Do you agree with the following statement?
- Thread starter Kewpie
- Start date
I'm totally overwhelmed by the contributions to this thread. Thank you very much for all of you!! It's really exciting to read intelligent debates. The person who made me to start this seems lost the case and shamelessly (or courageously?) asked us to challenge him by phone, which is beyond my imagination...after all, he's a childish attention seeker who pretends to be a fan of Morrissey.
Anyway, it's so shallow to presume that Love is equal to Lust. Love is very hard to define because there are many different aspects attach to it. As many of you already know that Morrissey is not seeking lust, but love!
Love which Morrissey is longing for is spiritual and unconditional. I don't know such thing exists...at least it still inspires him to write many great lyrics.
Anyway, it's so shallow to presume that Love is equal to Lust. Love is very hard to define because there are many different aspects attach to it. As many of you already know that Morrissey is not seeking lust, but love!
Love which Morrissey is longing for is spiritual and unconditional. I don't know such thing exists...at least it still inspires him to write many great lyrics.
Last edited:
nightandday
New Member
This is the best Morrissey interview I've read this year (not because of the interviewer whose questions were the same as everybody else's, and included some rather stupid ones:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-2201766,00.html
And so to his news: his sudden, late-blooming sex life, the ignition of, as he calls them in Dear God Please Help Me, the “explosive kegs between my legs”. Two years ago in I Have Forgiven Jesus he complained that there was no one who would “unlock all this love” in him. Now in You Have Killed Me he sings: “I entered nothing, and nothing entered me/ ’til you came, with the key.” So has he been unlocked?
“It isn’t true,” he protests. “No, it isn’t true. I said to the writer from Mojo, “Yes, I’m in love with the city of Rome” and they printed, “Yes, I’m in love”. And everybody else followed. But no, it isn’t true. Everything remains the same. I am an island.”
Yet even the album’s press release emphasised the songs’ sexuality. What about Dear God Please Help Me? “Then he motions to me with his hand on my knee . . . and now I’m spreading your legs, with mine in between.”
“Yes, but I maintain that from the very early Smiths, the songs were very passionate and sensual. I think it was overlooked because I physically didn’t appear to be so. I was so physically not it, there didn’t seem to be any link between the lyrics and my physicality. But I think they were always sensual, really.”
About longing and unrequited love? “Mostly.” So the sex in his records, is it fantasy or is it reportage? “A sprinkling of everything.” I mention the Smiths’ song Half a Person, which apparently described his six-year pursuit of a woman who kept rejecting him. “Yes, yes, that was absolutely true, yes, absolutely true. So your question is?”
My question is: does this pattern of unrequited love continue? “Well, there was once more yearning than there is now. One can now put things into perspective and can turn away very easily, shrug your shoulders and say, ‘What’s the point?’ There’s other things in my life to be passionate about. But when you’re a teenager and in your early twenties it seems desperately eternal and excruciatingly painful. Whereas as you grow older you realise that most things are excruciatingly painful and that is the human condition. Most of us continue to survive because we’re convinced that somewhere along the line, with grit and determination and perseverance, we will end up in some magical union with somebody. It’s a fallacy, of course, but it’s a form of religion. You have to believe. There is a light that never goes out and it’s called hope.”
Does he still hope? “No, no, not at all. I’m too long in the tooth.”
I ask if the misinterpretation robs him of some of his pleasure in Ringleader of the Tormentors, an album he says makes him “hellishly proud”. “Yes, it does because it’s ludicrous. I mean, one magazine said, ‘He’s gone sex-mad.’ I just thought, ‘Oh God!’ ”
Did it annoy him equally that he became an icon of celibacy in the Eighties? “It did annoy me because it’s a terrible word with terrible connotations. You picture the worst human being imaginable, and I was never quite that. I was honest about it briefly and I spoke about it briefly and I do regret it. It still lingers and people ask me about it and it’s not really something that you want to be associated with for life.”
There is nothing more shameful in our society than not having sex, I suggest. “If you announce that nothing ever happens to you then you’re announcing that you’re incapable of roping anybody in — the key phrase being ‘anybody’. Most people do settle for anybody. Certainly, if you’re working-class and you’re male it’s a sin to sleep alone, which is why so many rush into hasty marriages. Working-class males do not ever sleep alone. I was in that environment and I was sleeping alone. So I was an oddity.”
But he has subsequently enjoyed some romance in his life? “Yes, I’ve felt brushes.” It has been suggested that one was with Michael Stipe of REM? “That’s absolute shit, absolute shit and I don’t know why people ever said that, do you?”
I presume he is not about to clear up whether he is gay, straight or bisexual. He says I presume right. I wonder if this refusal stems from a deliberate attempt to create mystique or ordinary embarrassment. “It’s neither of those things. I’m simply myself, which is inexcusable to many people. I’m not trapped by anything.”
nightandday
New Member
I didn't know he ever said that. it must have been one of his wind-ups, like the 'reggae is vile' thing, which he later said was only to get a rise out of the NME writers. But it's very unlikely that Morrissey stopped liking the Dolls - he included their songs on both "Under The Influence' and "Songs That Saved Your Life", he organized their reunion for the Meltdown festival when Arthur Kane was still alive and appeared in "New York Doll" documentary talking about them... yes, I think he is still a fan.
Danny
Senior Member
I think you are confusing love with sex. I think often when Morrissey says "love" he doesn't mean sexual love. I think that's the mistake that many people make. It's because our society these days is obsessed with sex because it is a fantastic tool for capitalism. Morrissey's attitude seems to have more in common with the old Romantics, where the meaning of love is much wider.
Danny
Senior Member
Just a general impression really. Aside from the animal rights issue he doesn't really say anything outrageous anymore. He's even said he thinks the Queen is OK in a couple of interviews (presumably because she doesn't hunt anymore). All his opinions seem pretty mainstream to me. All the banging on about Bush and Blair is pretty boring because he knows everyone agrees on that. They are just easy targets.
Also I think with the sexuality issue sometimes I get the impression he won't say what he really thinks, he's more likely to try and say something that he thinks people want to hear (without actually saying anything at all). When he was young he was much more unapologetic about it.
I just think he's got a vision of being a "legend" and he's trying to hard to get people onside. He does conform a bit these days. Especially with the media.
nightandday
New Member
You may be right. I kind of felt that way too... I don't think he's trying to fit in. I don't think he was ever trying that. What I think he's been trying to do for quite some time (for years and years, really) is to get rid of the 'celibacy' tag. When I read his old interviews, I get the impression that he was never sure that he didn't want a relationship, even when he was being most negative about it in his interviews. The quote 'I'm open to ideas' - it's something he used to say in his 1980s interviews as well. But people branded him as 'celibate' which implied that he was absolutely unlikely to have sex/relationship with anyone, that he did not want it.
