Moz writes open letter to Australian Deputy PM about live animal export - PETA Australia

Posted today via peta.org.au:

Morrissey Asks Barnaby Joyce: Stop the Live-Export ‘Slow Boat to Hell’ - PETA Australia

As Morrissey wraps up his Australian tour, the music legend and animal advocate fired off a letter to Barnaby Joyce, Australia’s Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Deputy Prime Minister, urging him to put “the live-export industry out of its misery”.

Read Morrissey's letter (PDF)



UPDATE 9:40PM PT:

Link posted by Uncleskinny:

Morrissey to Barnaby Joyce: 'If meat is murder, live export is the slow boat to hell' - The Guardian

Includes response from Barnaby Joyce via Twitter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
was he ever 'commercially viable' ?

Yes, he used to be able to shift a lot of units and managed to have Top Ten singles and albums. Not so much now.

I don't think it's up to the public to make that decision. It's the music industry that decides what they are going to push,promote and put money into to to make it 'popular'.

Ultimately, it's all about supply and demand though. The music companies make decisions about the likelihood and size of profits that their sub-contractors, like Morrissey, can make for them. If they don't "push, promote and put money into" Morrissey, it's because they've calculated that they're unlikely to make sufficient financial returns from what he can produce for them - both in terms of his music and his persona. Morrissey is no longer worth their investment.

You should check out the popular BBC programme, Dragons' Den, to see how it all works.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If this person is using the term grown ups he must be about twelve years old.

You're still in thrall to your fave pop star and you're suggesting that other people are juvenile? Irony.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Every artist makes something you can buy with money. Do you think painters, photographers, film makers and sculptors give their creations away for free? That's some interesting logic you have there.

That's not really true, is it? Sometimes people do/make things, whether it be art or anything else, and see that as an end in itself. Not everything is about profit - unless you're Morrissey.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
Yes, he used to be able to shift a lot of units and managed to have Top Ten singles and albums. Not so much now.



Ultimately, it's all about supply and demand though. The music companies make decisions about the likelihood and size of profits that their sub-contractors, like Morrissey, can make for them. If they don't "push, promote and put money into" Morrissey, it's because they've calculated that they're unlikely to make sufficient financial returns from what he can produce for them - both in terms of his music and his persona. Morrissey is no longer worth their investment.

You should check out the popular BBC programme, Dragons' Den, to see how it all works.

yes, but I believe it works both ways, when the industry sees something that can be sold, and when they create something that they can sell to the masses. Through the repetition of big money marketing millions are duped into believing that a product must be good if they are constantly seeing/hearing it. Proof ? our culture is full of garbage that I can't believe anyone wanted in the first place.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
yes, but I believe it works both ways, when the industry sees something that can be sold, and when they create something that they can sell to the masses. Through the repetition of big money marketing millions are duped into believing that a product must be good if they are constantly seeing/hearing it. Proof ? our culture is full of garbage that I can't believe anyone wanted in the first place.

Consumers aren't forced to buy things; having been persuaded, or not, they make choices about what to spend their money on.

Morrissey is no different from any other entertainer - previously, many people were persuaded to buy his "garbage"; now only a few are.

Music companies won't invest money in him and his music because they calculate that they can't dupe enough people into parting with their money to buy his products.
 

marred

Member
That's not really true, is it? Sometimes people do/make things, whether it be art or anything else, and see that as an end in itself. Not everything is about profit - unless you're Morrissey.
All art is made for the purpose of expression. Being able to sell your art is an added bonus and a way to make a living. Next time an artist gives you their art for free please let us know IP Hash: e3da4a88cb.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
Consumers aren't forced to buy things; having been persuaded, or not, they make choices about what to spend their money on.

Morrissey is no different from any other entertainer - previously, many people were persuaded to buy his "garbage"; now only a few are.

Music companies won't invest money in him and his music because they calculate that they can't dupe enough people into parting with their money to buy his products.

I didn't say consumers are forced to buy things.

'Morrissey is no different from any other entertainer ' Well, that is the opinion of one, a million others past, present and future beg to differ.

I'm sure if M kissed their asses, they would in turn find a way to dupe enough people into buying his 'product'.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Where did you learn to write?

If I were you, I'd give up attempting to correct other people's English. You made an arse of yourself in another thread, just the other day, trying to do that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
All art is made for the purpose of expression.

So what? People express fairly constantly. It mostly isn't art, though.

Being able to sell your art is an added bonus and a way to make a living.

If only Morrissey felt the same, you might've had some new music to listen to by now.

Next time an artist gives you their art for free please let us know IP Hash: e3da4a88cb.

Are you familiar with websites like YouTube? Soundcloud? There's quite a lot of "expression" going on there.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I didn't say consumers are forced to buy things.

You portrayed consumers as lacking sufficient intellect to be able to distinguish between good and bad products, saying they are stupefied by the power of the entertainment industry's marketing techniques. In that sense, according to you, they are incapable of choice and are, indeed, "forced to buy things".

'Morrissey is no different from any other entertainer ' Well, that is the opinion of one, a million others past, present and future beg to differ.'

Maybe so, but that's only because they - like you - have a particular emotional investment in the idea of Morrissey, not because they're right.

I'm sure if M kissed their asses, they would in turn find a way to dupe enough people into buying his 'product'

Well, he's made a lot of products for record companies in the past so he either kissed their arses during those periods or, alternatively, his music and he were sufficiently marketable then, unlike now, to yield profit.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
You portrayed consumers as lacking sufficient intellect to be able to distinguish between good and bad products, saying they are stupefied by the power of the entertainment industry's marketing techniques. In that sense, according to you, they are incapable of choice and are, indeed, "forced to buy things".



