Did Marr Deserve a Songwriting Co-Credit For The Songs of the Smiths?

Have you purposely ignored Mike Joyce's contribution?
Read the book ''Songs That Saved Your Life'' on songs like 'The Headmaster Ritual' where Johnny admits to coming in with the riff and the Mike coming u with the drum line. Should have been 25% split between the 4 of them all the way.....

Hi, well I kind of avoided mentioning Joyce as that seemed a more contentious example -him being the drummer and his contributions therefore non-melodic (whereas Rourke's are extremely melodic to the extent where they often appear to be the lead harmony). But, sticking, with my own reasoning, my reply to your question would be: credit the song to Morrissey; credit the music to those who had a significant input. So if Joyce's input was significant, he's get a credit. Are you sure it's 'The Headmaster Ritual' you're thinking of? I recall Marr saying something similar about Joyce's contribution to 'The Queen Is Dead' and in that instance, I can totally see it - Marr openly admits that he had no idea that idea that Joyce was going to kick in with that thundering opening drum beat, and I'd argue it's equally as vital to the music as Marr's guitar. But I'd still maintain that it's not actually the song. If somebody chooses to do a cover version of that song, entirely on piano, sans drums/guitar/base... well,, they're still playing 'The Queen Is Dead', aren't they? But what, of the original recording, are they actually playing? Answer - Morrissey's contribution: vocal melody and lyrics. Therefore vocal melody and lyrics = the song.

Take another example: the various line-ups of Morrissey's solo band are often criticised on this forum for doing poor, sub-standard versions of Smiths songs; but no-one, to my recollection - no matter how critical - has ever argued that the song isn't actually being performed. It might be a very bad version of 'This Charming Man' that they're playing, but it's still 'This Charming Man'. Why? Because the entire audience recognises it. Why? Because Morrissey's singing the melody and words.
 
Have you purposely ignored Mike Joyce's contribution?
Read the book ''Songs That Saved Your Life'' on songs like 'The Headmaster Ritual' where Johnny admits to coming in with the riff and the Mike coming u with the drum line. Should have been 25% split between the 4 of them all the way.....

To be fair, there's absolutely nothing fancy about the drums on 'The Headmaster Ritual' - it's a straight, obvious beat. Which is fine, and suits the song, but I don't see how something so basic and obvious deserves a song-writing credit. What else was he possibly going to be able to play under that riff?
 
very well said fellow anon and i appreciate the maturity of your response even if not to me specifically. i kinda agree about marrs comments here if not in other instances. if he finds the argument so stupid it should be easy for the artist he is to explain his point instead of just saying a person is stupid for posing a question however loaded but they dont. they do the childish name calling and offer nothing to discussion. i dont think it hard to explain a point you claim to know so well without being a rude childish person. maybe its because hes six four. its not hard to see who i am even as anonymous so i doubt im to confused with others here. i dont capitalize, there equals there theyre their to me, and i hate grammar. i doubt ill ever register as ive just had a bad experience with it and its seems to bear not and matter not on the points i try to raise. who i am should have anything to do with what im saying. they should stand on there own so thats why ill probably never register an account.

Thanks, yeah I kind of feel the same way - staying anonymous helps the conversation to focus on what's being said, and not who's saying it, which shouldn't really matter at all.
 
Morrissey's musical input into The Smiths songs was crucial to their appeal. On youtube there are tutorials on how to play Smiths songs. As instrumentals a lot of them really go round and round and end up being rather dull. Johnny was an average songwriter but a brilliant guitar player. Morrissey was a brilliant singer and lyricist and a very good songwriter.Nobody is humming Johnny Marr's solo stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqJJH2Y5fc

LOL

That youtube "example" is like me singing Morrissey's stuff to "prove" that Morrissey isn't really "that good".
 
I recall Marr saying something similar about Joyce's contribution to 'The Queen Is Dead' and in that instance, I can totally see it - Marr openly admits that he had no idea that idea that Joyce was going to kick in with that thundering opening drum beat, and I'd argue it's equally as vital to the music as Marr's guitar.

