Song/Lyric Meanings...

[Danny]

He was 17 when his parents split. Not exactly a child. So that doesn't explain why he was 'brought up by the mother's side of the family''.

Yes it does. Their marriage obviously was on the rocks for years. They divorced when Morrissey was 17, we don't know when they split up or whether they might have had a few splits. Also, all working class families tend to spend more time with the mother's in-laws. When women have babies they tend to get closer to their mothers, even if it's just to use as a babysitter.

I have - those interviews from Les Inrockuptibles and Word, for instance. If your impression is that Morrissey is not insufficiently close to his father (even the opposite?!), OK, that's your impression, although I really don't see how you came to that conclusion. Of course, you might say that it's usual for the majority of men, or the majority of working-class men not to be particularly close to their fathers... in which case, I would have to ask, maybe the majority of men are not close enough to their fathers?

The majority of men aren't as close to their fathers. It's the most problematic of family relationships probably because of high expectations and competition. But none of those quotes tell us Morrissey wasn't close to his father.

He got the some of the photos from them. The point I was making was, his father was interviewed for the book, but Morrissey had no idea, even though he was adamant that his family should not participate in it, isn't that strange? Unless he didn't have much contact with his father.

How do you know Morrissey didn't know? Rogan's way of contacting people was to keep ringing them up and hassling them until they gave in. Johnny Marr said he used the same tactics on his family, that's why he eventually gave in and gave an interview. How do you know Morrissey's Dad just didn't give a spur of the moment interview over the phone and then told his son later? It obviously wasn't an in-depth interview seeing as nothing about Morrissey was talked about. Morrissey wouldn't have been aware of Rogan's intentions from the beginning so he might not have been able to warn his family in advance.

What?? Do people actually believe that? That's just utter rubbish. (yes, I understand it is not your belief, but you imply that it's a widespread belief?

Yes, it's a widespread cliche/stereotype. Think Kenneth Williams.

There are plenty examples of men who are extremely close to their mothers with the father is being absent... and most of them aren't gay. I don't think that men decide to have sex with other men because their mum was too protective of them, or that they decide they prefer to have sex with women because their dad took them to a lot of football games. P.S. are women who are particularly close to their fathers ('daddy's little girls') supposed to 'turn' into lesbians?!

But any problems in relationship with one's parents will most likely have a hell of a lot of effect on one's adult relationships and emotioanl life (which can manifest itself in different ways). The phenomenon of particularly strong mother-son bonds in the (relative or literal) absence of a father is not exactly an unknown phenomenon, books and articles have been written about it.

Anyway, I don't see how stories of Morrissey's relationships with his parents could be a part of a stereotype of him as a 'gay man'. None of the people who actually knew him, whether in his adolescence or in his adulthood, ever said or implied that they thought he as gay. But quite a few of them have commented on his strong attachment to his mother.

But journalists have decided he is gay. So they impose these stereotypes onto him. They make the person fit the cliche. So he must be too close to his mother. He must always be writing about rough boys (how many songs has he actually done that?), it must be a complete surprise that he is interested in and is good at sport. He only has male fans who are all in love with him. He moved to LA because it has a thriving gay scene. He lives in a "gay" house.

Look at the way they treats artists who have come out as gay. They can't even mention their name without putting "gay" in front of it and if they are not friends with Madonna there's something wrong with them. People have to fit into their boxes.

And I don't see why Johnny Rogan would be eager to prove that Morrissey wasn't close enough to his father if it was just a part of a 'gay man stereotype'. I never got the impression that Rogan believes Morrissey to be gay, and "Severed Alliance" certainly does nothing to suggest that.

Rogan wasn't eager to prove that Morrissey wasn't close to his father. It's other writers that have tried to do that.

All I know is I've never read one disparaging quote from Morrissey about his father. The nearest is some journalist saying he pulled a face when asked about him.