Morrissey seems to have become annoyed by the word a long time ago -
"'Well, I don't have physical relationships, if that's what you mean,' Morrissey said. 'But to use the word celibacy, to apply it to oneself is like implying that one has made a very firm decision. And that is not the case in my life" (Observer, 1992)
"He doesn't talk about celibacy anymore. "Can't think why I ever did. It's incredibly boring." It wasn't as if he didn't like sex. "I just didn't have it."" (The Guardian, 1997)
"I only used the word 'celibate' in August 1984 and it's haunted me like a soothsayer walking behind me everywhere I go. I am not celibate and I haven't been for a very long time" (NME, 2006)
The word 'celibacy' has more than one meaning - dictionaries define it as simply a state of 'not having sexual relationship', or as a vow of celibacy - a lifelong decision, usually made for religious reasons. What I think the problem was is that the public got the two confused; they practically sentenced him to go on being 'celibate'. I think he felt trapped in it after a while. I think that's what some of his little wind-ups were about - he seemed to have had a lot of fun by posing jokingly in Parisian or Japanese porn shops, or singing the line 'It was a good lay' in Suedehead:
"I mean, did he really sing, "It was a good lay" at the end of "Suedehead," his first solo single?
"No, 'It was a bootleg'. I mean, good heavens, in my vocabulary? Please..."
Honestly?
"Well, have I ever been dishonest?" he laughs. "Do people think it was 'a good lay'?"
I do.
"And is that quite racy?"
Oh, yes.
"Well, it was actually 'a good lay'."
And was there one?
"No, I just thought it might amuse someone living in Hartlepool." "
(Sounds, 1988)
I think that a lot of things he did during his solo career were aimed at destroying the old image of asexual, celibate, flower-loving, frail (which he never really was) 'ailing Victorian romantic' Morrissey, which persisted in people's minds. People exaggerated the whole thing, treid to fit him into an oversimplified persona, and it wasn't all that he was. He is far more complex than that, and he felt it wasn't all that was to him, and it wasn't him anymore. But there were too many people did not want to allow him to break the image they had of him.
nightandday
New Member
If Bush and Blair are 'easy targets', which other targets do you suggest??? The Queen is far easier target, and more harmless - she really means nothing, she has no power, unlike Bush and Blair. and how are they any easier targets than Thatcher? you could argue the same about her. Thatcher was widely hated in the 1980s, even the Spitting Image regularly ridiculed her, and a lot of pop and rock musicians spoke against her and wrote songs against her and her government. On the other hand, how many British musicians have written songs against Tony Blair?
And what do you think people want to hear about his sexuality?
nightandday
New Member
An interesting quote on the subject, by Morrissey's old favourite, Elizabeth Smart, from "By Grand Central Station...":
"To deny love, and deceive it meanly by pretending that what is unconsummated remains eternal, or that love sublimated reaches highest to heavenly love, is repulsive, as the hypocrite's face is repulsive when placed too near the truth."
nightandday
New Member
Now back to some of Worm's previous statements on the songs themselves:
And BTW - at least 2 interviewers questioned him about the 'it was a good lay' line in 1988: whether he really sang that; and - whether he actually had sex with anyone. Unfortunately, I can't find the other quote, but I remember it quite wel. and in true Morrissey fashion, while in Sounds interview he toyed with the interviewer and ended up by saying he wrote it to get a rise out of people, in the other interview he said something like 'well, I'm not going to give you any names and addresses, if that's what you want'... therefore he said nothing definite in both interviews, while managing to imply totally different things in the two interviews. There was also an interview from a coupld of years ago when he was asked if he had a love life at some point, and he said: "You mean at the time of the release of Suedehead?" and laughed. And yes, I do know some people who did not believe that he was really singing that line, and had rows with their friends about it. Yes, Morrissey likes to get a rise out of people.
) Claiming that a couple of young people can't be happy while discussing poetry in a graveyard is just about as right as claiming that a bunch of Goth kids who dress up in black, go to a club and dance to 'dark' music must be trully miserable, while a bunch of kids dressed in multi-colored clothes who dance to Happy Mondays must be incredibly happy. I have had my share of wonderful nights spent in dancing to 'dark' and 'gloomy' music with friends. My best New Year'e Eve ever was spent at my house with a bunch of friends - dancing to Joy Division and Husker Du's "Diane". LOL There's nothing that unusual in mixing up darkness with happiness, especially when you're young. I don't give a damn what dazzak thinks of the mention of death in There Is A Light That Never Goes Out I think that the feeling expressed in that line is incredibly romantic - melodramatic, some would maybe say - it is typical of that uncompromising, all-or-nothing romanticism that is maybe typical of (but not necessarily confined to) youth. Double-decker bus in There is A Light... and a bomb in Ask only emphasize that attitude, that magnificence of feeling. You can feel that all-or-nothing romantic attitude in many of Morrissey's solo songs, such as I'd Love to - which basically says: I only want you, and if I can't have you, I don't want anyone else.
Would you care to support that argument? Examples? How many Smiths songs were obviously NOT autobiographical? How many solo songs were 'obviously' autobiographical? Would you say that The Last Of the Famous International Playboys, Piccadilly Palare, November Spawned A Monster, Interesting Drug, Girl Least Likely To, Asian Rut, Jack The Ripper, We'll Let You Know, National Front Disco, Spring-Heeled Jim, Lazy Sunbathers, Lifegauard Sleeping Girl Drowning, Boxers, The First Of The Gang To Die, All The Lazy Dykes, Mexico, The Youngest Was The Most Loved... were autobiographical rather than observationa?
Well, here you have stated something very similar, if not the same as slurred_veneer in his/her post. Again - how do you support that argument?
And BTW - at least 2 interviewers questioned him about the 'it was a good lay' line in 1988: whether he really sang that; and - whether he actually had sex with anyone. Unfortunately, I can't find the other quote, but I remember it quite wel. and in true Morrissey fashion, while in Sounds interview he toyed with the interviewer and ended up by saying he wrote it to get a rise out of people, in the other interview he said something like 'well, I'm not going to give you any names and addresses, if that's what you want'... therefore he said nothing definite in both interviews, while managing to imply totally different things in the two interviews. There was also an interview from a coupld of years ago when he was asked if he had a love life at some point, and he said: "You mean at the time of the release of Suedehead?" and laughed. And yes, I do know some people who did not believe that he was really singing that line, and had rows with their friends about it.
