Hey Amy, I'm pleased your not Amy Lamee too. And I go along with caring more about the music than the man. Afterall when it's all over, only the music will matter.Hello Peterb. I'm not Amy Lamé (thankfully?!). Regarding the T-shirts...I'm sure the poor feedback was only one part of the story, but I think Moz has always been very quick to take offence if his pride is wounded and come back with some gleefully sharp retort to put the critics in their place. It's not quite so simple when he's facing his own fans of course, and the T-shirts were crass but I don't see the gesture as anything hugely out of character. I think he takes criticism of the band especially seriously in the post-wilderness years, because he's spent a lot of time trying to portray them as his 'gang' rather than his backing musicians and he doesn't want that to be undermined by fans telling him to sack everyone. Add to that his famous stubborn streak and the army of sycophants on his payroll, and well...it doesn't seem too surprising, really. I am learning to care more about the music than the man.
Is Morrissey in a massive musical rut?
- Thread starter Peterb
- Start date
Emotional Guide Dog
Chairman Of The Bored
Probably. Then again, that Janice Long session did him no favours at all.
Maybe his problem is that what I'm saying is true (he really likes the songs he is making & has no interest in being avant garde) & in his mind he thinks that we should all loves the songs too. He wants the adoration without the effort.
D
Deleted member 1074
Guest
Adoration Without Effort sounds like a good title for the new album, actually...
I find myself without much to add to Worm's and Anesthesine's long, excellent debate, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. I will say only this. I somehow feel it is significant that Morrissey's favorite album from the last 30 years (well, other than Damien Dempsey) appears to be the Smoking Popes' Born to Quit. Not sure how and why exactly. 
At this point, I really have no sense of specific expectation. But he remains relevant by virtue of what he is, and the lasting and enormous significance of his work as a whole. Whatever you might say about his musical development or lack thereof, he has remained recognisably the same in attitude and spirit. And perhaps because of that , his past output has somehow never quite become past - it's all present, as vital and relevant today as when it first appeared. He just keeps adding mass.
At this point, I really have no sense of specific expectation. But he remains relevant by virtue of what he is, and the lasting and enormous significance of his work as a whole. Whatever you might say about his musical development or lack thereof, he has remained recognisably the same in attitude and spirit. And perhaps because of that , his past output has somehow never quite become past - it's all present, as vital and relevant today as when it first appeared. He just keeps adding mass.
joe frady
Vile Refusenik
A warm welcome back for Anaesthesine & Worm {Dickensian solicitors surely?}
The recent piece of ping-pong was the only enjoyable thing I've consumed on here in the last quarter year. Thank You both.
This place barely deserved you back in the day, and it sure-as-shit doesn't deserve you now. Unless it's as a Statler & Waldorf arrangement, looking down and dispensing judgement on the muppets below...
As to the thread topic, I have never previously bothered to add comment as my only thought was 'null and void'. But then that's most probably due to my having just seen 11 concerts on the current tour, and all I know is they were the finest, most vital performances I've seen in 20 years and some 60 plus Morrissey shows. And the most un-rut like endeavours I could imagine.
I sincerely wish that both of you can catch up with him at some point come November.
If it is the case, as Morrissey defined it in his 'Interview' feature with Linder last year, that "live music is the strongest art because it combines so much—sound, words, physicality, movement, amplification, style, sex, dance, instant audience response" then, for me, this summer, Morrissey was at the zenith of his art.
The recent piece of ping-pong was the only enjoyable thing I've consumed on here in the last quarter year. Thank You both.
This place barely deserved you back in the day, and it sure-as-shit doesn't deserve you now. Unless it's as a Statler & Waldorf arrangement, looking down and dispensing judgement on the muppets below...
As to the thread topic, I have never previously bothered to add comment as my only thought was 'null and void'. But then that's most probably due to my having just seen 11 concerts on the current tour, and all I know is they were the finest, most vital performances I've seen in 20 years and some 60 plus Morrissey shows. And the most un-rut like endeavours I could imagine.
I sincerely wish that both of you can catch up with him at some point come November.
If it is the case, as Morrissey defined it in his 'Interview' feature with Linder last year, that "live music is the strongest art because it combines so much—sound, words, physicality, movement, amplification, style, sex, dance, instant audience response" then, for me, this summer, Morrissey was at the zenith of his art.
