A
An observer (Repost)
Guest
Past Observer message is being reposted here WITH PERMISSION OF AN OBSERVER.
This is Observer's answer to LWF... Observer talks about his view of Smiths legacy...
//Repost Starts...
> Here is the quote in context:
> "He moves on to talk about the record sleeve of "Hand In
> Glove", which depicts a nude male. This also is no gimmick.
> 'I wanted to even the balance out', he says. 'It's crucial to what we're
> doing that we're not looking at things from a male stance. I can't
> recognise gender. I want to produce music that transcends boundaries.
> 'I want it to get through to everybody. I don't want it directed at just
> one generation. I want people to enjoy the music and also to think about
> what's being said.'"
> MELODY MAKER, September 3, 1983
> Morrissey isn't talking about the North/South divide. True, the quote at
> first refers specifically to sexuality, which doesn't necessarily bolster
> my argument, either, but then he goes on to mention age
> ("generation") and then makes a few general comments about what
> he expects from fans. Clearly his views on politics and society were
> extrapolated from the ideas he was most passionate about-- issues of
> gender equality-- and I chose this quote because it expresses, both in and
> out of context, the point I was making, which is that The Smiths set out
> to exclude nobody.
> The North/South divide was much on his mind, of course, but that was only
> a small part of a larger, mostly coherent ethos. I can produce hundreds of
> quotes that back up my argument and if you've followed The Smiths as
> closely as you claim over the years, you know it.
> Besides, you've only proven my point. You say, or at the very least imply,
> that Morrissey (before he apparently lost his mind in L.A., of course)
> would never have sung for the "Mexican trash" that now populate
> his SoCal audience. Well, what are these working class Latino kids if not
> the counterparts of the sons and daughters of the coal miners in Northern
> England? Didn't Morrissey himself come from squalor? Didn't he wear tatty
> old blue jeans with patches on them as some symbol that "real"
> humanity resided with the lower classes? Wasn't one of his favorite Wilde
> quotes, one which was used on a t-shirt (although I don't know if it was
> official 'Smithdom' or not), "All of us are born in the gutter, but
> some of us are looking at the stars?"
> Stars: the film personalities you mention. Rightly so, they were and are a
> big part of his life. Let's forget for a moment that a number of them,
> such as James Dean and Dick Davalos, were American. His favorite films
> were the post-war British variety, the ones where Cockney accents were
> finally permitted, for instance, and the awful squalor of life was allowed
> onscreen. The term, I think, is "bedsit" or "kitchen
> sink" dramas. Shelagh Delaney's "A Taste of Honey"-- and I
> dare you to try and convince me or anyone that there is a work of art that
> has had a greater influence on Morrissey-- begins thus: "The stage
> represents a comfortless flat in Manchester and the sreet outside. Jazz
> music. Enter HELEN, a semi-whore, and her daughter, JO. They are loaded
> with baggage." You mentioned some "trashy whores" coming to
> the L.A. gigs-- I'll bet one, or many of them, might have been a heroine
> in a Shelagh Delaney play.
> I'm not telling you anything you don't know. What I submit to you is that
> you are completely failing to see the correspondence between the England
> that Morrissey loved and the Latino culture here in L.A. In 2002, isn't it
> possible that play could open like this? "The stage represents a
> comfortless flat in Echo Park and the sreet outside. Hip-hop music. Enter
> MARIA, a semi-whore, and her daughter, SILVIA. They are loaded with
> baggage." What's the difference?
> I'll tell you the difference-- these are "dirty Mexicans" here.
> They're not clean-cut white folks who are nobly struggling through life in
> order to prove a point about art. They don't have a sub-genre of films
> dedicated to them that achieved some cult and even some mainstream
> success. They don't have an Albert Finney or Criterion DVDs or literary
> movements that warrant capitals ("Angry Young Men"). In short,
> Morrissey's heroes are cool because they're English-- they're white--
> while kids from roughly the same background here in L.A. are dirty, nasty,
> and beneath contempt-- because they're not white.
> That's disgusting. And your attitude is writ large on nearly every post
> you've made on this board.
> You might say that Morrissey would have reviled Mexicans back in '84.