Yes, Morrissey likes to get a rise out of people.Why would I be kidding?! Sadness and happiness tend to be mixed in Morrissey's songs, and it is a matter of personal feeling whether you find any of these songs happy or sad. Look at the 'Happiest song' and 'Saddest song' threads - there is a lot of disagreement about which songs people find sad and which songs they find happy. You might think that At Last I Am Born is a happier song than There Is A Light That Never Goes Out - but I feel just the opposite. Cemetry Gates may be about plagiarism, but it's also about being quite happy on a 'dreaded sunny day', at the cemetery of all places - and why wouldn't it be so? I agree that he was being ironic - but not in the line where we're happy' but in the line 'dreaded sunny day' LOL (I suppose you're not an Addams Family fan.
) Claiming that a couple of young people can't be happy while discussing poetry in a graveyard is just about as right as claiming that a bunch of Goth kids who dress up in black, go to a club and dance to 'dark' music must be trully miserable, while a bunch of kids dressed in multi-colored clothes who dance to Happy Mondays must be incredibly happy. I have had my share of wonderful nights spent in dancing to 'dark' and 'gloomy' music with friends. My best New Year'e Eve ever was spent at my house with a bunch of friends - dancing to Joy Division and Husker Du's "Diane". LOL There's nothing that unusual in mixing up darkness with happiness, especially when you're young. I don't give a damn what dazzak thinks of the mention of death in There Is A Light That Never Goes Out I think that the feeling expressed in that line is incredibly romantic - melodramatic, some would maybe say - it is typical of that uncompromising, all-or-nothing romanticism that is maybe typical of (but not necessarily confined to) youth. Double-decker bus in There is A Light... and a bomb in Ask only emphasize that attitude, that magnificence of feeling. You can feel that all-or-nothing romantic attitude in many of Morrissey's solo songs, such as I'd Love to - which basically says: I only want you, and if I can't have you, I don't want anyone else.
nightandday
New Member
On the other hand - I named I Like You is an example of a completely positive, cheerful song. But does it have the same strength of feeling as such moving love songs as Well I Wonder or There Is A Light That Never Goes Out? of course not. it's not even love yet (though it might become); it's just - "I like you".
Other than that - you'd be hard pressed to find a positive love song on YATQ and its singles. Let Me Kiss You - another plea for a possible relationship - expresses the same old self-loathing (Miserable Lie, Late Night Maudlin Street...) I',m not saying that that's how Morrissey really thinks of himself - but that's what the song is about. Other songs either express an inability to love and be loved (I Have Forgiven Jesus - my favourite on the album), lack of belief in relationships (I'm Not Sorry) or in himself as a possible object of love (How Can Anyone Possibly Know How I Feel), or lament over past, lost loves (Come Back To Camden, The Never Played Symphonies, The Public Image)... or several of the mentioned feelings at the same time (Friday Mouning).
There is, however, an attitude in YATQ that I found very appealing - but it's basically a 'f*** you' attitude, if I was to describe it would be: "I'm back, I'm not sorry, and I don't give a damn".
The change that is felt in YATQ and ROTT and in his present day interviews does not seem to me about happiness in love - it is about acceptane of oneself, a certain relaxed attitude that was not there before, or that was present to a lesser extent, and that has gradually come with years.
But that's what happens to most people with years, I suppose. I am still far away from Morrissey's age, but I am not a teenager anymore either, and in my experience, as a teenager you tend to feel everything very strongly and dramatically, to think of everything in absolute terms, to get upset over everything. You tend to be very unsure about yourself and you spend too much time worrying over how you appear to other people. I became a lot more relaxed and self-assured in my early 20s than when I was a teenager, and I am a lot more relaxed and self-assured now than I was in my early 20s. But is my actual situation better/happier? No, quite the opposite.
And I don't believe that Morrissey is distancing himself from There Is A Light... I am glad that in this quote he acknowledged what I believed - that the 'light' really means - hope. A belief in love.
“Well, there was once more yearning than there is now. One can now put things into perspective and can turn away very easily, shrug your shoulders and say, ‘What’s the point?’ There’s other things in my life to be passionate about. But when you’re a teenager and in your early twenties it seems desperately eternal and excruciatingly painful. Whereas as you grow older you realise that most things are excruciatingly painful and that is the human condition. Most of us continue to survive because we’re convinced that somewhere along the line, with grit and determination and perseverance, we will end up in some magical union with somebody. It’s a fallacy, of course, but it’s a form of religion. You have to believe. There is a light that never goes out and it’s called hope.”
I will tell you openly that I don't like ROTT that much. I notice that the people who like ROTT are generally those who think of it as a very positive record, more so than his previous work. I don't, and I'll tell you why.
What does the 'happy' song At Last I Am Born say? (such a happy sounding title, it must be a happy song!)
"At last I am born
Historians note
I am finally born
I once used to chase affection withdrawn
But now I just sit back and yawn
Because I am born, born, born
Look at me now
From difficult child to spectral hand to Claude Brasseur-oh-blah blah blah
At last I am born
Vulgarians know
I am finally born
I once thought that time accentuates despair
But now I don’t actually care "
I never liked this song and didn't feel it was as happy and positive as people said it was, but I wasn't sure why. Then I realized it when I heard Morrissey cover A Song From Under the Floorboards.
"I used to make phantoms I could later chase
images of all that could be desired
then I got tired of counting all of these so-called blessings
and then I just got tired"
They are very similar, aren't they?
What it really says is, I used to get upset over so many things, I used to obsess over people I couldn't have, I used to have great romantic dreams... but now I just don't give a damn. I'll take whatever I can get and I'll enjoy myself as much as I can.
Someone might think that this song expresses a more positive attitude than the one described in There Is A Light That Never Goes Out. For me, it's the sign of getting to the point in your life when you start settling for less.
For me, a really happy song is Depeche Mode's Enjoy The Silence: "All I ever wanted, all I ever needed is here in my arms". In Morrissey's lyrics on ROTT, I don't see the feeling of having everything you ever wanted. At best, it is just - I'm doing quite fine. The only song that seems to be about a happy relationship is In the Future When All Is Well. But even that one ihas lyrics such as
"Every day I play
a sad game called
in the future when all's well
Living longer than
I had intended
something must have gone right?"
basically - I've managed to get so far, it's not that bad!
what other song about a happy relationship is there? To Me You Are A Work Of Art has lines and "I would give you my heart - that's if I had one". I'll See You In Far-Off Places is certainly not it; You Have Killed Me doesn't exaclt sound like a song about a happy, present relationship. It has some of that old, grand romantic/melodramatic feeling to it - but somehow it fails to move me, maybe because of the poppy melody (?). And no, whateve Dear God... is about (there have been some confusing explanations by Morrissey), it's definitely not a happy relationship song. It sounds more like... I'm walking the streets, and I really need someone, something...
