Is there a difference between the two`Songs that saved your life` books by Simon Goddard

T

Tynamuna

Guest
so i just checked out both Simon Goddard books from my local library. Is there a big difference, content wise between `songs that saved your life` published 2002 and the one published in 2013?

I don`t mind read both of them , but i like to save time for other books as well.

thanks for any replies in advance :):)
 

Kewpie

Member
Moderator
Subscriber
Usually the new edition has added information.
You should buy 2013 edition.
 
T

Tynamuna

Guest
Usually the new edition has added information.
You should buy 2013 edition.

Thanks :) The 2013 edition is cleaner in content than the 2002 edition. Hope its a better read than the severed alliance
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Huh, do you expect Gothenburg public libraries have a copy of his books?

Since they checked out the books, it seems like they do have them.

"i just checked out both Simon Goddard books from my local library."
 
T

Tynamuna

Guest
Huh, do you expect Gothenburg public libraries have a copy of his books?

you would have been surprised over the vast selection of music-bios in our state library. Especially Smiths-bios, they have them all. Usually i just buy anything i want to read about the smiths but being a student i must save my mula!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kewpie

Member
Moderator
Subscriber
you would have been surprised over the vast selection of music-bios in our state library. Especially Smiths-bios, they have them all.

Wow, I stand corrected. Good to know that Gothenburg public libraries have wide range of music biographies.
 
T

Tynamuna

Guest
Thanks :) The 2013 edition is cleaner in content than the 2002 edition. Hope its a better read than the severed alliance

the `thanks` was for the fact that i now know to read the 2013 edition. I don`t need to buy it, i gots its from me library :)

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, I stand corrected. Good to know that Gothenburg public libraries have wide range of music biographies.

you would have gone mental. Gothenburg is ground zero for hipsters. They would have burnt down the place if it was not overflown with evrything pop and British!
:rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

Tynamuna

Guest
Seriously marr and Morrissey 40% each Andy and Mike 10% :straightface: you should have atleast got it signed by all four you stupid bastards
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Seriously marr and Morrissey 40% each Andy and Mike 10% :straightface: you should have atleast got it signed by all four you stupid bastards

Tynamuna, I just ask you to think about one question: In your eyes, what is the more insidious behaviour? To offer an unequal split of royalties to which, then, everyone agrees (even though just verbaly)? Or to discover that two of your ex-bandmates did make a mistake and therefore drag them into court while being very aware throughout that you will win because they can't produce any evidence? I ask myself this question from time to time and the answer is always the same. What Johnny and Morrissey did is surely questionable but what Mike did is simply shitty behaviour. That doesn't mean that I hate Mike or that I give him hell everytime he is mentioned. Not at all. But I find it somewhat hypocritical that Johnny and especially Morrissey are always supposed to put themselves in Mike's and Andy's position but the same is never expected from them. And in that regard all these biographies lack, in my opinion. I remember that someone who was at the court case said he saw Andy and Mike talk to Johnny Rogan and I remember them being big buddies with Tony Fletcher. They are approachable and they "take part" which is obviously important. I doubt any of those writers would've had the guts to write some things if Morrissey and Johnny had been more forthcoming. But of course this is just my impression and my opinion and I'm sure someone here will jump in quickly and attack me for it.
 