 

[dazzak]

My crazy theory

As for "November Spawned A Monster", I've always thought it had some Wilde influences that, while not integral or central to the song's seemingly simple conceit (Morrissey's musings on the life of a young disabled woman), are interesting nonetheless.

Obviously, there's thematic similarities between "November" and The Birthday Of The Infanta. In fact, I'd guess that Morrissey was perhaps particularly infatuated with this story at the time he wrote "November" - assuming his current Wilde obsession is cyclical - and it was this that spurred him on to emulate his hero and broach the same topic (albeit in a very Morrissey and pop music kind of way).

Also - this is probably an even longer shot - perhaps in keeping with the Wildean theme of the song, Morrissey chose to use another suitable part of Wilde's catalogue as the basis or hook for the song (ie "November Spawned A Monster").

This popped into my head the last time I read The Picture Of Dorian Gray, particularly the beginning of chapter 14, the morning after Gray kills Hallward, as it's only at the beginning of this chapter do we come to know that the events of the previous night occurred in the month of November (something like "the mellow November sun came streaming into the room" is the line). One could argue that it is not Hallward's painting that became the monster on that night (it's the first time, I believe, anyone but Gray has seen the hideousness of the painting, thus making it a truth in one respect - the monster of the painting is truly born), but Gray as he destroys any shred of humanity he had left. Subsequently, you could say the monster of Dorian Gray finally and fully emerges on that fateful November night.

Of course, conversely, there's a very literal, more straightforward explanation in that Dorian Gray was indeed born in the month of November (November 9 to be exact). This takes away from the figurative fun of the former November explanation, but I don't see why they can't work in tandem.

You can then compare how Moz and Wilde approach the subject (ie the conflict between Aestheticism and humanism, the reactions of those around the character etc), but I really couldn't be arsed.

 

[Worm]

"November spawned a monster" is another way of saying "fate" or "genetics" have "spawned a monster". No one is responsible. It underscores the objective inhumanity of how the girl's condition is perceived, as well as why the girl turns to Jesus instead of her mother or father.

But Wilde is always a useful candidate for inspirational sources. Assuming he reads Wilde.

 

[nightandday]

Yes, it's a widespread cliche/stereotype. Think Kenneth Williams.

I don't really know much about him... Actually, I wouldn't even know about him at all if he hadn't been mentioned in articles about Morrissey.

But journalists have decided he is gay. So they impose these stereotypes onto him. They make the person fit the cliche. So he must be too close to his mother. He must always be writing about rough boys (how many songs has he actually done that?), it must be a complete surprise that he is interested in and is good at sport. He only has male fans who are all in love with him. He moved to LA because it has a thriving gay scene. He lives in a "gay" house.

Look at the way they treats artists who have come out as gay. They can't even mention their name without putting "gay" in front of it and if they are not friends with Madonna there's something wrong with them. People have to fit into their boxes.

I agree with everything you said about the journalists' stereotypes, their hypocritical attitudes to homosexuality, as well as the ridiculous 'arguments' they use to prove that he's gay; and, in fact, I've commented on the same thing before quite a few times. I just don't think that any of that is relevant here, because I wasn't basing my opinion on any journalists' speculation, but on testimony by people who knew him, like his schoolfriends or the people who used to work with him. There is enough evidence that he was very close to his mother; whether that is a good or a bad thing is, of course, a matter of anyone's personal opinion.

Rogan wasn't eager to prove that Morrissey wasn't close to his father. It's other writers that have tried to do that.

I never said Rogan was eager to prove that Morrissey wasn't close to his father, I don't actually think he had any particular agenda. But he describes their relationship between them was strained although it manifested itself 'in long silences' rather than any outright conflict and that Morrissey's father found it very hard to understand his son, and there are a few quotes from different people commenting on Morrissey's relationship with his mother, so I assumed you included him in your description of journalists who are supposedly making the theory about Morrissey's relationship with his parents to fit him into some stereotype.

All I know is I've never read one disparaging quote from Morrissey about his father. The nearest is some journalist saying he pulled a face when asked about him.

