Johnny Marr opens up about Smiths split, full interview on YouTube - Radio X

Pleased to see that Radio X released a full 1hr 25 recording of the In Conversation... with Johnny Marr:


They also posted the specific part where
Johnny talks about the split and subsequent help from other artists:


Worth a watch just for the Smiths tunes (and the story of how Hand In Glove came about).
Thanks to Radio X for the full event.
Regards,
FWD.
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
And if Morrissey had worked with a hundred different musicians he'd have ended up with 100 different songs.

So what? This doesn't contradict what I'm saying, it confirms what I'm saying. He would end up with a 100 different songs because each piece of music (presuming they were all quite distinct) would suggest a different vocal melody. But it would still be the addition of the lyrics/vocal melody that transformed each of those 100 pieces of music into a song. That's the point. The music is not the song. Music is just music.

As I said the Vegan.Cro idiot, by this logic none of the following are songwriters - Barry Mann, Jay Livingston, Mike Stoller, Elton John, Keith Richards, Dozier and Holland or Burt Bacharach.

I can't comment on each of these names, as I'm not familiar with how they all worked, but in the case of Elton John as far as I know, he takes Bernie Taupin's lyrics and himself coins a vocal melody for them. So yes, Elton John would have created the song (song'writing' being a generally inaccurate description of how songs come into being anyway). But let's say, for the sake of argument, that all of these guys employed the same method as Morrissey/Marr (pretty sure that's not the case though - didn't Keith Richards write 'Angie' on his own for example?). But anyway, if such was the case, then of course yes, I'd say they weren't songwriters, they were music composers. Because yes, of course the same logic would apply. Why wouldn't it?

Either you're into acapella or you believe songs have music.

Again a misconception as you're assuming these two notions are mutually exclusive. They're not. Yes, I believe songs have music - or at least, they CAN have music, and music is usually what inspires a song's creation. But ironically in citing 'acapella' you're again underlining the point I'm making - songs don't NEED to have music. Once you have the vocal melody and lyric the song exists and doesn't depend on the music. It exist independently of the music. In other words, anyone can sing a song, unaccompanied by the music. If someone asks me to sing 'How Soon is Now' I don't need to say 'can't sing it, I don't have the music'. On the other hand, take away the vocal melody and lyric, and 'How Soon is Now' is no longer the song - it's just an instrumental, same as 'Oscillate Wildly' or 'The Draize Train'.

You in turn can argue all you like that Morrissey and Marr were joint equal creators of the SONGS of The Smiths. The onus is then on you to explain why Marr has not 'written' a great song since The Smiths broke up, whilst Morrissey has done so by the bucketload.
 
V

vegan.cro spirit# 568

Guest
And if M

orrissey had worked with a hundred different musicians he'd have ended up with 100 different songs.

As I said the Vegan.Cro idiot, by this logic none of the following are songwriters - Barry Mann, Jay Livingston, Mike Stoller, Elton John, Keith Richards, Dozier and Holland or Burt Bacharach.

Either you're into acapella or you believe songs have music.

Chezz just because Drama J is not capable of writing a melody doesnt mean Barry and Elton and Burt cant:crazy:

Im pretty sure the guitar player on the Barry, Elton and Burt songs didnt get any songwriting credit.
Drama J got because of Moz generosity. If there is one thing we have learned after all the Electronic :rolleyes:
The Theo_O and solo :mad: records is that there is 0 possibility of him writing one.
He had a good thing going with Moz but got dramatic and hysterical.:drama:
Now hes huffing and puffing, the poor sod.doh:

Now suddenly if :frogface: cant write a melody then nobody else can either.:crazy:
 
V

vegan.cro spirit# 568

Guest
I dont know how to explain this but studio musicians that have to fill out acoustic demos dont get songwriting credit. Songs already copyrighted off the acoustic demo.
Dont tell Chezz tho.LOL:rock:
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
So what? This doesn't contradict what I'm saying, it confirms what I'm saying. He would end up with a 100 different songs because each piece of music (presuming they were all quite distinct) would suggest a different vocal melody. But it would still be the addition of the lyrics/vocal melody that transformed each of those 100 pieces of music into a song. That's the point. The music is not the song. Music is just music.



I can't comment on each of these names, as I'm not familiar with how they all worked, but in the case of Elton John as far as I know, he takes Bernie Taupin's lyrics and himself coins a vocal melody for them. So yes, Elton John would have created the song (song'writing' being a generally inaccurate description of how songs come into being anyway). But let's say, for the sake of argument, that all of these guys employed the same method as Morrissey/Marr (pretty sure that's not the case though - didn't Keith Richards write 'Angie' on his own for example?). But anyway, if such was the case, then of course yes, I'd say they weren't songwriters, they were music composers. Because yes, of course the same logic would apply. Why wouldn't it?



Again a misconception as you're assuming these two notions are mutually exclusive. They're not. Yes, I believe songs have music - or at least, they CAN have music, and music is usually what inspires a song's creation. But ironically in citing 'acapella' you're again underlining the point I'm making - songs don't NEED to have music. Once you have the vocal melody and lyric the song exists and doesn't depend on the music. It exist independently of the music. In other words, anyone can sing a song, unaccompanied by the music. If someone asks me to sing 'How Soon is Now' I don't need to say 'can't sing it, I don't have the music'. On the other hand, take away the vocal melody and lyric, and 'How Soon is Now' is no longer the song - it's just an instrumental, same as 'Oscillate Wildly' or 'The Draize Train'.

