Morrissey Central: Blue Rondo A La Turk

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Thewlis, Jul 8, 2019.

By Thewlis on Jul 8, 2019 at 10:11 AM
  1. Thewlis

    Thewlis Junior Member

    Jul 15, 2006
    BLUE RONDO A LA TURK - Morrissey Central
    July 8, 2019


    "I liked them because they seemed two jumps ahead of everyone else. The mere sight of them suggested big league, but they didn't quite get that far. They were one of the very few groups that the Smiths supported, but there was a scepticism about them being just 'club models' … who asked and got. This was said also about very early Roxy Music … who appeared to be quite affluent before they'd even had a hit. With Blue Rondo, again, you suspected that they were given all of their fantastic suits for free whilst the rest of us had to dream of being able to buy SOMETHING that didn't look TOO abysmal. The main electric spark was their dancing which was very virile and athletic … and even though they came from the Blitz/Billy's scene they seemed like supermale prizefighters or nightclub heavies … deep-chested vocals, narrow-hipped, and very much a man's, man's, man's, man's world. I don't think a sudden tussle would trouble them in the least. But their songs were not about the curves of seductive women - or even about women … as if women might even lack some essential excitement. It's a safe bet that they couldn't stand the Smiths … me singing about not even a glimmer of adventure sex. But that was 1982 or, for me, 1947. Their companion Robert Elms described me as "Ena Sharples". I was actually flattered because Violet Carson, I thought, was extremely funny. You know how comedians or comic actors think that if they show lots of teeth people will think they're saying something hilarious … when of course they aren't? Well, Violet Carson kept her teeth well hidden. Maybe she had none? How did I get from Blue Rondo a la Turk to Violet Carson?
    Oh. Well, Blue Rondo were a London band … which was obvious to us because they actually had shoes. I don't think their songs were as good as ours, but our shoes weren't as good as theirs, so, there we are.
    They quickly went away and didn't return. I don't know if it's even possible to find their music anymore, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the ear. I think some of Blue Rondo were from the West Indies whereas of course all of the Smiths were born at the Manchester Scabies & Gripe Maternity Hospital."

    Morrissey 7 July 2019, talking to himself (for … what choice?)

    * sorry, I have no idea who took the above photograph.

    Amusing musings from Moz about the first Smiths-support act.

    Note posted by an anonymous person:

    Actually, it was the other way around. The Smiths supported them. It was their first live show ever on 4 October 1982 at the Ritz.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2019
    • Like Like x 12
    • Funny Funny x 3


Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Thewlis, Jul 8, 2019.

    1. Anonymous
      Yes. Yes he did live in shame, you dullard. He never publicly admitted his homosexuality. He was in a relationship with Graham Payn for 33 years. A relationship he could not speak about publicly. You really have no idea whatsoever do you?
    2. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann
      Why do you think all people want to go on and on and make an exhibition of their private might but you don't speak for every human being on this earth.
      Last edited: Jul 10, 2019
    3. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann

      Some homosexuals are perverts and paedophiles , just like straight people. That's just a fact.
      Expressing your sexuality? What exactly does that mean? Being naked in public? Dogging? Cottaging? Be more specific.
      I have never asked or would ask,for anyone to hurt another human being. That's your mind playing ridiculous thought police games.
      Grossly offensive posts? Hardly.
      Nobody........on a Morrissey fan forum is going to go out and hurt a gay person because of one of my comments in this tiny little you think the people who read this are that moronic?
      Last edited: Jul 10, 2019
    4. dirtee rephlex
      dirtee rephlex
      The question is not if there are perverts or paedophiles or ginger haired people amongst gay people. People are people regardless of their sexuality. The question is why on earth would you want to bring that up? Cause when you post, you make an editorial choice, you decide what you talk about. Funny that on all the subjects human beings have come to dwell with this is the one that gets all your energy.

      And then, it's not a question of expressing your sexuality. The question is how come we have to come to that extent? How come we still need to come out, to say it? Straight people don't have to do so and we have had to undergo straight models for centuries whereas gay models are only visible for a few decades so if you have a problem with visibility it means you have a problem with equality.
    5. dirtee rephlex
      dirtee rephlex
      And please, go out, get hammered and find a bloke to get his up your bottom, your ideas will surely fall back into place afterwards, instead of twitching your flaps on subjects that surely take food from your mouth.
    6. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann
      You're a bit gross lad.
    7. dirtee rephlex
      dirtee rephlex
      That's the way I feel when I read your posts.
    8. Anonymous
      You really are the living embodiment of a homophobe. Let's go through your latest rant, shall we?