Maybe so, but that's only because they - like you - have a particular emotional investment in the idea of Morrissey, not because they're right.



Well, he's made a lot of products for record companies in the past so he either kissed their arses during those periods or, alternatively, his music and he were sufficiently marketable then, unlike now, to yield profit.

nah, I didn't say all consumers lack the smarts to make their own choices, but the ones that do get duped are still making a choice, and in my eyes a wrong one.

It is you that feels M is no different from any other 'entertainer'. It really depends on how one would define what an 'entertainer' is. So on that basis .....
And it also depends if one even views M as an 'entertainer'.

I feel it could be just a changing of the guard within the music industry, and it's easier to sell someone/thing that bows to your demands rather than someone like M who seems to do quite the opposite.
 
Last edited:

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
now that i reread the letter i've come to the conclusion that morrissey wasnt taking an--amusing--cheap shot at all. in fact, i think it's likely that he was being charitable to our florid friend. you see, i imagine that he had had it all planned out what he was going to say in advance, complete with the phrase "red in the face" and only after he had decided upon his words did he realize how true they were. realizing that people would pick up on it and make their own jokes he sensibly decided he would get the joke that would be on the tip of everyones tongues out of the way, by unceremoniously adding the suffix 'der'. because of that, now instead of everyone making jokes about barnaby a la johnny depp, they're instead shaking their heads at morrissey. as i see it, it was really quite selfless of morrissey.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
nah, I didn't say all consumers lack the smarts to make their own choices, but the ones that do get duped are still making a choice, and in my eyes a wrong one.

Circuitously, you said precisely that. At the top of this page, you said that it isn't the public that decides what is popular. You said it's the record companies that do that. You then went on to say that the record companies "dupe" consumers so that, rather than buying things because they actually like them, people buy things, without deliberation, because they're told by the entertainment industry that they're good and therefore worth buying.

It is you that feels M is no different from any other 'entertainer'. It really depends on how one would define what an 'entertainer' is. So on that basis .....
And it also depends if one even views M as an 'entertainer'.

An entertainer is somebody who entertains.

I feel it could be just a changing of the guard within the music industry, and it's easier to sell someone/thing that bows to your demands rather than someone like M who seems to do quite the opposite.

No, it's not them who've changed; it's Morrissey's product. It's not what it once was.
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
All art is made for the purpose of expression. Being able to sell your art is an added bonus and a way to make a living. Next time an artist gives you their art for free please let us know IP Hash: e3da4a88cb.
i would say that some art is made for the purpose of documentation, rather than, or, as well as, expression. i would also say that a person who views art as life is probably less apt to think about the money side than someone who views art as a career--either of which is fine, though.
 

marred

Member
i would say that some art is made for the purpose of documentation, rather than, or, as well as, expression. i would also say that a person who views art as life is probably less apt to think about the money side than someone who views art as a career--either of which is fine, though.
I am an artist. I know what art is. Morrissey is an artist. He doesn't do our taxes or fix our pipes. He expresses himself through the medium of song.
Usually when someone rants on with the if you sell your stuff in the commercial arena then you're not an artist bullshit chances are they are not an artist themselves and therefore have no idea what they are talking about.
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
I am an artist. I know what art is. Morrissey is an artist. He doesn't do our taxes or fix our pipes. He expresses himself through the medium of song.
Usually when someone rants on with the if you sell your stuff in the commercial arena then you're not an artist bullshit chances are they are not an artist themselves and therefore have no idea what they are talking about.

^^ THIS ^^
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
Circuitously, you said precisely that. At the top of this page, you said that it isn't the public that decides what is popular. You said it's the record companies that do that. You then went on to say that the record companies "dupe" consumers so that, rather than buying things because they actually like them, people buy things, without deliberation, because they're told by the entertainment industry that they're good and therefore worth buying.



An entertainer is somebody who entertains.



No, it's not them who've changed; it's Morrissey's product. It's not what it once was.

nah,there's a difference between deciding what is popular or not and making a choice to buy it or not. And I'm not talking about 'supply and demand' I'm talking about how a product with the support of heavy marketing could look like it is popular and therefor look like a good and needed product.

If an entertainer is someone who wears shoes most of the time, then yes M in that way is no different than other entertainers. Though people can be 'entertained' in so many different ways and they will find a difference between M and a different entertainer who also wears shoes because they need that difference of entertainment to be entertained.

Can't expect a 'product' to stay the same, for then it goes bad. M is always fresh and tasty. He no longer needs to reel around the fountain when he could just as easily demand to be kissed a lot. So which would you prefer? I think you would prefer a much needed kiss rather than play these games.
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
nah,there's a difference between deciding what is popular or not and making a choice to buy it or not. And I'm not talking about 'supply and demand' I'm talking about how a product with the support of heavy marketing could look like it is popular and therefor look like a good and needed product.

If an entertainer is someone who wears shoes most of the time, then yes M in that way is no different than other entertainers. Though people can be 'entertained' in so many different ways and they will find a difference between M and a different entertainer who also wears shoes because they need that difference of entertainment to be entertained.

Can't expect a 'product' to stay the same, for then it goes bad. M is always fresh and tasty. He no longer needs to reel around the fountain when he could just as easily demand to be kissed a lot. So which would you prefer? I think you would prefer a much needed kiss rather than play these games.

And they could wear different type of shoes as well!
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom