Off-topic discussion thread / moved as clogging other threads

[Light Housework]

The song wasn't available & apparently people had been asking for it.

All the time means it's not for the press - it's part of his personality.

He wouldn't have seen it as dismissive - he doesn't understand why most people ignore animal suffering.

If he wanted press attention he could just sit in one of their pubs & let them flit by.

It's hard for me to understand how calloused I used to be about animal suffering. Recently, someone was wondering if he should order a hamburger, and I said that hamburger is murder. He answered that that was good. I don't like him anymore. I realize in hindsight, about my former meat eating habits, that I had a smug sense of dominance over cows, when I would eat their flesh. I think this perverse sense of dominion is inherent in the practice of meat eating.

 

[Malarkey]

It's hard for me to understand how calloused I used to be about animal suffering. Recently, someone was wondering if he should order a hamburger, and I said that hamburger is murder. He answered that that was good. I don't like him anymore. I realize in hindsight, about my former meat eating habits, that I had a smug sense of dominance over cows, when I would eat their flesh. I think this perverse sense of dominion is inherent in the practice of meat eating.

Yeah, I think that's true.

 

[Fake C]

The song wasn't available & apparently people had been asking for it.

All the time means it's not for the press - it's part of his personality.

He wouldn't have seen it as dismissive - he doesn't understand why most people ignore animal suffering.

If he wanted press attention he could just sit in one of their pubs & let them flit by.

The song was available but a rerelease means promotion. It was a case of asking a former record company to invest in a rerelease which he and Boz believed could be a hit for no reason other than having “Paris” in the title. But they were possibly soured on the association. I don’t know the details there but his previous record companies may not have a lot of goodwill towards him. Even if they were on good terms I don’t think “guaranteed number one “ was as apparent to them as it was to Boz.

Besides that, as self serving as the average topical or charity release may be, and as craven as the average record executive may be, appearances matter. Had the song celebrated the people of Paris I think they would have been happy to release it however they felt about their experience with Morrissey.

I mean, if you can somehow know that saying a massacre of teenagers is “nothing” is not dismissive, then I should be allowed to know the thoughts and motivations of record execs.

He should have had someone spontaneously start singing it in front of media at one of the vigils. That's how "Don't Look Back in Anger" became aa trending topic, and no wonder he is so upset about that!

 

[Fake C]

Did Universal own some part of the song ITMAAP ? And that’s why Morrissey went to Universal because it makes sense for them to rerelease it ?

The label is Decca which is owned by Universal. I don’t know what part they may own, but as it was recorded for them under contract to them they would have distribution rights. He wouldn’t have been able to rerelease it without satisfying some contractual obligation with them.

We all know he isn’t interested, so far, in releasing his own records and they had the machinery in place to do it, so going to them did make sense.

 

[Malarkey]

The song was available but a rerelease means promotion. It was a case of asking a former record company to invest in a rerelease which he and Boz believed could be a hit for no reason other than having “Paris” in the title. But they were possibly soured on the association. I don’t know the details there but his previous record companies may not have a lot of goodwill towards him. Even if they were on good terms I don’t think “guaranteed number one “ was as apparent to them as it was to Boz.

Besides that, as self serving as the average topical or charity release may be, and as craven as the average record executive may be, appearances matter. Had the song celebrated the people of Paris I think they would have been happy to release it however they felt about their experience with Morrissey.

I mean, if you can somehow know that saying a massacre of teenagers is “nothing” is not dismissive, then I should be allowed to know the thoughts and motivations of record execs.

He should have had someone spontaneously start singing it in front of media at one of the vigils. That's how "Don't Look Back in Anger" became aa trending topic, and no wonder he is so upset about that!

It sounded like part of a longer dispute - I can't imagine anyone who would less like to be part of world news than Morrissey.

He did not say their deaths were nothing - he was saying that we should also care about animals who were dying in their millions.

It is normal to have discussions about what to release or do to mark a tragedy. I think he was more generally unhappy about the state of his career - he should be bigger than he is, but no one's ever cracked how to market him. He's got a very strong story for his pre-fame years (yearned in his bedroom), and a very strong story for the Smiths (they were on a mission to make unwanted things glamorous) - then nothing. Split, flag, court case, LA, Mexicans, comeback, flooded, subspecies, OUTBURSTS, cancellations, illnesses, pingate, PARIAH. He doesn't tell a story - he has one imposed on him.

The big mystery is why - too heartbroken over the Smiths? Hiding his love life?

 

[Fake C]

He did not say their deaths were nothing - he was saying that we should also care about animals who were dying in their millions.