> You're probably right. The Smiths-- as I have argued elsewhere-- are much
> bigger than Morrissey. Just because Morrissey was narrow-minded doesn't
> rule out the universal applicability of his ideas. Nor does it rule out
> self-contradiction. Whatever his inconsistencies, the concepts upon which
> The Smiths were founded, which he and Johnny talked about endlessly, are
> extraordinarily egalitarian. That his Mexican audience seems out of place
> listening to his records is a failure of imagination on your part-- I
> suspect Morrissey, although he was slow to do so, probably made the
> connection himself after awhile, which is why he caters to his Mexican
> audience now. Why can't you do the same?
> Right. Morrissey hated Americans. "Diseased orangutans is a bit
> extreme. I'm sure they're a couple of steps up from that." Which is
> why you consistently bring up the fact that you have ties to England,
> yeah? Which is why you mention that you knew Morrissey, that you'd gone
> shopping with him, yeah? If Morrissey is indeed shallow; if, as you seem
> to say, he accepted you even though you were American; then it seems to me
> that what you're saying is that-- miraculously!-- the limits of his
> affections extend only to you and no further. How convenient for you! And
> how arbitrary and ill-reasoned it makes your arguments look.
> Yes, it *was* about Mexicans. It was about anyone who was excluded and
> spat upon. It was for the downtrodden and the historically persecuted. How
> the hell could Morrissey worship an outsider-- a gay Irishman living in
> fin de seicle London for Christ's sake-- and not identify with outsiders
> of all races, genders, and types? Sure, the issue of Mexicans didn't come
> up-- why would they? Morrissey was stuck on a tiny little island in the
> North Sea. Once he got out and explored the world-- like any normal human
> being-- his vision was expanded and refined. You've traveled-- why haven't
> you done the same?
> I think you're being terribly naive about the ramifications of your
> arguments. What you're saying is that there is a certain type of fan-- The
> Smiths fan in the 1980s-- who should attend his concerts, and a certain
> type of fan-- people of other colors-- who shouldn't. Along the way, you
> throw in a copious amount of insulting racial epithets which make it very
> clear who you hate and why.
> Let me ask you-- why is it you stick the tag "Latino" or
> "Mexican" on nearly every description you use of, say, the
> people who attended the Hollywood Palladium gig (I was there too, by the
> way)? Sure, no one likes homophobes or whores, or chicks who don't know
> how to use make-up, but you never failed to add that they were Mexican.
> Why is that? Surely we all despise filth and degradation, so why shouldn't
> your handle be "Last Clean Fan"? Why isn't the primary theme of
> your posts personal hygeine, say, or morality?
> The answer is simple: you made it a case of white versus brown. You versus
> them. Older fans versus newer. This is why you are racist, despite the
> fact that you cling to that miserable rationalization "Morrissey is
> an elitist". There's no elitism in pop music. Period. It's impossible
> by definition. Morrissey knows that. The truth is, the number of human
> beings that Morrissey would find acceptable would barely fill a toll
> booth. He is a classic misanthrope. Oh, sure, he's forgiven-- after all,
> he hates humanity not because they're awful but because, damn it, he loves
> them so much they can only disappoint him. Fair enough, Moz.
> There's a paradox about being a Smiths fan that is very similar to
> Morrissey's being a Wilde fan. Morrissey wouldn't give us the time of day,
> and Wilde wouldn't give Morrissey the time of day (not even as rough
> trade). I'm not talking about politeness-- signing autographs-- I'm
> talking about really liking someone. Yet we love The Smiths, and Morrissey
> loves Wilde-- why is that? Simply because each strikes a bargain with
> those who love him. They love the worship, and we love worshipping them,
> and neither side is about to ruin the deal. Whatever Morrissey's private
> thoughts are about this new infusion of working-class fans, he exists as a
> public man, and therefore he cannot exclude them. Just as, whatever Wilde
> would have thought privately about a rail-thin moper from the grim North
> of England, he would gladly have shown enough politeness to ensure that
> Morrissey would fork over the dough for a ticket to "Earnest".
> Here we get to the crux of my argument, which I've made elsewhere but
> which I'll reprise again. Morrissey's private limitations do not translate
> to The Smiths, and, I feel, do not necessarily translate to the
> relationship he has with his fans. You know how I feel? He doesn't love
> us. He puts up with us. His personal history is littered with failed,
> broken relationships. He's a lonely, solitary man and in some twisted way
> he likes it like that. But he understands that pop music is for the
> masses, and The Smiths were all about the masses. To some degree his solo
> work is, as well, all though much less so. The bottom line is, there's no
> way a man can make pop records and be elitist *as a public figure*. I
> don't give a damn if you cornered Morrissey in Ralph's tomorrow and got
> him to admit, in a hushed whisper, that he secretly loathes Mexicans.
> That's neither here nor there. He makes the records, he does the tours, he
> welcomes his audience whether they're black, white, or brown. That's the
> truce he strikes with all those messy people who make his life possible.
> Now, all this speculation about Morrissey is just that-- speculation. But
> the issue you brought up is one of public importance: who, exactly, should
> comprise Morrissey's audience. The answer, obviously, is
> "everyone". That's what pop music is all about-- that's what the
> bargain entails.
> And yet this speculation can have a serious impact on the fans. And
> certainly it can have a tremendously negative impact on The Smiths, which,
> again, for the seven hundred and nineteenth time, were much bigger than
> just Morrissey. Morrissey may equal The Smiths, but The Smiths do not
> equal Morrissey. We don't have a relationship with the man (well, sorry,
> you do), we have something far more important. We have a relationship with
> the music. Therefore, it's outrageous to think that you, or I, or anyone
> should dictate what his audience should be like, or even bellyache about
> it on an Internet forum, as you've done. If I'm sensitive to all this,
> it's because I've had to deal with this kind of crap for well over fifteen
> years of being a Smiths apostle.
> The Smiths were (and still are) for everybody. They were possibly more
> accepting of all types of people than any other artist in history, right
> up there with all the bleeding hearts like John Lennon or Bono. Hell, they
> were probably more inclusive than the usual standardbearers of
> "unity" like Bob Marley. Fox In The Snow called Johnny's comment
> "banal"-- damn right! And beautifully so!
> No one can complain if you call out the racists, the homophobes, the thugs
> who come to the shows. Go ahead and lament the presence of those people in
> the audience. As I see it, maybe they're the people who *should* be going
> to these gigs, rather than a pack of mealy-mouthed suburban zombies who
> want to be mollycoddled and reassured that yes, thank God, they are, after
> all, very depressed and put-upon and isn't life a gas because of their
> heroic resistance to corporate tyranny. But don't make it a racial issue,
> and do not attempt to use an ill-conceived notion of The Smiths to back up
> your terrifyingly transparent bigotry.
> Elitism in pop music-- what a joke!
> That's true, but that's not the whole truth. Johnny has gone on record in
> the past-- I have it on VHS-- that he broke up The Smiths to preserve them
> intact. As he says it, "When we were on top, when we'd peaked, when
> we made the best record we were gonna make". Now, sure, that was
> partially spin control-- "I wasn't forced out of The Smiths, I left
> on my own". I do not think that was the sole reason. But it was one
> of the reasons, and a very important one.
> Whatever his reasons, the critical reputation a band enjoys is often
> greatly impacted by the sort of fans you run into on the street (or, these
> days, on the Internet). For example, most of us haven't heard much of the
> Grateful Dead's music (no complaints from me), but we feel we know what
> the band is all about from the sort of people who like them. So while we
> can't bring The Smiths back, we can certainly negatively affect their
> reputation with all this racist nonsense. Like I said, I wouldn't care if
> you, LWF, were an isolated case, but you're not. People like you have
> always made life difficult for the more reasonable, fair-minded-- and
> considerably larger portion-- of The Smiths' fan base.
> Considering how steadfast you are in your positions, LWF, I would make a
> genuinely sincere suggestion-- sit down and sort out what your attitude is
> toward Morrissey's Mexican audience. You seem to acknowledge that racism
> is bad. But it is apparent to those of us who have given a great deal of
> thought to this subject that you, unfortunately, are a racist. My advice
> is to decide whether you are or aren't, because all this dilly-dallying
> talk of "elitism, not racism" makes you appear confused rather
> than cogent.
> I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I'm not trying to be P.C.-- I
> loathe P.C. But, personally, I can't remain silent while you publicly
> slander something which is so much more than just a band to me.
> Interpreting The Smiths can be very difficult, but when you add up all the
> fragments they have a firm and wonderful consistency with all the highest,
> noblest, and most commonly held ideals of popular culture. If you can't
> see that, I recommend you check your math.