Actually, Johnny Marr wrote and programmed the rolling tom beat on a drum machine in a studio. His surprise was only that Joyce was able to figure out how to play it live, because of its syncopation.
 
Actually, Johnny Marr wrote and programmed the rolling tom beat on a drum machine in a studio. His surprise was only that Joyce was able to figure out how to play it live, because of its syncopation.

I believe it was programmed by Stephen Street and Mike.
 
which is why i only think of thundering drums when i hear that song as they sound so different to most of the other songs. i like you om. you make excellent points and articulate well. you also seem to carry some weight here to your credit though ive only been posting here for a min or two
 
Are you saying that the drum beat was written by Marr or actually programmed on the record? Because the drum beat is played by Joyce on the record and it is just looped throughout the song.
Actually, Johnny Marr wrote and programmed the rolling tom beat on a drum machine in a studio. His surprise was only that Joyce was able to figure out how to play it live, because of its syncopation.
 
Are you saying that the drum beat was written by Marr or actually programmed on the record? Because the drum beat is played by Joyce on the record and it is just looped throughout the song.

The tom-tom part is looped in a sampler and the other drum parts are played live. Obviously, it would have been played in order to be sampled.
 
The tom-tom part is looped in a sampler and the other drum parts are played live. Obviously, it would have been played in order to be sampled.

I'm away from home for the week, and will have to look this up when I get home. I do think I remember reading somewhere that Marr didn't tell Morrissey that the song would start off with the drum loop. I thought I remember Marr writing the loop on a sampler and then Joyce playing it live (as described above). The main beat (not the tom tom loop) is obviously Joyce's contribution.

I'm honestly not trying to denigrate Joyce's contribution -- if he wrote the tom tom beat, so be it! But the arrangement of opening the song with it I'm pretty certain was Marr's idea. Maybe Street's. But not Joyce's. But I cent remember where I read this. Anyone else recall the same thing?
 
Sorry, but you don't seem to be following the points that are being made in this thread.

How Soon Is Now. This Charming Man. What Difference Does It Make?

Ironically, two of those are songs I cited as being examples where the musical input of John Porter to the finished product seems much underrated by the Morrissey/Marr credit, to judge by Marr's own description, in interviews, of how the music on those records was created. So why not a Morrissey/Marr/Porter credit? Why not a Morrissey/Marr/Porter/Rourke credit? Like many others, you seem to be under the impression that Marr simply recorded the finalised backing track, that we can all hear on the record, on his multi-track at home and then handed it over to Morrissey, for him to do his vocal, before the song ever reached the studio. Not the case.

Not the case? John Porter was a producer, he didn't play or write the guitar parts. When you hear 15 tracks of guitar on This Charming Man, that's all Johnny Marr... a 21 year old at the time. Should George Martin get co-writer credit on Beatles songs?

Your premise that all songwriting credit should go to the writer of the lyric and vocal melody is preposterous. What about the scores of songwriting teams, Goffin/King, John/Taupin, Holland/Dozier/Holland, Jagger/Richards, Lerner/Lowe, I could go on all day. Johnny is the COMPOSER of the music, to deny him credit for his part of the songwriting process is missing half the story... the first half, actually, because the music came first.
 
Has an actual songwriter, musician, professional who is making a living writing and playing music responded? It's NOT about the "public perception" but about the industry standard, what is generally accepted in the music industry. If, please, it's just a hypothetical, OK, if Mike Joyce came up with the intro drum to The Queen Is Dead, but did not write it down, and later Johnny Marr wrote it down, who should receive credit? I just want the answer to this question. Please. Thanks again.
 
Not the case? John Porter was a producer, he didn't play or write the guitar parts. When you hear 15 tracks of guitar on This Charming Man, that's all Johnny Marr... a 21 year old at the time. Should George Martin get co-writer credit on Beatles songs?