Then there is I'll Never Be Anybody's Hero Now - where he states melodramatically "and my love is under the ground / my one true love is under the ground".
and finally - there is Life Is A Pigsty, the best song on the album for me (and definitely my favourite). This one definitely has that feeling of grand melodrama to it - and it is also anything but happy. (BTW, some people have said that it sounds like a Smiths song to them.) It has something in common with I'll Never Be Anybody's Hero Now: both songs are the opposite of the idea that the album is about a happy new relationship. While in the former he proclaims his only true love is dead, here he seems to be adressing a living person; but the lyrics imply that the person is NOT anyone new; he seems to be addressing someone who has been there for a long, long time, who is some kind of constant in his life - some unrealized love, something that has been lost:
"It's the same old SOS
but with brand new broken fortunes
and once again I turn to you
once again I do, I turn to you
It's the same old SOS
but with brand new broken fortunes
I am the same underneath
but this you
...you surely knew?"
"And I've been shifting gears all along my life
but I'm still the same underneath
this you surely knew?
I can't reach you
I can't reach you
I can't reach you anymore..."
so when he says at the end:
"even now, in the final hour of my life
I'm falling in love again
again
even now, in the final hour of my life
I'm falling in love again
again
again
again
I'm falling in love again
again
again
again..."
it sounds like it is just his 'same old SOS': life is a pigsty and he doesn't get what he really wants, but he is still trying, hoping, falling in love constantly with different other people, as he's been doing all his life... again, again, again... even if it probably ends up lasting for a short time and doesn't bring happiness.
-------------------
Of course, this is just how I see those songs; you may completely disagree.
Other than that - you'd be hard pressed to find a positive love song on YATQ and its singles. Let Me Kiss You - another plea for a possible relationship - expresses the same old self-loathing (Miserable Lie, Late Night Maudlin Street...) I',m not saying that that's how Morrissey really thinks of himself - but that's what the song is about. Other songs either express an inability to love and be loved (I Have Forgiven Jesus - my favourite on the album), lack of belief in relationships (I'm Not Sorry) or in himself as a possible object of love (How Can Anyone Possibly Know How I Feel), or lament over past, lost loves (Come Back To Camden, The Never Played Symphonies, The Public Image)... or several of the mentioned feelings at the same time (Friday Mouning).
There is, however, an attitude in YATQ that I found very appealing - but it's basically a 'f*** you' attitude, if I was to describe it would be: "I'm back, I'm not sorry, and I don't give a damn".
The change that is felt in YATQ and ROTT and in his present day interviews does not seem to me about happiness in love - it is about acceptane of oneself, a certain relaxed attitude that was not there before, or that was present to a lesser extent, and that has gradually come with years.
But that's what happens to most people with years, I suppose. I am still far away from Morrissey's age, but I am not a teenager anymore either, and in my experience, as a teenager you tend to feel everything very strongly and dramatically, to think of everything in absolute terms, to get upset over everything. You tend to be very unsure about yourself and you spend too much time worrying over how you appear to other people. I became a lot more relaxed and self-assured in my early 20s than when I was a teenager, and I am a lot more relaxed and self-assured now than I was in my early 20s. But is my actual situation better/happier? No, quite the opposite.
And I don't believe that Morrissey is distancing himself from There Is A Light... I am glad that in this quote he acknowledged what I believed - that the 'light' really means - hope. A belief in love.
“Well, there was once more yearning than there is now. One can now put things into perspective and can turn away very easily, shrug your shoulders and say, ‘What’s the point?’ There’s other things in my life to be passionate about. But when you’re a teenager and in your early twenties it seems desperately eternal and excruciatingly painful. Whereas as you grow older you realise that most things are excruciatingly painful and that is the human condition. Most of us continue to survive because we’re convinced that somewhere along the line, with grit and determination and perseverance, we will end up in some magical union with somebody. It’s a fallacy, of course, but it’s a form of religion. You have to believe. There is a light that never goes out and it’s called hope.”
I will tell you openly that I don't like ROTT that much. I notice that the people who like ROTT are generally those who think of it as a very positive record, more so than his previous work. I don't, and I'll tell you why.
What does the 'happy' song At Last I Am Born say? (such a happy sounding title, it must be a happy song!)
"At last I am born
Historians note
I am finally born
I once used to chase affection withdrawn
But now I just sit back and yawn
Because I am born, born, born
Look at me now
From difficult child to spectral hand to Claude Brasseur-oh-blah blah blah
At last I am born
Vulgarians know
I am finally born
I once thought that time accentuates despair
But now I don’t actually care "
I never liked this song and didn't feel it was as happy and positive as people said it was, but I wasn't sure why. Then I realized it when I heard Morrissey cover A Song From Under the Floorboards.
"I used to make phantoms I could later chase
images of all that could be desired
then I got tired of counting all of these so-called blessings
and then I just got tired"
They are very similar, aren't they?
What it really says is, I used to get upset over so many things, I used to obsess over people I couldn't have, I used to have great romantic dreams... but now I just don't give a damn. I'll take whatever I can get and I'll enjoy myself as much as I can.
Someone might think that this song expresses a more positive attitude than the one described in There Is A Light That Never Goes Out. For me, it's the sign of getting to the point in your life when you start settling for less.
For me, a really happy song is Depeche Mode's Enjoy The Silence: "All I ever wanted, all I ever needed is here in my arms". In Morrissey's lyrics on ROTT, I don't see the feeling of having everything you ever wanted. At best, it is just - I'm doing quite fine. The only song that seems to be about a happy relationship is In the Future When All Is Well. But even that one ihas lyrics such as
"Every day I play
a sad game called
in the future when all's well
Living longer than
I had intended
something must have gone right?"
basically - I've managed to get so far, it's not that bad!
what other song about a happy relationship is there? To Me You Are A Work Of Art has lines and "I would give you my heart - that's if I had one". I'll See You In Far-Off Places is certainly not it; You Have Killed Me doesn't exaclt sound like a song about a happy, present relationship. It has some of that old, grand romantic/melodramatic feeling to it - but somehow it fails to move me, maybe because of the poppy melody (?). And no, whateve Dear God... is about (there have been some confusing explanations by Morrissey), it's definitely not a happy relationship song. It sounds more like... I'm walking the streets, and I really need someone, something...