I never said there was. I wouldn't expect him to slag off his father in public, and if I was to hazard a guess I wouldn't think that he hates or dislikes him or anything, or that there is some kind of big conflict going on between them. But I can't help noticing that he has usually has practically nothing - or even literally nothing, to say about him. He didn't even answer the simple question what his father does (Word interview). I already said that the description of Morrissey's body language (Les Inrockuptibles) could be just the interviewer's interpretation/addition to the story, but the fact still is that Morrissey didn't find anything to say about his father (whereas he did talk about his mother). The impression I get from all this is that there might be some serious lack of contact/communication between them. (That's not the same as family members hating or despising each other and slagging each other in public.)

Of course, none of this is 'hard proof', but really, there can't be one. Unless Morrissey decides to make a statement in an interview - such as, for instance "my father was never there for me" or "I wished I could be closer to my father" or something like that - which really isn't something you would expect from him, or anyone for that matter!! I don't see much of a point in carrying on this debate, which is a bit off-topic anyway. I have an opinion that I've formed based on the available info, and you have a completely different one. Fine. Let's leave it that. There's no need to get that defensive every time this subject is brought up.

 

[Danny]

He very rarely talks about his mother either except when pressed. Hardly ever about his sister. He's talked about his Dad being very proud of his career.

I think he just tries to avoid talking about them altogether. The same way he tries to avoid talking about anything personal.

But what you have to take into account is all the interviews he does are edited by journalists who already have a "story" about Morrissey before they start out. The whole "Morrissey is too close to his mother" theme is much more interesting to journalists interested in him being a stereotypical gay man. So therefore it's more likely they communicate quotes that back up that interpretation and ignore those that don't. This is true of quotes from Morrissey and also from people that might have known him. When you read interviews from anyone you have to be aware there is often an agenda behind what is being presented. I am always suspicious when I see someone being presented as if they fit into a convenient stereotype because real human beings aren't like that.

 

[lilybett]

Sometimes...

I don't think too much about what they mean

I just let the words wash over me

Like this

(I can't believe I'm stealing analogies from painkiller adverts)

And sometimes, especially when I've been drinking or something, I really suprise myself with alternative meanings I come up with

And sometimes, other people's analyses are like little epithanies. And sometimes they make me wanna give them two slaps.

It's endless!

 

[Sunbags]

I thought we had been through all that already on this thread It's well known that his mother was quite involved with her son's career. Morrissey's strong attachment to his mother is something that a number of people that knew him have observed (scroll to post #11 on page 1). Do you believe that all those people (his schoolfriend from St.Mary's, people who worked for Rough Trade, his ex-manager Gail Colson...) were lying?! And Morrissey has, in fact, spoken a few times about his relationship with his parents. Or rather, he's talked about 'parents' and he's talked quite a lot about his mother, and how wonderful she was, and what music she liked (Roxy Music), his mother this his mother that... I don't remember him ever talking much specifically about his father. The only thing he said was that his dad worked as a hospital porter (when he was asked about his father's job in a Smiths interview); and I remember that he was asked once or twice how he got along with his father and how often they saw each other. He answered that, yes, they see each other constantly; does his father follow his career? yes, he has all the records, posters and interviews.

Morrissey says he was brought up by his mother's side of the family. His words.