You in turn can argue all you like that Morrissey and Marr were joint equal creators of the SONGS of The Smiths. The onus is then on you to explain why Marr has not 'written' a great song since The Smiths broke up, whilst Morrissey has done so by the bucketload.

I don't need to argue shit, they were equal partners and get 50% each, you can waste your own life arguing they weren't and rest yourself in the knowledge that the person who agrees with you is the forum idiot. I'm out.

Ps, the people that I quoted were musical writers in songwriting duos.
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't need to argue shit, they were equal partners and get 50% each, you can waste your own life arguing they weren't and rest yourself in the knowledge that the person who agrees with you is the forum idiot. I'm out.

Ps, the people that I quoted were musical writers in songwriting duos.

Why do you waste so much time replying to posts when you don't understand them? Of course you don't need to argue shit, you're on a forum, it's a conversation and you're under no obligation to participate. If you mean by "get 50% each" that they are legally equal partners, well why state the obvious? Marr can always, and does, maintain 50% credit for the songs of The Smiths. That's the whole f**cking point of this debate, dipshit - whether his legal claim reflects his genuine input or not. And as I say, we're still waiting for any evidence that this genius 'songwriter' can actually write any decent songs.

PS. Yes, I'm aware they were musical writers in songwriting duos - that was kind of implied by your citing them as examples, even if I'd been living on Mars all my life and never heard of Burt Bacharach. You have a tendency to state the obvious but not perceive it.
 
V

vegan.cro spirit# 765

Guest
I don't need to argue shit, they were equal partners and get 50% each, you can waste your own life arguing they weren't and rest yourself in the knowledge that the person who agrees with you is the forum idiot. I'm out.

Ps, the people that I quoted were musical writers in songwriting duos.

At least I know that Elton John writes the melodies. I mean FFS, you didnt know that?:rolleyes: We are still waiting on Drama Js first melody. You can tell Bacharach melodies a mile away.
Adios, Chezz, see ya 5 minutes from now:crazy:
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
So what? This doesn't contradict what I'm saying, it confirms what I'm saying. He would end up with a 100 different songs because each piece of music (presuming they were all quite distinct) would suggest a different vocal melody. But it would still be the addition of the lyrics/vocal melody that transformed each of those 100 pieces of music into a song. That's the point. The music is not the song. Music is just music.



I can't comment on each of these names, as I'm not familiar with how they all worked, but in the case of Elton John as far as I know, he takes Bernie Taupin's lyrics and himself coins a vocal melody for them. So yes, Elton John would have created the song (song'writing' being a generally inaccurate description of how songs come into being anyway). But let's say, for the sake of argument, that all of these guys employed the same method as Morrissey/Marr (pretty sure that's not the case though - didn't Keith Richards write 'Angie' on his own for example?). But anyway, if such was the case, then of course yes, I'd say they weren't songwriters, they were music composers. Because yes, of course the same logic would apply. Why wouldn't it?



Again a misconception as you're assuming these two notions are mutually exclusive. They're not. Yes, I believe songs have music - or at least, they CAN have music, and music is usually what inspires a song's creation. But ironically in citing 'acapella' you're again underlining the point I'm making - songs don't NEED to have music. Once you have the vocal melody and lyric the song exists and doesn't depend on the music. It exist independently of the music. In other words, anyone can sing a song, unaccompanied by the music. If someone asks me to sing 'How Soon is Now' I don't need to say 'can't sing it, I don't have the music'. On the other hand, take away the vocal melody and lyric, and 'How Soon is Now' is no longer the song - it's just an instrumental, same as 'Oscillate Wildly' or 'The Draize Train'.

You in turn can argue all you like that Morrissey and Marr were joint equal creators of the SONGS of The Smiths. The onus is then on you to explain why Marr has not 'written' a great song since The Smiths broke up, whilst Morrissey has done so by the bucketload.

What you say has a lot of sense, since the definition of song is the act or art of singing.
 
Last edited:

SomeTotallyRandomMozFan

MudSpelledBackwardsIsDum
I just watched the whole thing. Loved it. I really liked how kind he was to the tribute bands like The Smyths and The Sweet and Tender Hooligans with the nice words for them on their dedication and how flattered he was by them. 90 minutes of awesome that chat was!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Johnny seems to be morphing into some sort of embarrassing offshoot of Paul Weller. That 'look' just doesn't work on 50 year old dudes and he clearly hasn't met a bottle of hair dye he didn't like. as for the breakup, Jesus this guy changes his story a lot. I've heard various versions, but one of my favourites is the version where he said that when starting the band he always intended on it no being long term and that he would be the first to leave. Well mission accomplished in that case. johnny's story is so inconsistent it's actually worthless. If he believes that leaving and working with Sumner, Lowe, Tennant etc made him a better musician then fair play to him, though I don't think that has really shown in the music he's made since leaving the band and I'd confidently say a large majority of fans would echo that sentiment.
This is totally accurate. Johnny's story is so mercurial because he is disingenuous, and his interviews (Smiths-laden, always, because no one cares for him otherwise) on the subject betray embarrassing dishonesty.

I imagine if he were more secure in himself and not so concerned with image he could (maybe) make better tunes too but alas, onto reliving his Smithsglory as an interviewee and guitarman for Alex Turner karaoke.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom