'm saying.

Mind you, this reminds me of when The Flying Pickets released their a cappella 'Only You' around the time The Smiths were starting up. They had high hopes for what they thought would be a hit song but, like you, the world was confounded. "This isn't a song!" everyone said. "It's got no backing music". And so it died the death.

Oh, no, what am I saying - it went to No.1!

Never heard of them.

Anyway, I didn’t say an a cappella
composition couldn’t be called a song too.

But most do define music with vocals as a song.... and a composition with no vocal as a song also ....

Is an Instrumental, a "Song"?

When it comes to music, I consider a song a song whether there are vocals or not. However, in my music collection I do divide my music into...

forums.stevehoffman.tv

So YES an instrumental is a song.

 

[Marcoooooo]

Er... yes, that's what I'm saying.

Mind you, this reminds me of when The Flying Pickets released their a cappella 'Only You' around the time The Smiths were starting up. They had high hopes for what they thought would be a hit song but, like you, the world was confounded. "This isn't a song!" everyone said. "It's got no backing music". And so it died the death.

Oh, no, what am I saying - it went to No.1!

And what about "Caravan of Love", by Housemartins... It reached #1 spot, didn't it?

 

[Dirk Blaggard]

This is sold as " That Fing Morrissey, what a pain in the anus"
and "Isn't Johnny Brilliant working around that nut case Morrissey and creating the Smiths sound.

The trouble is, as one person said, it goes against everything Johnny , Moz , Andy and Mike have said , as well as Stephen Street.
It also doesn't really sit with the listening experience 90% of the songs.

But the most hilarious aspect, for me , is this. IF this is true, it shows that ONLY Moz could see how he was redesigning how vocals go and where words are placed in music. Changing the whole set up of intro, verse, chorus middle eight (break free)
It would state , not only did Moz create the Smiths world (which he did) , Art (which he did) , words (which he did) , and artful Interviews (which he did) . He also shaped the general sound structure
and that Johnny, as talented as he was/is, didn't even see teh greatness of what Moz was creating ..Also Morrissey famously refused to even put music on a couple of songs (or was it one? ) , becuase he thought the music spoke for itself.

 

[Geoffrey Ingram]

.Also Morrissey famously refused to even put music on a couple of songs (or was it one? ) , becuase he thought the music spoke for itself.

What songs are they?