Then there is I'll Never Be Anybody's Hero Now - where he states melodramatically "and my love is under the ground / my one true love is under the ground".
and finally - there is Life Is A Pigsty, the best song on the album for me (and definitely my favourite). This one definitely has that feeling of grand melodrama to it - and it is also anything but happy. (BTW, some people have said that it sounds like a Smiths song to them.) It has something in common with I'll Never Be Anybody's Hero Now: both songs are the opposite of the idea that the album is about a happy new relationship. While in the former he proclaims his only true love is dead, here he seems to be adressing a living person; but the lyrics imply that the person is NOT anyone new; he seems to be addressing someone who has been there for a long, long time, who is some kind of constant in his life - some unrealized love, something that has been lost:
"It's the same old SOS
but with brand new broken fortunes
and once again I turn to you
once again I do, I turn to you
It's the same old SOS
but with brand new broken fortunes
I am the same underneath
but this you
...you surely knew?"
"And I've been shifting gears all along my life
but I'm still the same underneath
this you surely knew?
I can't reach you
I can't reach you
I can't reach you anymore..."
so when he says at the end:
"even now, in the final hour of my life
I'm falling in love again
again
even now, in the final hour of my life
I'm falling in love again
again
again
again
I'm falling in love again
again
again
again..."
it sounds like it is just his 'same old SOS': life is a pigsty and he doesn't get what he really wants, but he is still trying, hoping, falling in love constantly with different other people, as he's been doing all his life... again, again, again... even if it probably ends up lasting for a short time and doesn't bring happiness.
-------------------
Of course, this is just how I see those songs; you may completely disagree.
Last edited:
slurred_veneer
Member
I'm wrong?!
Do I have to post the same quotes again?
Well, from what I can see, slurred_veneer definitely did not seem to have read those quotes and be aware of the things you say you were! From what I see, slurred_veneer's posts definitely imply that:
1) Morrissey's present lyrics about sex are probably autobiographical, because he is probably having sex *now*.
2) At the time of The Smiths, Morrissey did not have any sexual experience, therefore his Smiths songs could not have been autobiographical. "You just knew" he couldn't have had a sex life.
I don't know how else you could possibly interpret these 2 posts?
The quotes in my post merely showed that his/hers belief is not true.
Jesus! I never thought this would turn into such a fierce argument. All I intended with my post was to suggest why so many reviewers made such a big fuss about the sexual content on ROTT, a fact you evidently found very surprising and laughable. Like I said, I partly share those sentiments about this fuss but think the explaination for it is the fact that Morrissey's lyrics on the last two albums (and maybe ROTT in particular) are generally considered more autobiographical than a lot of his earlier works. I think there is reasonable support for this assumption in both the lyrics per se and in statements made by Morrissey in interviews. It's hardly a controversial stance and one that I think is shared by many but of course it's only one opinion among others, one possible interpretation to be balanced against others of equal or even higher value. Of course there is no such thing as evidence and of course I don't know anything about the actual person Morrissey, not when I am I and only he is he. All interpretations just pertain to his literary or public persona, really.
As regards the more specific parts of my post you found objectionable: Morrissey did indeed say at one point during the Smiths era that his lyrics about sex are not based upon personal experience since there would be nothing to base them upon. I can't remember what interview that was but I do remember that he said it after the interviewer had expressed incredulity at such a statement. It might have looked something like this:
Interviewer: You once said that none of your lyrics about sex are based upon your own experiences since you don't have any personal experiences of that nature. This can't possibly be true!
Moz: I'm afraid it's very true indeed and that makes me very sad.
Ring a bell, anyone? It doesn't really matter. Of course I'm aware of all the other contradictory statements like the admission of losing his virginity at the age of 12, having a few, unpleasurable experiences of sex etc, etc. Like any self-respecting artist and human being Morrissey is a bundle of contradictions and incongruities. This doesn't mean that it's wrong to make assumptions and interpretations, though, but these will always and necessarily be flawed and negligent of aspects of the matter at hand that might not be congruent with them. Literary criticism is hardly objective science, thank god. Of course I didn't mean to say that "none of the Smiths lyrics are autobiographical" or some other such ridiculous claim.
You're right about thinking the expression "you just knew..." in my post is questionable, though, but I hadn't expected this kind of flak or this kind of "you're wrong and I'm right"-kind of argument at all. I could elaborate on why I don't consider Handsome Devil and Wonderful Woman autobiographical but this response is long enough as it is and I've lost the interest. I hate petty net quarrels of this sort. My intention never was to find flaws in and trying to undermine your arguments, I just tried to give my explanation of something you seemed to find hard to understand (i.e. the fuss about the sex content on ROTT).
By the way, I don't understand why Worm is supposed to answer for something I have written.
nightandday
New Member
Who said he is?
BTW for the record I don't consider Handsome Devil 'autobiographical' either... but that's not really the point. Just that I don't see why people would assume so many things and make such sweeping statements with no evidence. oh, and yes it is a controversial stance - we just had a debate over it, it makes it so, doesn't it?
And just because an opinion is "shared by many" doesn't make it any less controversial. Most controversial beliefs of any kind are shared by many.
nightandday
New Member
Besides, I am aware that songs can be partly autobiographical - the writer may use some of his/hers personal experiences, and combine them with imagination or roleplay. In Morrissey's songs, I sometimes feel a certain autobiographical note even in his character-songs - which is hardly characteristic of him anyway, the writer always identifies with his/hers characters up to a point. It's not easy to determine to what extent a certain song in autobiographical.
An example would be Half A Person - one of the few songs that Morrissey himself has actually confirmed as autobiographical in a interview ('that is absolutely true, she does exist' as an answer to Nick Kent's question) I thought that he meant there was really a girl he really he had an obsession of that kind for; but on the other hand, I wouldn't bet that it lasted "six years" ( 'six years on your trail' sounds better and is easier to sing than '2', '3', '4' or '5', doesn't it?) and I certainly don't assume that the lines about seeking a job as backscrubber are true. (On the other hand, it is true that he went to London at 16, and of course it is true that he used to be 'clumsy and shy'.) I wouldn't be sure that the person in question actually told him she liked him more when he was 'hopelessly poor' (although of course she could have). But it is also quite possible that someone told him something similar, or just that someone made him feel that his success had changed him for the worse, or even that he himself had some self-doubts of that kind, and he might have combined the two experiences. And finally - he might have had a few of such obsessive teenage crushes; the song might not even be just about one person. The only thing I'm quite sure of is that he did use some of his real life experiences (obsessive crush, clumsy and shy teenager turned successful).