This is Observer's answer to LWF... Observer talks about his view of Smiths legacy...
//Repost Starts...
> Here is the quote in context:
> "He moves on to talk about the record sleeve of "Hand In
> Glove", which depicts a nude male. This also is no gimmick.
> 'I wanted to even the balance out', he says. 'It's crucial to what we're
> doing that we're not looking at things from a male stance. I can't
> recognise gender. I want to produce music that transcends boundaries.
> 'I want it to get through to everybody. I don't want it directed at just
> one generation. I want people to enjoy the music and also to think about
> what's being said.'"
> MELODY MAKER, September 3, 1983
> Morrissey isn't talking about the North/South divide. True, the quote at
> first refers specifically to sexuality, which doesn't necessarily bolster
> my argument, either, but then he goes on to mention age
> ("generation") and then makes a few general comments about what
> he expects from fans. Clearly his views on politics and society were
> extrapolated from the ideas he was most passionate about-- issues of
> gender equality-- and I chose this quote because it expresses, both in and
> out of context, the point I was making, which is that The Smiths set out
> to exclude nobody.
> The North/South divide was much on his mind, of course, but that was only
> a small part of a larger, mostly coherent ethos. I can produce hundreds of
> quotes that back up my argument and if you've followed The Smiths as
> closely as you claim over the years, you know it.
> Besides, you've only proven my point. You say, or at the very least imply,
> that Morrissey (before he apparently lost his mind in L.A., of course)
> would never have sung for the "Mexican trash" that now populate
> his SoCal audience. Well, what are these working class Latino kids if not
> the counterparts of the sons and daughters of the coal miners in Northern
> England? Didn't Morrissey himself come from squalor? Didn't he wear tatty
> old blue jeans with patches on them as some symbol that "real"
> humanity resided with the lower classes? Wasn't one of his favorite Wilde
> quotes, one which was used on a t-shirt (although I don't know if it was
> official 'Smithdom' or not), "All of us are born in the gutter, but
> some of us are looking at the stars?"
> Stars: the film personalities you mention. Rightly so, they were and are a
> big part of his life. Let's forget for a moment that a number of them,
> such as James Dean and Dick Davalos, were American. His favorite films
> were the post-war British variety, the ones where Cockney accents were
> finally permitted, for instance, and the awful squalor of life was allowed
> onscreen. The term, I think, is "bedsit" or "kitchen
> sink" dramas. Shelagh Delaney's "A Taste of Honey"-- and I
> dare you to try and convince me or anyone that there is a work of art that
> has had a greater influence on Morrissey-- begins thus: "The stage
> represents a comfortless flat in Manchester and the sreet outside. Jazz
> music. Enter HELEN, a semi-whore, and her daughter, JO. They are loaded
> with baggage." You mentioned some "trashy whores" coming to
> the L.A. gigs-- I'll bet one, or many of them, might have been a heroine
> in a Shelagh Delaney play.
> I'm not telling you anything you don't know. What I submit to you is that
> you are completely failing to see the correspondence between the England
> that Morrissey loved and the Latino culture here in L.A. In 2002, isn't it
> possible that play could open like this? "The stage represents a
> comfortless flat in Echo Park and the sreet outside. Hip-hop music. Enter
> MARIA, a semi-whore, and her daughter, SILVIA. They are loaded with
> baggage." What's the difference?
> I'll tell you the difference-- these are "dirty Mexicans" here.
> They're not clean-cut white folks who are nobly struggling through life in
> order to prove a point about art. They don't have a sub-genre of films
> dedicated to them that achieved some cult and even some mainstream
> success. They don't have an Albert Finney or Criterion DVDs or literary
> movements that warrant capitals ("Angry Young Men"). In short,
> Morrissey's heroes are cool because they're English-- they're white--
> while kids from roughly the same background here in L.A. are dirty, nasty,
> and beneath contempt-- because they're not white.
> That's disgusting. And your attitude is writ large on nearly every post
> you've made on this board.
> You might say that Morrissey would have reviled Mexicans back in '84.