Your premise that all songwriting credit should go to the writer of the lyric and vocal melody is preposterous. What about the scores of songwriting teams, Goffin/King, John/Taupin, Holland/Dozier/Holland, Jagger/Richards, Lerner/Lowe, I could go on all day. Johnny is the COMPOSER of the music, to deny him credit for his part of the songwriting process is missing half the story... the first half, actually, because the music came first.

according to portor they did work on which chords and key changes johnny would play. for the overdubs
 
Has an actual songwriter, musician, professional who is making a living writing and playing music responded? It's NOT about the "public perception" but about the industry standard, what is generally accepted in the music industry. If, please, it's just a hypothetical, OK, if Mike Joyce came up with the intro drum to The Queen Is Dead, but did not write it down, and later Johnny Marr wrote it down, who should receive credit? I just want the answer to this question. Please. Thanks again.

The answer to your question within the context of The Smiths? Morrissey and Marr would get the credit. The industry standard is music+melody+lyrics=songwriting credit. Bass lines, drum parts and even guitar riffs written by a second guitarist may or may not rise to the level of writing credit, it depends on the situation. Some bands like U2 or Sonic Youth just give credit to all members equally to avoid these squabbles. So even though Ringo wrote many a drum part for The Beatles, he never got songwriting credit for them.

according to portor they did work on which chords and key changes johnny would play. for the overdubs
Working on chords and key changes is just what a producer usually does. What are you getting at? The Smiths had many songs with ingenious guitar parts that came before Porter and many, many after him. To suggest that he was some Svengali pulling Johnny's strings is insulting. Yes they worked on overdubs together... Porter was producing a brilliant young talent who loved guitars and loved learning about the recording process.
 
The answer to your question within the context of The Smiths? Morrissey and Marr would get the credit. The industry standard is music+melody+lyrics=songwriting credit. Bass lines, drum parts and even guitar riffs written by a second guitarist may or may not rise to the level of writing credit, it depends on the situation. Some bands like U2 or Sonic Youth just give credit to all members equally to avoid these squabbles. So even though Ringo wrote many a drum part for The Beatles, he never got songwriting credit for them.


Working on chords and key changes is just what a producer usually does. What are you getting at? The Smiths had many songs with ingenious guitar parts that came before Porter and many, many after him. To suggest that he was some Svengali pulling Johnny's strings is insulting. Yes they worked on overdubs together... Porter was producing a brilliant young talent who loved guitars and loved learning about the recording process.

The only thing I can think of that Johnny Marr did in his own right, that came close to the subtlety and sophistication of the Porter-produced 'This Charming Man', 'William, It Was Really Nothing' and 'How Soon Is Now' would be 'The Headmaster Ritual' - and even that isn't in the same league.

Reference to 'industry standards' is of course one answer to the question posed by this thread, although your own post above would seem to indicate that there is no such thing as an industry standard.

What I think is being got at is that 'working on chords and key changes' (as well as arranging and re-arranging guitar parts etc) may constitute such a substantial contribution to the end musically product as to be justifiably regarded as meriting a compositional credit. A lot of people seem to be hung up on the idea of Marr as a song'writer' and 'composer', as if he notated every guitar harmony onto sheet music, before bringing it into the studio. He didn't. He laid down a guitar riff and probably some basic harmonies, took it into the studio, and that was then worked on. Why is the creative process that took place in the studio to be regarded as any less worthy of a musical credit than the creative process of Marr coming up with ideas on his guitar? Especially when the end results suggest that the contribution of one particular person (Porter) seemed to result in music that was more sonically sophisticated and richly harmonic, and more structurally subtler, than those records that were recorded without his assistance. When people talk about Marr's 'trademark jingle-jangle' sound, and when Marr talked in years gone by, of trying to get away from that sound, it's essentially these Porter-produced records that they're referring to. As to why Marr was so keen to distance himself from that sound, my impression is that he knew he just couldn't re-create it on his own. Listen to 'For You' on Electronic's second album, as a rare example of an instance when he tried to. It's an obvious effort to recapture the sound of 'This Charming Man', but it's crude by comparison. This is why Marr has never fully recaptured the sound for which he was famous 'when he was in The Smiths' (as people say, when what they would really mean, if they think about, is 'on those Smiths records produced by John Porter). This is not to suggest that he was a Svengali pulling Johnny's strings. Marr is clearly a brilliant and creative guitarist. But Porter is clearly a gifted produced/arranger whose contributions to the music were obviously substantial. I don't see that being the guitarist automatically makes you the composer of the finished music. The recording studio is also an instrument in the creative process. Why is the music on the finished record to be arbitrarily credited to the guy who brought in the original musical ideas, but not to anyone who then contributed further ideas?