It might be something similar with Wonderful Woman - you said you were sure it couldn't have been autobiographical, but he has made a statement (quoted in my previous post) implying it was. Now, I take it to mean that there was someone he felt that way about; but I don't assume that she was really the way he describes her, and I certainly don't think it means that any of this stuff about robbing the blind and tripping dwarves is real. BTW after all, the lyrics were reworked from an earlier song (What Do You See In Him?) which sounds like it could have very well been autobiographical.
An example would be Half A Person - one of the few songs that Morrissey himself has actually confirmed as autobiographical in a interview ('that is absolutely true, she does exist' as an answer to Nick Kent's question) I thought that he meant there was really a girl he really he had an obsession of that kind for; but on the other hand, I wouldn't bet that it lasted "six years" ( 'six years on your trail' sounds better and is easier to sing than '2', '3', '4' or '5', doesn't it?) and I certainly don't assume that the lines about seeking a job as backscrubber are true.
(On the other hand, it is true that he went to London at 16, and of course it is true that he used to be 'clumsy and shy'.) I wouldn't be sure that the person in question actually told him she liked him more when he was 'hopelessly poor' (although of course she could have). But it is also quite possible that someone told him something similar, or just that someone made him feel that his success had changed him for the worse, or even that he himself had some self-doubts of that kind, and he might have combined the two experiences. And finally - he might have had a few of such obsessive teenage crushes; the song might not even be just about one person. The only thing I'm quite sure of is that he did use some of his real life experiences (obsessive crush, clumsy and shy teenager turned successful).It might be something similar with Wonderful Woman - you said you were sure it couldn't have been autobiographical, but he has made a statement (quoted in my previous post) implying it was. Now, I take it to mean that there was someone he felt that way about; but I don't assume that she was really the way he describes her, and I certainly don't think it means that any of this stuff about robbing the blind and tripping dwarves is real.
BTW after all, the lyrics were reworked from an earlier song (What Do You See In Him?) which sounds like it could have very well been autobiographical.
Last edited:
Are you a nihilist?
That is a very reductionist standpoint. Reality is more than the physical world. The fact that many people experience love proves that it does in fact exist. The mind, as well as the body and the physical world, is a part of reality. If you're interested in those matters read "The View From Nowhere" by Thomas Nagel.
Having said that I think it is absurd to start trying to define the reality of love in a discussion about art. A song is not supposed to give you answers to philosophical questions, it is supposed to give an aesthetic experience. Just because you may not believe such a thing as love exist, it doesn't mean that you can't enjoy a song about love, and for that moment embrace the idea of it. Or does it? If so, that is very sad.
I think you are very wrong. You are forgetting the other types of love, f.x the love between parent and child, brother and sister, and even the love between friends. I have often heard people use the word love for someone they have never had sex with. Personally I think the friendship kind of love is the purest kind - maybe because it is not "contaminated" by lust. But it is love nonetheless.
It think Morrisseys whole life - and by that I mean the parts of it that is visible to us, including his work of course - can be seen as a complete work of art. It is so very interesting to study it, and to hear other people's interpretations, like in threads like this one. Because when reading a work of art it is impossible to not at the same time read yourself into it. And the less you are told, the more you have to "fill in the blanks" with parts of yourself. I think that's a big part of the reason why we are all so fascinated with Morrissey and his work. People love mysteries because it allowes them to explore themselves.
Last edited:
nightandday
New Member
That's a very solipsistic statement. If it doesn't exist for you, you think it doesn't exist for anybody?! There is a world outside yourself, you know, even if you might not believe it.
If you have ever felt love, you know it does exist. It's as simple as that. I suppose you have never felt it, so no amount of argument will convince you. But if you felt it, no explanation and no proof would be necessary.
Oh dear, this could become a very long discussion very off topic. I will try to reply later.right now I have a train to catch. I'll just say this: I think what controls the masses the most are the masses.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
nightandday:
1. I answered the post you made to slurred_veneer because you pasted a bunch of quotations from Morrissey's interviews which I assumed applied to my part of the debate, too. I didn't mean to speak for him or her and would never presume to. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
2. The Times interview was indeed a great one. I figured you'd mention it. What he says is compelling but, again, we must take it with a grain of salt. Look at the indignation he showed over the description of him as "sex-mad". The early ROTT articles seemed to focus on his sex life (whatever that meant) and the liberation he found in Rome (ditto), and once his supposedly lusty life was exaggerated into Errol Flynn-like proporations, he then backtracked and insisted he'd been misquoted, misunderstood, etc. The Times article is like a damage control article, when you want to spin (or un-spin) a previous media tale. I'm sure a lot of what he said is true-- I imagine he hasn't changed all that much in some ways-- but ROTT itself makes me lean toward believing the earlier stories rather than the later ones. The likelihood is that his "awakening" is neither a real love affair nor a still-sexless change in attitude, but instead maybe an encounter or series of encounters.
3. While I can't deny many images in his solo career have been chosen to illusrate his more sensual side and get away from the image of the celibate recluse, I don't think those Japanese photos are anything more than Linder following him around taking pictures. The full set in "Morrissey Shot" has a number of street scenes. You could interpret them as Linder and Morrissey having fun with the irony of him hanging around sex shops as much as his attempt to coyly hint at his lustier side.
4. Regarding the autobiographical content of Morrissey's solo work versus The Smiths, remember, I said I was talking percentages, not absolute categories. It's easy to produce a stream of songs from his solo career that aren't autobiographical. I'm talking a trend: looking over the tracks on his last two albums I'd say they're more autobiographical than his earlier work. The following are songs that I feel are unmistakably written from Morrissey's viewpoint, namely in those cases in which he sings about fame and singing.
"You Are The Quarry": Irish Blood, English Heart, I'm Not Sorry, The World Is Full of Crashing Bores, How Could Anybody Possibly Know How I Feel?, You Know I Couldn't Last.
"Ringleader Of The Tormentors": At Last I Am Born, Dear God, Please Help Me, I'll Never Be Anybody's Hero, Life Is A Pigsty (could go either way, but compare the lyrics to the interviews we've been talking about), On The Streets I Ran, To Me You Are A Work Of Art, You Have Killed Me, Christian Dior.
However, nearly all of the songs on both albums (except for tracks like "First Of The Gang To Die" and "The Father Who Must Be Killed") could be heard as autobiographical in the sense that it's Morrissey writing in his own voice, yet the situations and feelings are general enough to apply to anyone. The same is true of "Maladjusted". Less so with "Vauxhall and I", "Your Arsenal", and the first two albums. These songs can be listened to either way. They could be Morrissey speaking, or an invented voice. In light of all the press he's done, the changes in his life we know of for certain, and of course the music itself, though, to argue that he's not more or less putting his diary to music seems pedantic.