> You're probably right. The Smiths-- as I have argued elsewhere-- are much
> bigger than Morrissey. Just because Morrissey was narrow-minded doesn't
> rule out the universal applicability of his ideas. Nor does it rule out
> self-contradiction. Whatever his inconsistencies, the concepts upon which
> The Smiths were founded, which he and Johnny talked about endlessly, are
> extraordinarily egalitarian. That his Mexican audience seems out of place
> listening to his records is a failure of imagination on your part-- I
> suspect Morrissey, although he was slow to do so, probably made the
> connection himself after awhile, which is why he caters to his Mexican
> audience now. Why can't you do the same?
> Right. Morrissey hated Americans. "Diseased orangutans is a bit
> extreme. I'm sure they're a couple of steps up from that." Which is
> why you consistently bring up the fact that you have ties to England,
> yeah? Which is why you mention that you knew Morrissey, that you'd gone
> shopping with him, yeah? If Morrissey is indeed shallow; if, as you seem
> to say, he accepted you even though you were American; then it seems to me
> that what you're saying is that-- miraculously!-- the limits of his
> affections extend only to you and no further. How convenient for you! And
> how arbitrary and ill-reasoned it makes your arguments look.
> Yes, it *was* about Mexicans. It was about anyone who was excluded and
> spat upon. It was for the downtrodden and the historically persecuted. How
> the hell could Morrissey worship an outsider-- a gay Irishman living in
> fin de seicle London for Christ's sake-- and not identify with outsiders
> of all races, genders, and types? Sure, the issue of Mexicans didn't come
> up-- why would they? Morrissey was stuck on a tiny little island in the
> North Sea. Once he got out and explored the world-- like any normal human
> being-- his vision was expanded and refined. You've traveled-- why haven't
> you done the same?
> I think you're being terribly naive about the ramifications of your
> arguments. What you're saying is that there is a certain type of fan-- The
> Smiths fan in the 1980s-- who should attend his concerts, and a certain
> type of fan-- people of other colors-- who shouldn't. Along the way, you
> throw in a copious amount of insulting racial epithets which make it very
> clear who you hate and why.
> Let me ask you-- why is it you stick the tag "Latino" or
> "Mexican" on nearly every description you use of, say, the
> people who attended the Hollywood Palladium gig (I was there too, by the
> way)? Sure, no one likes homophobes or whores, or chicks who don't know
> how to use make-up, but you never failed to add that they were Mexican.
> Why is that? Surely we all despise filth and degradation, so why shouldn't
> your handle be "Last Clean Fan"? Why isn't the primary theme of
> your posts personal hygeine, say, or morality?
> The answer is simple: you made it a case of white versus brown. You versus
> them. Older fans versus newer. This is why you are racist, despite the
> fact that you cling to that miserable rationalization "Morrissey is
> an elitist". There's no elitism in pop music. Period. It's impossible
> by definition. Morrissey knows that. The truth is, the number of human
> beings that Morrissey would find acceptable would barely fill a toll
> booth. He is a classic misanthrope. Oh, sure, he's forgiven-- after all,
> he hates humanity not because they're awful but because, damn it, he loves
> them so much they can only disappoint him. Fair enough, Moz.
> There's a paradox about being a Smiths fan that is very similar to
> Morrissey's being a Wilde fan. Morrissey wouldn't give us the time of day,
> and Wilde wouldn't give Morrissey the time of day (not even as rough
> trade). I'm not talking about politeness-- signing autographs-- I'm
> talking about really liking someone. Yet we love The Smiths, and Morrissey
> loves Wilde-- why is that? Simply because each strikes a bargain with
> those who love him. They love the worship, and we love worshipping them,
> and neither side is about to ruin the deal. Whatever Morrissey's private
> thoughts are about this new infusion of working-class fans, he exists as a
> public man, and therefore he cannot exclude them. Just as, whatever Wilde
> would have thought privately about a rail-thin moper from the grim North
> of England, he would gladly have shown enough politeness to ensure that
> Morrissey would fork over the dough for a ticket to "Earnest".
> Here we get to the crux of my argument, which I've made elsewhere but
> which I'll reprise again. Morrissey's private limitations do not translate
> to The Smiths, and, I feel, do not necessarily translate to the
> relationship he has with his fans. You know how I feel? He doesn't love
> us. He puts up with us. His personal history is littered with failed,
> broken relationships. He's a lonely, solitary man and in some twisted way
> he likes it like that. But he understands that pop music is for the
> masses, and The Smiths were all about the masses. To some degree his solo
> work is, as well, all though much less so. The bottom line is, there's no
> way a man can make pop records and be elitist *as a public figure*. I
> don't give a damn if you cornered Morrissey in Ralph's tomorrow and got
> him to admit, in a hushed whisper, that he secretly loathes Mexicans.
> That's neither here nor there. He makes the records, he does the tours, he
> welcomes his audience whether they're black, white, or brown. That's the
> truce he strikes with all those messy people who make his life possible.
> Now, all this speculation about Morrissey is just that-- speculation. But
> the issue you brought up is one of public importance: who, exactly, should
> comprise Morrissey's audience. The answer, obviously, is
> "everyone". That's what pop music is all about-- that's what the
> bargain entails.
> And yet this speculation can have a serious impact on the fans. And
> certainly it can have a tremendously negative impact on The Smiths, which,
> again, for the seven hundred and nineteenth time, were much bigger than
> just Morrissey. Morrissey may equal The Smiths, but The Smiths do not
> equal Morrissey. We don't have a relationship with the man (well, sorry,
> you do), we have something far more important. We have a relationship with
> the music. Therefore, it's outrageous to think that you, or I, or anyone
> should dictate what his audience should be like, or even bellyache about
> it on an Internet forum, as you've done. If I'm sensitive to all this,
> it's because I've had to deal with this kind of crap for well over fifteen
> years of being a Smiths apostle.
> The Smiths were (and still are) for everybody. They were possibly more
> accepting of all types of people than any other artist in history, right
> up there with all the bleeding hearts like John Lennon or Bono. Hell, they
> were probably more inclusive than the usual standardbearers of
> "unity" like Bob Marley. Fox In The Snow called Johnny's comment
> "banal"-- damn right! And beautifully so!
> No one can complain if you call out the racists, the homophobes, the thugs
> who come to the shows. Go ahead and lament the presence of those people in
> the audience. As I see it, maybe they're the people who *should* be going
> to these gigs, rather than a pack of mealy-mouthed suburban zombies who
> want to be mollycoddled and reassured that yes, thank God, they are, after
> all, very depressed and put-upon and isn't life a gas because of their
> heroic resistance to corporate tyranny. But don't make it a racial issue,
> and do not attempt to use an ill-conceived notion of The Smiths to back up
> your terrifyingly transparent bigotry.
> Elitism in pop music-- what a joke!
> That's true, but that's not the whole truth. Johnny has gone on record in
> the past-- I have it on VHS-- that he broke up The Smiths to preserve them
> intact. As he says it, "When we were on top, when we'd peaked, when
> we made the best record we were gonna make". Now, sure, that was
> partially spin control-- "I wasn't forced out of The Smiths, I left
> on my own". I do not think that was the sole reason. But it was one
> of the reasons, and a very important one.
> Whatever his reasons, the critical reputation a band enjoys is often
> greatly impacted by the sort of fans you run into on the street (or, these
> days, on the Internet). For example, most of us haven't heard much of the
> Grateful Dead's music (no complaints from me), but we feel we know what
> the band is all about from the sort of people who like them. So while we
> can't bring The Smiths back, we can certainly negatively affect their
> reputation with all this racist nonsense. Like I said, I wouldn't care if
> you, LWF, were an isolated case, but you're not. People like you have
> always made life difficult for the more reasonable, fair-minded-- and
> considerably larger portion-- of The Smiths' fan base.
> Considering how steadfast you are in your positions, LWF, I would make a
> genuinely sincere suggestion-- sit down and sort out what your attitude is
> toward Morrissey's Mexican audience. You seem to acknowledge that racism
> is bad. But it is apparent to those of us who have given a great deal of
> thought to this subject that you, unfortunately, are a racist. My advice
> is to decide whether you are or aren't, because all this dilly-dallying
> talk of "elitism, not racism" makes you appear confused rather
> than cogent.
> I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I'm not trying to be P.C.-- I
> loathe P.C. But, personally, I can't remain silent while you publicly
> slander something which is so much more than just a band to me.
> Interpreting The Smiths can be very difficult, but when you add up all the
> fragments they have a firm and wonderful consistency with all the highest,
> noblest, and most commonly held ideals of popular culture. If you can't
> see that, I recommend you check your math.