T

Tynamuna

Guest
Tynamuna, I just ask you to think about one question: In your eyes, what is the more insidious behaviour? To offer an unequal split of royalties to which, then, everyone agrees (even though just verbaly)? Or to discover that two of your ex-bandmates did make a mistake and therefore drag them into court while being very aware throughout that you will win because they can't produce any evidence? I ask myself this question from time to time and the answer is always the same. What Johnny and Morrissey did is surely questionable but what Mike did is simply shitty behaviour. That doesn't mean that I hate Mike or that I give him hell everytime he is mentioned. Not at all. But I find it somewhat hypocritical that Johnny and especially Morrissey are always supposed to put themselves in Mike's and Andy's position but the same is never expected from them. And in that regard all these biographies lack, in my opinion. I remember that someone who was at the court case said he saw Andy and Mike talk to Johnny Rogan and I remember them being big buddies with Tony Fletcher. They are approachable and they "take part" which is obviously important. I doubt any of those writers would've had the guts to write some things if Morrissey and Johnny had been more forthcoming. But of course this is just my impression and my opinion and I'm sure someone here will jump in quickly and attack me for it.
I'm not saying that marr Morrissey andy and Mike should share IT equally. Johnny and moz did all the writing bit Andy and Mike did sew it all together and provided the perfect drums and bass to the songs. I'm saying it should be more fair. Johnny moz 35% Andy Mike 15%

It could not have been easy dealing with moz behaviour and the fact that moz and Johnny were like siamese twins. Plus Andy and Mike were their friends, no solidarity at all? Andy and Mike where the needle and thread moz and Johnny was the fabric and design. Would Johnny and moz let them have any creative input or would they just have disregarded their input. could they have not included Andy and Mike in the signing of the contracts. I know that the contracts were draws up so they only needed moz and johnnys signature but they could have said we need Andy and Mike on this too, they got their way in all the other requests. That would have made sure that all the parts understood the deal and Mike and Andy stayed true to their word. But i belive that both Johnny and moz knew that of they had done that and Andy and Mike had really understood the deal they would have refused to sign it. Morrissey and Johnny did not want to lose the perfect drummer and bass player they had looked for so hard. I belive that they had the "we will cross that bridge when we get there" mentality. Unfortunately that sealed the bands fate. They burned that bridge to the ground after they crossed it.

Yes they had a verbal agreement with eachother, but we, moz and Johnny might not have fully understood what mike and Andy thought they had for share. Both Andy and Mike and moz and Johnny played their fair share in this which resulted in the definite death of the Smiths
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm not saying that marr Morrissey andy and Mike should share IT equally. Johnny and moz did all the writing bit Andy and Mike did sew it all together and provided the perfect drums and bass to the songs. I'm saying it should be more fair. Johnny moz 35% Andy Mike 15%

It could not have been easy dealing with moz behaviour and the fact that moz and Johnny were like siamese twins. Plus Andy and Mike were their friends, no solidarity at all? Andy and Mike where the needle and thread moz and Johnny was the fabric and design. Would Johnny and moz let them have any creative input or would they just have disregarded their input. could they have not included Andy and Mike in the signing of the contracts. I know that the contracts were draws up so they only needed moz and johnnys signature but they could have said we need Andy and Mike on this too, they got their way in all the other requests. That would have made sure that all the parts understood the deal and Mike and Andy stayed true to their word. But i belive that both Johnny and moz knew that of they had done that and Andy and Mike had really understood the deal they would have refused to sign it. Morrissey and Johnny did not want to lose the perfect drummer and bass player they had looked for so hard. I belive that they had the "we will cross that bridge when we get there" mentality. Unfortunately that sealed the bands fate. They burned that bridge to the ground after they crossed it.

Yes they had a verbal agreement with eachother, but we, moz and Johnny might not have fully understood what mike and Andy thought they had for share. Both Andy and Mike and moz and Johnny played their fair share in this which resulted in the definite death of the Smiths

Did Andy share his heroin? I doubt it. It was time for The Smiths to die and now Johnny has a career designing skateboarding shoes, and Mike and Carl get to be 'dj's' and collect thousands to show up and play a Smiths record and take a photo with some slobbering fan.
I'm glad Mike's greed broke them up and I hope they never get back together. They were headed downhill. If you ever heard the demos for what was going to be the next record you would agree.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I feel bad for andy though he did accept a sum and that's on him and his choice but his contribution to the finished product, the music song, is nothing less than essential. I don't think johnny could have done what he did without him
 
Top Bottom