All of which is really a sideshow to the main contention of this thread - that, regardless of any 'industry standard', a song does not, to my mind, equal music + melody + lyrics; it is in essence the vocal melody/lyrics, for reasons I've gone into in more detail above. This is how songs survived and were passed through the generations for centuries before recorded music. Cover versions always feel free to rearrange and sometimes drastically alter the music, but rarely substantially alter the vocal melody which is usually the reason the song is loved in the first place (and if the they do, they tend to pilloried). As I say, by all means credit Marr (and whoever else) with the music; credit Morrissey with the songs - but distinguish between the two: music and the songs that it gives rise to. That's what I'm arguing for. Take away the vocal melody/lyric, and you're left with a piece of music. Take away the backing music, to leave the vocal melody acapella, and you still have a song.

S.F.
 
i think pulling his strings is a dramatic exaggeration for effect. im suggesting that they worked on those guitar parts together and he influenced how the song sounded with his choices and why i love those songs. im of the george martin was the fith member of the beatles crowd and a believer in write the songs, then the studio. dont write in the studio so no i dont think producers should be suggesting chord changes without getting writing credits
 
The only thing I can think of that Johnny Marr did in his own right, that came close to the subtlety and sophistication of the Porter-produced 'This Charming Man', 'William, It Was Really Nothing' and 'How Soon Is Now' would be 'The Headmaster Ritual' - and even that isn't in the same league.
The way you phrase "that Johnny Marr did in his own right", can you please give an example of something on a Smiths record that he didn't do in his own right?? Johnny was writing songs in F#, open E, open G, open A, he played piano, mandolin and autoharp, he had things capo'ed at the 4th or 5th fret, he was recording backwards guitar... and on and on. He was always pushing himself to do new things. Did he learn things from Porter? Sure. But John Porter suggesting that he play a part on a Telecaster instead of a Rickenbacker doesn't change that Johnny wrote the parts. Porter may have stayed up late recording those 15 tracks on This Charming Man, but Johnny wrote and played every single note of it.

What I think is being got at is that 'working on chords and key changes' (as well as arranging and re-arranging guitar parts etc) may constitute such a substantial contribution to the end musically product as to be justifiably regarded as meriting a compositional credit. A lot of people seem to be hung up on the idea of Marr as a song'writer' and 'composer', as if he notated every guitar harmony onto sheet music, before bringing it into the studio. He didn't. He laid down a guitar riff and probably some basic harmonies, took it into the studio, and that was then worked on. Why is the creative process that took place in the studio to be regarded as any less worthy of a musical credit than the creative process of Marr coming up with ideas on his guitar? Especially when the end results suggest that the contribution of one particular person (Porter) seemed to result in music that was more sonically sophisticated and richly harmonic, and more structurally subtler, than those records that were recorded without his assistance.
Do you realize that all of Meat Is Murder and The Queen Is Dead were self produced by the Smiths, with Strangeways being co-produced by them and Street. These albums were mammoth works full of great songs. Then with the debut album, 90% of the chords and riffs were right there in the Troy Tate sessions, albeit in a less polished form. I'm a fan of John Porter, but I think you are massively overstating his contribution by implying he should get song credit, and I think even he would agree.


When people talk about Marr's 'trademark jingle-jangle' sound, and when Marr talked in years gone by, of trying to get away from that sound, it's essentially these Porter-produced records that they're referring to.
John Porter only produced one record and some singles.