See, this is the problem. He literally used the word “nothing.” So if that is not “what he was saying,” that doesn’t really help the “not a troll,” argument you are making. Using intentionally controversial language to get more of a reaction is pretty much the definition of trolling.

So let’s say the language isn’t intentional and we’re back to him being someone who just accidentally says things. Maybe he accidentally wrote all those great song? Maybe he wasn’t one of the best interviews since the beginning of his career because he is clever and has a way with crafting a phrase. He is just an empty vessel who opens his mouth and words come out.

Troll or idiot?

 

[Malarkey]

See, this is the problem. He literally used the word “nothing.” So if that is not “what he was saying,” that doesn’t really help the “not a troll,” argument you are making. Using intentionally controversial language to get more of a reaction is pretty much the definition of trolling.

So let’s say the language isn’t intentional and we’re back to him being someone who just accidentally says things. Maybe he accidentally wrote all those great song? Maybe he wasn’t one of the best interviews since the beginning of his career because he is clever and has a way with crafting a phrase. He is just an empty vessel who opens his mouth and words come out.

Troll or idiot?

This is exactly what he said - and it's obvious he's comparing numbers because he says murder more often the second time...

Despite the love, we do live on a murderous planet, as you will have seen over the last few days in Norway, murder, murder, murder. Really every single day worse things happen in Kentucky Fried Chicken & McDonald's, murder, murder, murder, murder, murder, murder.

And he explained after it hit the tabloids.

The comment I made on stage at Warsaw could be further explained this way: Millions of beings are routinely murdered every single day in order to fund profits for McDonalds and KFCruelty, but because these murders are protected by laws, we are asked to feel indifferent about the killings, and to not even question them. If you quite rightly feel horrified at the Norway killings, then it surely naturally follows that you feel horror at the murder of ANY innocent being. You cannot ignore animal suffering simply because animals 'are not us'. (True To You, July 2011)

 

[Fake C]

"We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown, with 97 [sic] dead. Though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald's and Kentucky Fried shit every day."

Morrissey likens Norway attacks to McDonald's and KFC

Vegetarian singer prompts outrage by saying Norwegian killings are 'nothing' compared with deeds of fast-food chains

www.theguardian.com

 

[Fake C]

Interesting that there are two versions of the same quote.

 

[Malarkey]

"We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown, with 97 [sic] dead. Though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald's and Kentucky Fried shit every day."

Morrissey likens Norway attacks to McDonald's and KFC

Vegetarian singer prompts outrage by saying Norwegian killings are 'nothing' compared with deeds of fast-food chains

www.theguardian.com

That's the transcipt taken from the mirror & it's wrong.

I listened to the footage on YouTube.

Our newspapers really are utterly shit.

 

[Anonymous]

This is exactly what he said - and it's obvious he's comparing numbers because he says murder more often the second time...

Despite the love, we do live on a murderous planet, as you will have seen over the last few days in Norway, murder, murder, murder. Really every single day worse things happen in Kentucky Fried Chicken & McDonald's, murder, murder, murder, murder, murder, murder.

And he explained after it hit the tabloids.

The comment I made on stage at Warsaw could be further explained this way: Millions of beings are routinely murdered every single day in order to fund profits for McDonalds and KFCruelty, but because these murders are protected by laws, we are asked to feel indifferent about the killings, and to not even question them. If you quite rightly feel horrified at the Norway killings, then it surely naturally follows that you feel horror at the murder of ANY innocent being. You cannot ignore animal suffering simply because animals 'are not us'. (True To You, July 2011)

Morrissey is an idiot. He’s still comparing dead chickens to dead children.

 

[Malarkey]

Interesting that there are two versions of the same quote.

Every story about it in every newspaper is taken from the Mirror - the Mirror broke the story - there was no other source until the footage was on YouTube & no outlet followed it up.

 

[Fake C]

Every version is taken from the Mirror - the Mirror broke the story - there was no other source until the footage was on YouTube & no outlet followed it up.

The Mirror printed two versions of the same quote?

 

[Malarkey]

Morrissey is an idiot. He’s still comparing dead chickens to dead children.

He cares about dead chickens.

Everyone knows he cares about dead chickens.

It's not his fault other people don't.

 

[Malarkey]

The Mirror printed two versions of the same quote?

No - I meant every version of the story in newspapers that covered it.

 

[Fake C]

He cares about dead chickens.

Everyone knows he cares about dead chickens.

It's not his fault other people don't.

If you are correct that he didn’t say “nothing “ you have a good point. But I think it’s a mistake to go ahead and say that using a massacre to make a point is a good idea

Surely the deaths in Manchester are far less than what happens at McDonald’s every day? But a different type of murderer in a different place and he goes from minimizing the grief of some people to telling others that they should be angrier.