Last edited:
I started this thread a couple of weeks ago and the posts have been great. I've come to the conclusions that there is a fundemental truth that arseholes who pose such dumb questions as I have for this thread, is that when you moan about people and want them to change, you are in fact wanting them to become what you want. People don't do want you want them to, they do what they and it makes them what they are.
And let's face it, we all love his records and his singing.
And let's face it, we all love his records and his singing.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Hello Qvist! I hope you are well.
Heh, I think you know exactly why you find that significant.
I basically agree with this, though not nearly as wholeheartedly as before. As I've been saying, the breaking point for me was realizing that even if we grant that his appeal is largely due to his unwillingness to bend to the tastes of a fickle public, there's no excuse for purposely eschewing a more dynamic range of backing music. He can remain heroically steadfast in attitude and spirit, clinging to the spirit of Refusal, and still manage to come up with a better sound for his records. Mind you, I'm not suggesting he collaborate with Lil Wayne or the Vienna Philharmonic. I'm not suggesting he set "Querelle" to music, like some ill-conceived Lou Reed project. I just mean there's a little more he can do, with his music, and were he to expand the horizons of his sound, even modestly, I'm confident he would not be forced to continue this long and needless exile in the pop wilderness. He's not even the poison in the human machine anymore. He's not even in the picture. And increasingly, given the realities of the new pop marketplace-- this isn't 1985, and for that matter it's not even 2005-- I don't think it's overdramatic to say he's throwing his career down the drain. There comes a point when we have to start distinguishing between stubbornness, tragic/heroic stubbornness, and needlessly suicidal stubbornness. His lack of a record deal isn't a glorious defeat. It's just...nothing.
I find myself without much to add to Worm's and Anesthesine's long, excellent debate, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. I will say only this. I somehow feel it is significant that Morrissey's favorite album from the last 30 years (well, other than Damien Dempsey) appears to be the Smoking Popes' Born to Quit. Not sure how and why exactly.
Heh, I think you know exactly why you find that significant.
I basically agree with this, though not nearly as wholeheartedly as before. As I've been saying, the breaking point for me was realizing that even if we grant that his appeal is largely due to his unwillingness to bend to the tastes of a fickle public, there's no excuse for purposely eschewing a more dynamic range of backing music. He can remain heroically steadfast in attitude and spirit, clinging to the spirit of Refusal, and still manage to come up with a better sound for his records. Mind you, I'm not suggesting he collaborate with Lil Wayne or the Vienna Philharmonic. I'm not suggesting he set "Querelle" to music, like some ill-conceived Lou Reed project. I just mean there's a little more he can do, with his music, and were he to expand the horizons of his sound, even modestly, I'm confident he would not be forced to continue this long and needless exile in the pop wilderness. He's not even the poison in the human machine anymore. He's not even in the picture. And increasingly, given the realities of the new pop marketplace-- this isn't 1985, and for that matter it's not even 2005-- I don't think it's overdramatic to say he's throwing his career down the drain. There comes a point when we have to start distinguishing between stubbornness, tragic/heroic stubbornness, and needlessly suicidal stubbornness. His lack of a record deal isn't a glorious defeat. It's just...nothing.
Last edited:
Worm
Taste the diffidence
My goodness, Joe, thanks for the kind words. Not deserved, but appreciated nonetheless.
As a quick follow-up to my reponse to Qvist, above, I would like to add that one thing Morrissey still does better than everyone else is bringing a massive, bigger-than-life quality to his stage shows. I still think, as a live act, it's always a special event when he drags himself to some dank town hall to empty his heart into a microphone for our benefit. If you say he was at the zenith of his art, I believe you. But a live concert is something he can dominate. I don't think he can still bring the same presence to records, for reasons I've stated above. I'd like to see him either give his current musical partners (who are fantastic) complete license to create their own sound or get a new unit altogether, and in any event find a producer as gifted as Ronson, Lillywhite, or Street.
Or Marr. That isn't brought up often, is it? I wonder why. Morrissey's next solo LP, produced by Johnny Marr...