As to why Marr was so keen to distance himself from that sound, my impression is that he knew he just couldn't re-create it on his own.
Yeah... he hobbled along from 1985-1987 before giving up the ghost, the last 3 years being an abject failure by any standard.:lbf:

This is why Marr has never fully recaptured the sound for which he was famous 'when he was in The Smiths' (as people say, when what they would really mean, if they think about, is 'on those Smiths records produced by John Porter). This is not to suggest that he was a Svengali pulling Johnny's strings. Marr is clearly a brilliant and creative guitarist. But Porter is clearly a gifted produced/arranger whose contributions to the music were obviously substantial. I don't see that being the guitarist automatically makes you the composer of the finished music. The recording studio is also an instrument in the creative process. Why is the music on the finished record to be arbitrarily credited to the guy who brought in the original musical ideas, but not to anyone who then contributed further ideas?
John Porter left the scene right when things were getting interesting. Your assertion that people recalling the "sound of the smiths" or the "jingle jangle sound" are referring to Porter productions is just ludicrous. Tell us please, was Johnny able to recapture the "smiths sound" on the other 3 records and scores of singles NOT produced by Porter?

All of which is really a sideshow to the main contention of this thread - that, regardless of any 'industry standard', a song does not, to my mind, equal music + melody + lyrics; it is in essence the vocal melody/lyrics, for reasons I've gone into in more detail above. This is how songs survived and were passed through the generations for centuries before recorded music. Cover versions always feel free to rearrange and sometimes drastically alter the music, but rarely substantially alter the vocal melody which is usually the reason the song is loved in the first place (and if the they do, they tend to pilloried). As I say, by all means credit Marr (and whoever else) with the music; credit Morrissey with the songs - but distinguish between the two: music and the songs that it gives rise to. That's what I'm arguing for. Take away the vocal melody/lyric, and you're left with a piece of music. Take away the backing music, to leave the vocal melody acapella, and you still have a song.
What about the Smiths instrumentals? They are still songs. And the rest of the songs were songs before Moz added vocals to them. They were for the most part complete pieces of music which he wrote vocal melodies around. If the music is so unimportant, then why on earth does Morrissey's band struggle along when they could just play a completely different arrangement? Because the Smiths songs were special, and the soul of those songs is just as much in the music Johnny wrote as it was in what Morrissey wrote and sang. Johnny was not some macho rocker, he was writing incredibly intense, sensitive, sometimes very dark music... which is often forgotten I think.
 
im of the george martin was the fith member of the beatles crowd
John Lennon said:
"When people ask me questions about 'What did George Martin really do for you?,' I have only one answer, 'What does he do now?' I noticed you had no answer for that! It's not a putdown, it's the truth,"

and a believer in write the songs, then the studio. dont write in the studio so no i dont think producers should be suggesting chord changes without getting writing credits
Well Johnny wrote William in the back of a van, so there you go! Now give us some examples of songs John Porter wrote for the Smiths. A single chord even.
 
most of the over dub choices on this charming man for example (theres about a dozen glistening bar chords on that song). he didnt say what chords as it probably wouldnt work for the doc but thats what makes it so contentious. he asserted that they would make selections together. see the industry standard is what im challenging and it vague term of "music". how is a bass part not music. if my fav song was missing the bass part it wouldnt be my fav song itd be part of it
 
Well Johnny wrote William in the back of a van, so there you go! Now give us some examples of songs John Porter wrote for the Smiths. A single chord even.

And to the above post, re: 'This Charming Man', you can add as another example the very song you've cited, 'William, It Was Really Nothing'. Your faith in Marr's self-publicity is touching. You really think he composed the complex orchestration of harmonic overdubs, that defines what is so remarkable about the backing music on that record , in the back of a van? Bollocks he did. What he means is that he came up with a basic rhythm track, chord sequence, melody line, which was then worked on and worked on and worked on in the studio. You're obsessed with this notion of Marr having 'written' stuff, as if that somehow distinguishes his musical contribution to the record. He didn't 'write' anything, he just jammed on his guitar, recorded it and brought it into the studio, where the creative process of composing the finished music then continued evolving. It's this 'talking up' and overselling of his own contributions that wearies me with Marr. He's a fast talker huckster; in another life he'd have been a salesman; he has doggedly downplayed the contributions of Rourke and Porter (and Street, and Gannon) for decades, and people have fallen for it. Why on earth they continue to do so is beyond me, when his solo stuff makes patently clear that he just can't do what he claims to have done in The Smiths: write great songs.
 
Back
Top Bottom