That is the thing I am surprised isn’t brought up in all this.

 

[Malarkey]

If you are correct that he didn’t say “nothing “ you have a good point. But I think it’s a mistake to go ahead and say that using a massacre to make a point is a good idea

Surely the deaths in Manchester are far less than what happens at McDonald’s every day? But a different type of murderer in a different place and he goes from minimizing the grief of some people to telling others that they should be angrier.

That is the thing I am surprised isn’t brought up in all this.

I don't think he was minimizing the grief - less murders don't mean less important - he was trying to point out that millions of murders are happening that we pay no attention to.

& I think he was just wounded that he got so much flack for saying he was angry in a Facebook post and then just over a week later there's a huge gig with people singing along to a song called Don't Look Back In Anger. Bonfire is a song about one person who feels angry, who won't be told not to feel angry. So, I don't think he's telling anyone else they should be angry. It's just that he was, and they wouldn't let him.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

The song was available but a rerelease means promotion. It was a case of asking a former record company to invest in a rerelease which he and Boz believed could be a hit for no reason other than having “Paris” in the title.

But they were possibly soured on the association. I don’t know the details there but his previous record companies may not have a lot of goodwill towards him. Even if they were on good terms I don’t think “guaranteed number one “ was as apparent to them as it was to Boz.

which may give the reason why M spoke through Boz ? I could imagine that it’s possible M didn’t leave that label on good terms, so maybe felt it would be better that Boz sent it instead, which is childish and most likely didn’t help.
And maybe to make it look like not only that M thought, but that Boz and the band also thought it was a good idea for the songs rerelease.

Besides that, as self serving as the average topical or charity release may be, and as craven as the average record executive may be, appearances matter. Had the song celebrated the people of Paris I think they would have been happy to release it however they felt about their experience with Morrissey.

I wonder if the average record executive would even inspect the lyrics or meaning of a song. I think they’re just looking at sales figures, the commercial value of the artist or act’s name.

I mean, if you can somehow know that saying a massacre of teenagers is “nothing” is not dismissive, then I should be allowed to know the thoughts and motivations of record execs.

He should have had someone spontaneously start singing it in front of media at one of the vigils. That's how "Don't Look Back in Anger" became aa trending topic, and no wonder he is so upset about that!

 

[Fake C]

I don't think he was minimizing the grief - less murders don't mean less important - he was trying to point out that millions of murders are happening that we pay no attention to.

& I think he was just wounded that he got so much flack for saying he was angry in a Facebook post and then just over a week later there's a huge gig with people singing along to a song called Don't Look Back In Anger. Bonfire is a song about one person who feels angry, who won't be told not to feel angry. So, I don't think he's telling anyone else they should be angry. It's just that he was, and they wouldn't let him.

Well, I see it differently but it is interesting to hear your perspective.

 

[Fake C]

which may give the reason why M spoke through Boz ? I could imagine that it’s possible M didn’t leave that label on good terms, so maybe felt it would be better that Boz sent it instead, which is childish and most likely didn’t help.
And maybe to make it look like not only that M thought, but that Boz and the band also thought it was a good idea for the songs rerelease.



I wonder if the average record executive would even inspect the lyrics or meaning of a song. I think they’re just looking at sales figures, the commercial value of the artist or act’s name.

There may be more than one reason Morrissey asked Boz to send the emails.Depending on a person’s beliefs or biases some reasons will seem more likely or useful. Personally I would imagine that Morrissey may have felt it fit into Boz’ “duties “ if we can call it that, as he was , or appeared to be the leader of the band at the time.

Morrissey did turn out to have a legal representative at the time but I don’t think they were on retainer, and I don’t think he had a manager at the time. I would think this type of correspondence, dealing with a former label regarding what you might call a contract issue, would be handled by legal or management. But Boz was familiar with the situation and they would know who he is, so I think that is why he did it.
Who can say if a letter from Morrissey himself would be more persuasive but, I image, same as he doesn’t release his own records he probably doesn’t write his own business letters.

As far as them listening to the record I agree that they probably did not. Remember they were already planning a “We Are. the World “ type record with artists from their current roster, and as a former artist, who likely left a bad taste when he left, it wasn’t a priority anyway.

Bands who perform on big charity records and events donate their money but the exposure puts them back in the charts, and record companies, notorious for being run by cheats, crooks and gangsters probably use some creative accounting to make money on these things.

I watched something recently about how appearing on Live Aid and doing a great performance pulled Queen out of a slump and may have saved their career.

Anyway, who knows, but it’s easy to imagine numerous reasons why they weren’t immediately on the phone to Morrissey. The reason I suggested, that the song wasn’t appropriate and it would be too obvious a cash grab, might be totally wrong.