Last edited:
Well, yes. It is a bit glum. It certainly could be better. Come to think of it, the two most significant things he seems to have done over the past year is to make an unfortunate comment about the Chinese and a really, really ill-considered one about Norway. I agree, there should be something better that he could achieve. But fortunately, anything he can still add at this point is pure bonus.
BTW, did you get around to reading Reynolds' Retromania yet?
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Agreed that he can only add to his stature, this far into the game. My fear is that he's "adding to his stature" the way Fat Bob has over the years, if you catch my drift.
BTW, did you get around to reading Reynolds' Retromania yet?
You devil.
Yes, I did read it. Eagerly and almost without stopping. Did you?
I suppose there's a lot to yammer on about
, but the salient message of the book is that there is no one salient message-- Reynolds' findings were inconclusive. The current state of affairs has foxed him. Although he describes what's going on meticulously and clearly, he repeatedly stops short of saying whether the current music scene is actually good or bad. I believe he would like to say it's all going downhill, and fast, but his professionalism prevents him from pulling the switch on the fire alarm. Reynolds is keenly aware he's a pop critic who's also nearing 50. He's a dad. He knows if he says, "Look here, you're doing it wrong, kids" he's going to make his voice instantly and irrevocably nugatory. And, to be fair, I think this position, or non-position, is the right one to take. Nobody knows what this fallow period means. We're going through changes that are far more radical than the ones occurring in the late 70s, with punk and hip-hop, or in the 90s, with rave culture. This isn't just another generation gap or changing of the guard. But I don't think he's equipped, as a critic, to explain what's going on. Or, rather, I suspect he may be capable of theorizing what it all means but understands it's outside his purview as a music critic. He's probably right. What's going on in pop is a reflection of developments outside of music.
Last edited:
King Leer
Leering since '97
Live performance sound notwithstanding, lot of people call for the ousting of Jesse and now even Boz. I think both, especially Boz, can still come up with the goods. The problem is they have no true competition and know that Morrissey will accept a good portion of their songs to build an recording sessions around. If Morrissey recruited another contributor at his (or her??) peak, Boz and Jesse would really have to up their game to stay relevant as co-writers and not just players. Anybody know whether Gustavo is writing and whether he has in the past?
The other option, which is not something I've heard of much in pop music, is bring in a truly talented composer -- a genius of song structure -- to take Jesse and Boz' rough demos and mold them into something more dynamic and memorable. Something like an anonymous script doctor does for films.
The other option, which is not something I've heard of much in pop music, is bring in a truly talented composer -- a genius of song structure -- to take Jesse and Boz' rough demos and mold them into something more dynamic and memorable. Something like an anonymous script doctor does for films.
CrystalGeezer
My secret's my enzyme.
S
Skylarker
Guest
Can they come up with the greats, though? That is the question.
So you're saying that they CAN write masterpieces, but are deciding not to, since they are secure in their careers?
I doubt Gustavo is doing anything other than thanking Christ for his green card.
As for John Martin and Jesse, think about Sweetie Pie. Michael Farrel wrote that and it was better than anything that either of them had come up with for Ringleader. It was on par with Alain's stuff, but it blew away anything Boz wrote...with the possible exception of Christian Dior. It was certainly better than anything Boz or Jesse wrote for Refusal. Yet even with that close-hitting reality check that there are other great untapped writers out there, both Boz and Jesse still churned out mediocrity from then forward.
Like, say, Johnny or Alain or Stephen?
That is a sad idea.
If something has to be "molded" into memorability, then it already sucks. Striving to be memorable is, in itself, a contrived notion. One should only strive to be true.
If he succeeds, then memorability will follow without being forced to do so.
Isn't that what a producer does?
Yes...essentially. But no producer should be tasked with turning shit into gold. That is an alchemy of totally unethical proportions.
Having said that, I do not think Morrissey's new songs are "shit"...they are what they are: decent, listenable pop songs. I wouldn't say he is in a massive musical rut. Just a rut in general. It could be way worse. The songs are still OK...that's something. But he can do much better.
King Leer
Leering since '97
No, not all producers can write music. Street could write some good songs, as could Ronson, which probably made them better producers than Morrissey's other collaborators. Visconti is only as good as his material, which is why he could not turn Seahorses into anything better than what it was - horseshit.
Isn't that what a producer does?
King Leer
Leering since '97
Something like that. I mean, people are slamming Jesse's songwriting constantly and we're not even hearing the Jesse rejects. I think if Morrissey finds something that makes him hum along and form words it's generally good enough for him these days, but listeners are complaining more about the backing tracks.
Most people can't write masterpieces, even if they have written them before (cf J. Marr).
I'm saying there wouldn't be this feeling of "Will this do?"
Uncalled for. I'd like to hear what he comes up with. Like Mikey he's coming from a different discipline - maybe it'll produce something unique.
I liked Sweetie Pie. I was one of the few who liked At Last I Am Born, too. More than that, Mikey was an excellent addition to the live band. I'd love it to be Alain, Spencer, Boz, Gary and Mikey.
They've all had moments of genius but I don't think they could do much for other people's songs. I'm not talking about a player or additional band member but an excellent songwriter who works with rough demos.
I disagree. A track like Scandinavia is an interesting idea and feel, but it needs to be shaped. Some songs and other forms of expression come out of the ether fully formed and brilliant, but most things need to be molded. Yes, pop music should be more immediate and less contrived, but it could be 3 minutes of the Beatles' best or the worst superficial shit you've ever heard.
I agree with the assessment of the rut. I don't mind most of the new stuff - I think the better songs of the new crop will improve even more in the studio.
I think you, Mr Worm, (and others in this thread) make the huge mistake of assuming that Morrissey is some kind of musical genius. He's gone on record as saying that he doesn't even consider himself to be a musician. He's a singer and a lyricist in a pop group - that's all he's ever been. The albums are released under the name 'Morrissey' for marketing reasons, not because he's a solo artist. He's never written a note of music (‘vocal melodies’ don’t really count), and he's never played an instrument apart from some comedy piano on DOADD. So, the idea that he largely determines how each record sounds, musically, simply ain't true.
Of course, he has a say in how the recorded songs turn out but only really from a musical layman's point of view. He gets given demos by his songwriters. Some of the songs he likes, others he doesn't, but his influence in how they end up sounding is pretty minimal. The musical problem, if indeed there is a problem, is the strength of the melodies, not the way the songs are arranged. Years of Refusal had plenty of musical diversity (When Last I Spoke to Carol, Good in Your Time, OK by Myself, and Arms Around Paris are all miles apart stylistically), as did Who Ate Me Curry. An interesting arrangement (e.g. the flutes and the softly strummed guitars of I’m Not Sorry) does not, a great song, make.
I’m sorry but the idea that he's throwing his career down the drain is nonsense. He's continuing to co-write songs which range from being a bit rubbish (The Kid’s A Looker) to being actually pretty good (Art Hound). I'd argue he's been doing this, pretty much, ever since the Street era. 'Action' is probably strong enough to get on the Radio 2 A-list, and therefore lead an album to 70,000 sales. If he can co-write a melodically stronger song and release it as a single, album sales could get back towards 150,000 to 200,000.
Morrissey remains a hugely important cultural figure, perhaps more so than ever. There's no-one else anything like him, of any age. The NME (still, sadly, the main voice of musical youth-culture) remains obsessed. That's probably partly why he remains a largely successful ‘act’, despite the so-so quality of many recent songs.
His media profile over the summer has been ridiculously high, and many (including me) would agree that the 2011 tour was his best for years. Even the new songs gathered enthusiastic responses from journalists. So, it looks like it will be business as usual for the next album. Yes, I’d love it to be better (and I’m still desperately hoping Street will be involved) but the idea that he’s suddenly found himself in serious trouble, commercially or artistically, is rubbish.
And what is this 'long and needless exile in the pop wilderness', exactly? It's been just 2 years since the last album was released. And we've now heard 5 new songs performed live. Compare this with the so-called wilderness years, when we had to wait five years (1997-2002) before any new material, and even then, with the exception of First of the Gang, we had songs that were arguably even more underwhelming than the current batch of new songs.
Of course, he has a say in how the recorded songs turn out but only really from a musical layman's point of view. He gets given demos by his songwriters. Some of the songs he likes, others he doesn't, but his influence in how they end up sounding is pretty minimal. The musical problem, if indeed there is a problem, is the strength of the melodies, not the way the songs are arranged. Years of Refusal had plenty of musical diversity (When Last I Spoke to Carol, Good in Your Time, OK by Myself, and Arms Around Paris are all miles apart stylistically), as did Who Ate Me Curry. An interesting arrangement (e.g. the flutes and the softly strummed guitars of I’m Not Sorry) does not, a great song, make.