Word magazine, 2003 http://www.alinkarel.plus.com/smiths/moz2.html pages 5-6

"Your music has often been quite hard on your upbringing. Barbarism Begins At Home is a howl of protest against being beaten, the child in Used To Be A Sweet Boy goes wrong in some unspecified way, Late Night, Maudlin Street is a straightforward attack on the misery of the family home...how does your mum feel about all this?
Early on the music was quite harsh, yes, but that has changed. Generally she likes it, although it is all autobiographical. I did get the clip around the head occasionally, as in the song, but I probably deserved it. I was a very noisy child. I always stood in front of his television, I wouldn't go to bed, and then I discovered music at the age of six and played it loud, continuously, all day from that point onwards. I would sing, non-stop, which must have been unbearable. I was surprised they were so tolerant of me, to be honest.
Is your father still around? Are you like him?
Yes, he is. And yes, I am, in certain respects. Why?
Because your Irishness is coming to the fore. You've written a song called Irish Blood, English Heart, you've started to say "Jaysus", you now pronounce the word "any" to rhyme with "Annie"...
That's interesting. But even when The Smiths recorded Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want there were thousands of letters saying "This is Foster and Allen" or something similar. I've never had a Manchester accent. I've always had a very soft voice and I was raised by my mother's side of the family, who were very Irish. I never sounded Mancunian, for which I thank God every day.
What does your father do?
He does...certain things. Useful things. Let's leave it at that."



And Sunbags has just provided me with another interesting quote (thanks for the interview, Sunbags!) :

Les Inrockuptibles, 1995
http://www.oz.net/~moz/quotes/lesinroc.htm


"Q: Is your incurable sadness the result of your past ?
M: All comes from my past.
Q: Is there a launching factor, a determining event ?
M: Yes... and all the work set about with the psychoanalysts talking about my childhood to reconstruct certain situations. In this, these experiences were successful: they did me much good even if some wounds remain buried deep inside me. I'll certainly need centuries to settle everything.
Q: Can you be more precise about the nature of these events ?
M: There have been several of them.
Q: Things that happened at school ?
M: Yes, at school, but as well and especially at home.
Q: Is the answer to be found in your song Used To Be A Sweet Boy ? One day something went wrong ?
M: That's precisely what the shrinks wanted to find (embarrassed laughter)... Myself, I don't know very well what went wrong. I have difficulty understanding, it's so complex. Even my parents would be unable to explain what went wrong. In the song, these are the parents who speak and deny all responsibility ("I'm not to blame"). To me, though, parents must assume blame: they bring the children up, not the other way around.
Q: Do your parents feel responsible for your constant state of sadness ?
M: It pains my mother a lot. Not that she feels responsible but she's perfectly aware of my state of dissatisfaction. She'd love so much to see me happy and totally fulfilled. Yet, nothing is her fault.
Q: What about your father ?
M: ...(He pulls a wry face, keeps silent and makes a wide gesture of the hand as a signal of defence. Then indicates the microphone on the table shaking his head, unable to speak. Follows an endless silence.)"

Well, I don't know how accurate the journalist's description of Morrissey's behaviour was, but in any case he didn't seem to have anything to say about his father.


And tell me, don't you find this weird (Q interview, September 1992 http://motorcycleaupairboy.com/interviews/1992/isay.htm ) :

"Q: Morrissey & Marr: The Severed Alliance. Have you read it?
Well a friend of mine had a copy and I squinted at it across the room for three days and then curiosity drove me to the index. Just to see who'd blabbed.

Q: Were you shocked?
Certain things shocked me. It's promoted as the definitive story of The Smiths. Of course, the only definitive story of The Smiths is my story, if ever that's told. It seems like he - Johnny Rogan - has interviewed anybody who basically bears a grudge against me. Any of the people who've been close to me over the past decade he has not got near. So I saw more reviews and I felt very sad because they were saying, At last! Here is the truth! The level of information that this person has unearthed! Basically, it's 75 percent blatant lies. The rest is reasonably factual.
I made a statement when the book was published which said, Anybody who buys this book wants their head tested. As far as I can tell, according to sales figures, a lot of people need their heads tested. A lot of people have bought it and, of course, a lot of people will believe it. But I hope, more so, that he dies in a hotel fire.

Q: Presumably you were approached to participate in the book?
Well of course Johnny Rogan has been explaining to the press that he had a conversation with me. I've never met him and no conversation has ever taken place. One night the phone rang and he said, This is J... and I put the phone down. He wrote me a series of letters over a three-year period, all of which I scarcely opened.