      "Some homosexuals are perverts and paedophiles , just like straight people. That's just a fact. Sadly, I do believe that to be factual. However, your attempt at deflection by now citing straight people as part of your argument is merely your attempt to avoid the issue at hand. You made and supported comments about LGBT people equating to paedophiles - specifically in regard to those attanding London Pride. At no time did you attempt to balance your comments with any straight comparisons. At all times you specifically supported hate speech from your comrade in arms Reelfountain "the fact they're getting the kids in on it now is like something from Gary Glitter's handbook" followed swiftly by your own comment "God knows what the parents were doing taking him to something like that" - a child you claim was assaulted by a man's penis at London Pride - a photo you mentioned but ever did post?

      "Expressing your sexuality". Here you wear your homphobia proudly with a myriad of negative connotations: "being naked in public", "dogging" and "cottaging". These are the terms you think of when LGBT people express their sexuality? I was referring to people dressing-up, showing-out and dancing on the streets of London - as occurred at London Pride.

      "I have never asked or would ask, for anyone to hurt another human being." That may be your thinking? You may be deluded enough to believe it? I'm not. Denegrating people for who they are in a public forum - particularly when people raised how unpalatable your own comments, and the one's you supported were, what did you do? You continued unabated. You even went as far as to deride a parent of 2 gay children suggesting they were unlucky to have 2 gay children. Isn't that hurtful? Malicious, even? You also posted a photo of 3 men dressed up enjoying Pride under a Stonewall banner of "Acceptance Without Exception". The suggestion made by you, and supported by Reelfountain, being that these men were paedophiles who had 'infiltrated' Pride. How on earth do you think these men would feel if they were to find out that they had been assocated with, let alone accused, of paedophilia in a public internet site? How do you think their family, friends, neighbours or children might feel? What do you think the reaction of someone, a homophobe like yourself, might be who saw your post and then saw one or all 3 of the men? Your post has the very real potential of putting these men at risk of harm. This is incitement to LGBT hate crime in action. You seem to think that what is posted in Morrissey-Solo stays in Morrissey-Solo with no real idea of how the internet actually works.

      "Grossly offensive posts? Hardly." I refer you to: your suggestion that LGBT people are paedophiles, your support of the statements that LGBT people shouldn't express their sexuality or shove it 'our' faces and, that LGBT should return to the shadows. I would add to that your most recent admission - that you believe LGBT people expressing their sexuality is synonomous with "being naked in public", "dogging" and "cottaging".

      Lastly, "Nobody........on a Morrissey fan forum is going to go out and hurt a gay person because of one of my comments in this tiny little you think the people who read this are that moronic?" You seem to hit a convenient brick wall when incitement is mentioned. Incitement /radicalisation - whatever your preffered descriptor - occurs. You have dedicated a considerable amount of your time to your homophobic agenda in this forum. Who's to say that the homophobia you have given voice to won't translate to a real situation? Can you say it won't with 100% certainty?
    9. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann
      Re, the pic i posted of 3 guys half naked........People are allowed to be mocked if they present themselves in a ridiculous manner in a public space. That's life. I say, don't go around half naked with your bits hanging out and making an exhibition of yourself. I'd say the same if they were straight banging 100 women a week.
    10. Anonymous
      Naked? Half-naked? It is of no consequence - the wearing of, or lack of clothes, does not make someone a paedophile. In your attempt at deflection you have cited the wrong photos despite the fact that I provided you with the reference: Stonewall "Acceptance Without Exception". You did this in a purile attempt to equate nakedness with paeodohilia. All you have done is confirm your own homophobia, again.
      • Redundant Redundant x 1
    11. Anonymous
      You really are a rank homophobe "I'd say the same if they were straight banging 100 women a week". You buy into the false and negative myth that LGBT people have sex with 100 people a week. A good deal of homophobes do this. This is done in an attempt to project a level of immorality onto LGBT people; it's a tired blaming and shaming mechanism. I ask myself the question what business is it of yours if LGBT people or straight people do have the stamina to have sex with 100 people week? A constant theme within your own posts is that of control and how we must stand up to and challenge the elite establishment. Yet, here you are giving your vocal support to the elite establishment in the form of your homophobia. You clearly feel that LGBT and straight people should be controlled when it come to expressing their sexuality. Aren't you then the enemy you're supposedly fighting?
    12. Anonymous
      "You don't speak for every human being on this earth." Yet, seemingly you do.

      "Why do you think all people want to go on and on and make an exhibition of their private life"
      Where has it been suggested that I think all people should make an 'exhibition' of their private lives? I do believe all people have a right to express their sexuality safely and without prejudice - in public and in private. You have often argued 'free speech' and 'freedom of expression' in regards to your own alt-right wing views but these freedoms you hold so dear are not to be afforded to LGBT people. Why?

      The only one going on and on and on is you with your homophobia.
    13. Anonymous
      This is the moment where slime was successfully nailed to a wall. :thumb:

Share This Page