I’m sorry but the idea that he's throwing his career down the drain is nonsense. He's continuing to co-write songs which range from being a bit rubbish (The Kid’s A Looker) to being actually pretty good (Art Hound). I'd argue he's been doing this, pretty much, ever since the Street era. 'Action' is probably strong enough to get on the Radio 2 A-list, and therefore lead an album to 70,000 sales. If he can co-write a melodically stronger song and release it as a single, album sales could get back towards 150,000 to 200,000.
Morrissey remains a hugely important cultural figure, perhaps more so than ever. There's no-one else anything like him, of any age. The NME (still, sadly, the main voice of musical youth-culture) remains obsessed. That's probably partly why he remains a largely successful ‘act’, despite the so-so quality of many recent songs.
His media profile over the summer has been ridiculously high, and many (including me) would agree that the 2011 tour was his best for years. Even the new songs gathered enthusiastic responses from journalists. So, it looks like it will be business as usual for the next album. Yes, I’d love it to be better (and I’m still desperately hoping Street will be involved) but the idea that he’s suddenly found himself in serious trouble, commercially or artistically, is rubbish.
And what is this 'long and needless exile in the pop wilderness', exactly? It's been just 2 years since the last album was released. And we've now heard 5 new songs performed live. Compare this with the so-called wilderness years, when we had to wait five years (1997-2002) before any new material, and even then, with the exception of First of the Gang, we had songs that were arguably even more underwhelming than the current batch of new songs.
Agreed that he can only add to his stature, this far into the game. My fear is that he's "adding to his stature" the way Fat Bob has over the years, if you catch my drift.
You devil.
Yes, I did read it. Eagerly and almost without stopping. Did you?
I suppose there's a lot to yammer on about
In a nutshell.
I agree with pretty much every word of that. You are left with a clear sense that there's something amiss. But you're left without an answer to the question of why exactly there's a problem with all this retro-consciousness, and why it results in less vital music. The book is rather unsatisfying in that way, it sharpens the vague sense of frustration you already had when you began reading, without resolving anything or even providing a sense of direction. Maybe there's a new thread here. I notice that in the "Other Music" section, there is currently hardly a single thread on the first page that has contemporary music as its subject.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
In a nutshell.
Maybe there's a new thread here. I notice that in the "Other Music" section, there is currently hardly a single thread on the first page that has contemporary music as its subject.
I think music (and most of the arts-- anything related in any way to computers, really, which is just about everything in our lives) is going through a massive change. We're standing on top of a cliff, over the edge of which there lies an abyss shrouded in mist. Nobody knows what's down there. We just know we're headed there, and maybe we've already started our slow plunge. There's no precedent for any of it. Reynolds mentioned that in the age of information supersaturation and YouTube, live performances will be cherished even more than they are now. Better yet, any sort of immediate experience which cannot be recreated will be valued. We've probably seen the end of the traditional pop star and we're now heading into a phase of weird new forms of music-- not so much new sounds as new events and situtations. Reynolds is on to that because of his participation in rave culture, where the music was ultimately far less important than the experience of going to a warehouse or whatever and getting high, dancing, and doing who knows what else.
Another factor to consider is that we may have all the original music we need. Innovation and development might be unnecessary or at least less important than it has been until now. I just happened to have been reading a long work about the influence of the Bible on Western literature. Blake called it "the Great Code of Art", and out of it came innumerable works of art, all "new" but also, as it were, "remixes" (
) of the Bible and other mythologies. I don't want to bring religion into this-- that's beside the point-- but it's interesting that one book, as well as a group of myths (Greek, Egyptian, Middle Eastern), gave artists across many centuries an almost infinite variety of inspiration. Who's to say we won't see that now, with rock and roll? Maybe the central canon is complete and there's nothing more to do but riff on its many themes, styles, cultures, and so forth. Perhaps rock will become even more cultish, and as in pagan times certain cities or regions will become home to local gods, or local versions of gods, such that if one were asked about his favorite music, he would simply pull out a passport... Similar threads