Again, let's not ignore a central point here: all of the songs Morrissey has written have been at once autobiographical in some way or another and masks he's created which bear only scant relation to his real life. Still, it's possible to view his catalog as a long arc from "The Smiths speak for everybody" (1984) to "I must record each and everything that happens in my life" (2006). Even granting that Morrissey is always writing in his own voice (i.e. even the "voice" songs have the unmissable Morrissey traits), I still feel that The Smiths songs, and many of the earlier solo songs, are written to include far more people than they exclude-- and as you know, this was Morrissey's stated intention. Many solo songs are written in the same vein, true, but many more are not-- and in everything from images to videos to lyrics to music, Morrissey has turned the spotlight on himself.
Consider two very different songs from different periods in his career. Whatever their differences in tone and language, "These Things Take Time" has in common with "Come Back To Camden" the sense that only Morrissey could have written those lyrics. But alongside this sense is the feeling that The Smiths song is more general, dealing with experiences almost universal to everyone, whereas "Camden" seems written more narrowly. "Camden" could apply to anyone, yes, but when I listen to that song, I hear Morrissey singing much more clearly in his own voice. The writing is elegant and heartfelt, simple and measured, very much the sound of an older man writing poignantly about some person missing from his life. "These Things Take Time" is more volatile, crowded with emotion, and uses echoes of other texts ("mine eyes have seen the glory", "the hills are alive") for color.
The reason for this may be basic enough: Morrissey writing as a 25-year old man and Morrissey writing twenty years later. But I think these two songs-- and in my opinion you can pick almost any other pairing and get the same result-- illustrate the difference between a writer's voice as a young man, steeped in art, literature, films, and so on, and an older, wiser, more confident man unafraid to write more openly about himself. Everything we know about Morrissey points to this arc, to this evolution. All his recent comments about not caring as much about life bear this out. He said that earlier in his career his influences weighed heavily on him, but that in the last several years he shook off his influences and was writing more original material, and again, this is easy to hear in the music.
Stylistically speaking the earlier songs, though dealing with events in his life or observed events, are echo chambers of books and films he loved as a teenager. Jo Slee's term "peepholism" applies to the words as well as the images. The later solo songs are much more directly about him. The style is simpler, the language plainer, and whereas one could listen to "The Smiths", "Hatful of Hollow" and "Meat Is Murder" (and read the accompanying press) and piece together an entire galaxy of his influences, one could not do the same with "Quarry" or "Ringleader". We must say that there has never been, and never will be, a direct correspondence between his lyrics and his life, but we can also say that the prism through which he projected his life into his art was much more distorting, allusive and playful in the early years than in the later.
Reducing everything into the formulation that he has always written autobiographically, but only his style has changed, does not really do justice to the difference in his music I (and many others) hear in ROTT. When I listen to the words on "Hatful of Hollow" I hear Morrissey; when I listen to the words on "Ringleader" I hear Morrissey; but in the first case I feel that he is singing for me, and in the second I feel he is singing for himself. I can't tell you what a difference that makes, and I'm guessing many people would agree. Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, I'm not casting a value judgment on this change. His style, tone, and language seems perfectly appropriate at each stage of his career, and although I prefer The Smiths and the early solo albums, I do consider ROTT a superb album.
And to finish by going back to the start, however one characterizes or defines the changes that have taken place in his life and his songs, the fact that he has changed and evolved into a healthier human being is the strongest possible refutation to the unfair accusation that he has always been a one-note miserabilist. My intention has been not to flat-out deny the criticisms of Danny, Dazzak, and others, but to show that they're only partly correct. The fuller, more holistic view of his life and art shows a great deal of positivity-- moreso, in fact, than many other "happy" artists. Morrissey still "loves with a passion called hate", in Paul Weller's unforgettable phrase, except now he's doing it with fewer disguises.
5. Your comments about his age and his decision not to chase love are fair and apt, and I don't disagree. But to arrive at this attitude is itself a sign of higher evolution; implied in your argument is the notion that he has given up, when to me it is instantly recognizable that he has engaged life more directly than ever by shedding what little of his bourgeois guilt remained. Undoubtedly this change was helped along by certain experiences he's had. Obviously what those experiences were, we don't know. I do not believe, however, that he has crawled deeper into his shell but has pushed out into the world on his own terms. That's vital. To say "f*** you" to the world may not mean you're going to lock arms with the Rockettes and dance a jig, but at the same time at least it isn't "Freedom is a waste/It's a lot like life". To loosely paraphrase Nietzsche, the quality and intensity of one's "Yes" to life is best measured by the quality and intensity of one's "No". As it always has been, Morrissey's "No" is louder and fiercer than ever, but he is within the world, however twistedly, and not trapped in his hairshirt, locked away in his room wilting like a flower too delicate to bloom in the sun. ROTT records the latest stage in a lifelong fight and however he's doing it, he's winning. And as I keep saying, the power and poetry of his newest work vindicates the seemingly overwhelming negativity of his older songs.
1. I answered the post you made to slurred_veneer because you pasted a bunch of quotations from Morrissey's interviews which I assumed applied to my part of the debate, too. I didn't mean to speak for him or her and would never presume to. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
2. The Times interview was indeed a great one. I figured you'd mention it. What he says is compelling but, again, we must take it with a grain of salt. Look at the indignation he showed over the description of him as "sex-mad". The early ROTT articles seemed to focus on his sex life (whatever that meant) and the liberation he found in Rome (ditto), and once his supposedly lusty life was exaggerated into Errol Flynn-like proporations, he then backtracked and insisted he'd been misquoted, misunderstood, etc. The Times article is like a damage control article, when you want to spin (or un-spin) a previous media tale. I'm sure a lot of what he said is true-- I imagine he hasn't changed all that much in some ways-- but ROTT itself makes me lean toward believing the earlier stories rather than the later ones. The likelihood is that his "awakening" is neither a real love affair nor a still-sexless change in attitude, but instead maybe an encounter or series of encounters.
3. While I can't deny many images in his solo career have been chosen to illusrate his more sensual side and get away from the image of the celibate recluse, I don't think those Japanese photos are anything more than Linder following him around taking pictures. The full set in "Morrissey Shot" has a number of street scenes. You could interpret them as Linder and Morrissey having fun with the irony of him hanging around sex shops as much as his attempt to coyly hint at his lustier side.
4. Regarding the autobiographical content of Morrissey's solo work versus The Smiths, remember, I said I was talking percentages, not absolute categories. It's easy to produce a stream of songs from his solo career that aren't autobiographical. I'm talking a trend: looking over the tracks on his last two albums I'd say they're more autobiographical than his earlier work. The following are songs that I feel are unmistakably written from Morrissey's viewpoint, namely in those cases in which he sings about fame and singing.
"You Are The Quarry": Irish Blood, English Heart, I'm Not Sorry, The World Is Full of Crashing Bores, How Could Anybody Possibly Know How I Feel?, You Know I Couldn't Last.
"Ringleader Of The Tormentors": At Last I Am Born, Dear God, Please Help Me, I'll Never Be Anybody's Hero, Life Is A Pigsty (could go either way, but compare the lyrics to the interviews we've been talking about), On The Streets I Ran, To Me You Are A Work Of Art, You Have Killed Me, Christian Dior.
However, nearly all of the songs on both albums (except for tracks like "First Of The Gang To Die" and "The Father Who Must Be Killed") could be heard as autobiographical in the sense that it's Morrissey writing in his own voice, yet the situations and feelings are general enough to apply to anyone. The same is true of "Maladjusted". Less so with "Vauxhall and I", "Your Arsenal", and the first two albums. These songs can be listened to either way. They could be Morrissey speaking, or an invented voice. In light of all the press he's done, the changes in his life we know of for certain, and of course the music itself, though, to argue that he's not more or less putting his diary to music seems pedantic.
Again, let's not ignore a central point here: all of the songs Morrissey has written have been at once autobiographical in some way or another and masks he's created which bear only scant relation to his real life. Still, it's possible to view his catalog as a long arc from "The Smiths speak for everybody" (1984) to "I must record each and everything that happens in my life" (2006). Even granting that Morrissey is always writing in his own voice (i.e. even the "voice" songs have the unmissable Morrissey traits), I still feel that The Smiths songs, and many of the earlier solo songs, are written to include far more people than they exclude-- and as you know, this was Morrissey's stated intention. Many solo songs are written in the same vein, true, but many more are not-- and in everything from images to videos to lyrics to music, Morrissey has turned the spotlight on himself.
Consider two very different songs from different periods in his career. Whatever their differences in tone and language, "These Things Take Time" has in common with "Come Back To Camden" the sense that only Morrissey could have written those lyrics. But alongside this sense is the feeling that The Smiths song is more general, dealing with experiences almost universal to everyone, whereas "Camden" seems written more narrowly. "Camden" could apply to anyone, yes, but when I listen to that song, I hear Morrissey singing much more clearly in his own voice. The writing is elegant and heartfelt, simple and measured, very much the sound of an older man writing poignantly about some person missing from his life. "These Things Take Time" is more volatile, crowded with emotion, and uses echoes of other texts ("mine eyes have seen the glory", "the hills are alive") for color.
The reason for this may be basic enough: Morrissey writing as a 25-year old man and Morrissey writing twenty years later. But I think these two songs-- and in my opinion you can pick almost any other pairing and get the same result-- illustrate the difference between a writer's voice as a young man, steeped in art, literature, films, and so on, and an older, wiser, more confident man unafraid to write more openly about himself. Everything we know about Morrissey points to this arc, to this evolution. All his recent comments about not caring as much about life bear this out. He said that earlier in his career his influences weighed heavily on him, but that in the last several years he shook off his influences and was writing more original material, and again, this is easy to hear in the music.
Stylistically speaking the earlier songs, though dealing with events in his life or observed events, are echo chambers of books and films he loved as a teenager. Jo Slee's term "peepholism" applies to the words as well as the images. The later solo songs are much more directly about him. The style is simpler, the language plainer, and whereas one could listen to "The Smiths", "Hatful of Hollow" and "Meat Is Murder" (and read the accompanying press) and piece together an entire galaxy of his influences, one could not do the same with "Quarry" or "Ringleader". We must say that there has never been, and never will be, a direct correspondence between his lyrics and his life, but we can also say that the prism through which he projected his life into his art was much more distorting, allusive and playful in the early years than in the later.
Reducing everything into the formulation that he has always written autobiographically, but only his style has changed, does not really do justice to the difference in his music I (and many others) hear in ROTT. When I listen to the words on "Hatful of Hollow" I hear Morrissey; when I listen to the words on "Ringleader" I hear Morrissey; but in the first case I feel that he is singing for me, and in the second I feel he is singing for himself. I can't tell you what a difference that makes, and I'm guessing many people would agree. Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, I'm not casting a value judgment on this change. His style, tone, and language seems perfectly appropriate at each stage of his career, and although I prefer The Smiths and the early solo albums, I do consider ROTT a superb album.
And to finish by going back to the start, however one characterizes or defines the changes that have taken place in his life and his songs, the fact that he has changed and evolved into a healthier human being is the strongest possible refutation to the unfair accusation that he has always been a one-note miserabilist. My intention has been not to flat-out deny the criticisms of Danny, Dazzak, and others, but to show that they're only partly correct. The fuller, more holistic view of his life and art shows a great deal of positivity-- moreso, in fact, than many other "happy" artists. Morrissey still "loves with a passion called hate", in Paul Weller's unforgettable phrase, except now he's doing it with fewer disguises.
5. Your comments about his age and his decision not to chase love are fair and apt, and I don't disagree. But to arrive at this attitude is itself a sign of higher evolution; implied in your argument is the notion that he has given up, when to me it is instantly recognizable that he has engaged life more directly than ever by shedding what little of his bourgeois guilt remained. Undoubtedly this change was helped along by certain experiences he's had. Obviously what those experiences were, we don't know. I do not believe, however, that he has crawled deeper into his shell but has pushed out into the world on his own terms. That's vital. To say "f*** you" to the world may not mean you're going to lock arms with the Rockettes and dance a jig, but at the same time at least it isn't "Freedom is a waste/It's a lot like life". To loosely paraphrase Nietzsche, the quality and intensity of one's "Yes" to life is best measured by the quality and intensity of one's "No". As it always has been, Morrissey's "No" is louder and fiercer than ever, but he is within the world, however twistedly, and not trapped in his hairshirt, locked away in his room wilting like a flower too delicate to bloom in the sun. ROTT records the latest stage in a lifelong fight and however he's doing it, he's winning. And as I keep saying, the power and poetry of his newest work vindicates the seemingly overwhelming negativity of his older songs.
And it's for this reason it's such a shame that Ringleader isn't the brilliant record it could have been. One could argue that, as Morrissey's lyrics have progressively moved towards the autobiographical, he's somewhat sacrificed his quality control in doing so. I mean, there's, what, three brilliant songs on Ringleader? It's really a pity.
Similar threads
- Trouble loves me
- General Discussion archive 2006 (read-only)