Q: Did he approach your mother? The book isn't too flattering about her.
Yes, he did. But she didn't speak to him. He didn't speak to any of my family. He spoke to people on the periphery of the whole thing and he spoke to Johnny Marr. Later, after the interview had taken place, I spoke to Johnny Marr about it and he regretted having done the interview enormously.

Q: Did your mother read it?
No. Suffice to say, if she had such things as a bargepole..."


Rogan "didn't speak to anyone" from Morrissey's family?! If Morrissey had read a page or two, or even Acknowledgements, he would have known that his father, Peter Morrissey, and his paternal aunts, Ann, Ellen and Patricia, were interviewed for the book, and that two of them (Patricia and Ann) received thanks for providing the old photos from the family albums. So, during the time that he was making sure that none of his family (in this case, just the mother's side of the family?) talk to Johnny Rogan, he failed to find out that his father was interviewed for the book?! I have to wonder how often they actually talked to each other?!

I don't really see what proof are you actually looking for that Morrissey was and is much closer to his mother than to his father. Do you expect him to actually say in an interview: "You see, me and my father were never really that close"?!

Thought you could do with this:

Severed Alliance, p.86, newest edition

The easy-going father tried to lighten the tensions in the household with his customary good humour but, by late 1976, the situation was severely strained. Steven sided with his mother during the worst moments; it was a sad time. The underlying tensions are best exemplified by Stevens' acknowledgement that he had not spoken to his father in over six months. A cataclysmic Christmas beckoned.

 

[Dave]

"There is a light" could hardly be about anything other than a passive, nearly adult, person wanting to escape the parental home, and being in love with someone that is not (consciously) aware of their feelings. These feelings cause problems for the person, and I'm not sure the person actually wants to be hit by a 10 ton truck, but I'd say that since the thought even occurs to them, even as a gauge of their feelings, they must be in some distress. At the same time they are happy when they are with the one they love.

I appreciate the other possible interpretations, but I would never see it other than the way I do now. So there.

 

[Sunbags]

He very rarely talks about his mother either except when pressed. Hardly ever about his sister. He's talked about his Dad being very proud of his career.

I think he just tries to avoid talking about them altogether. The same way he tries to avoid talking about anything personal.

But what you have to take into account is all the interviews he does are edited by journalists who already have a "story" about Morrissey before they start out. The whole "Morrissey is too close to his mother" theme is much more interesting to journalists interested in him being a stereotypical gay man. So therefore it's more likely they communicate quotes that back up that interpretation and ignore those that don't. This is true of quotes from Morrissey and also from people that might have known him. When you read interviews from anyone you have to be aware there is often an agenda behind what is being presented. I am always suspicious when I see someone being presented as if they fit into a convenient stereotype because real human beings aren't like that.

As a non-member of the "Journalists are evil brigade", I must point out that by copyright law an interviewer/publication must receive consent from the interviewee to publish the final text of an interview. The interviewee can give consent without actually seeing the final text (proof) of the interview. They can also appoint someone to view the text and hence give the green light (as they say). Once consent is given, the interview becomes the property of the interviewer/publication. This, however, could be contested in a court of law if the interviewee feels that the interviewer has been in breach of certain laws in the process of obtaining the interview.

Of course, copyright law varies from country to country, but generally, if an interviewee requests to see the final text of an interview, the interviewer cannot deny him/her that right.

Obviously Morrissey cannot control the articles Journalists write about him and he cannot stop people giving interviews about him (although I'm sure he'd try). It is just interesting to suppose that the things we see in interviews, are, perhaps, the things Morrissey would like us to see.

 

[Dave]

As a non-member of the "Journalists are evil brigade", I must point out that by copyright law an interviewer/publication must receive consent from the interviewee to publish the final text of an interview. The interviewee can give consent without actually seeing the final text (proof) of the interview. They can also appoint someone to view the text and hence give the green light (as they say). Once consent is given, the interview becomes the property of the interviewer/publication. This, however, could be contested in a court of law if the interviewee feels that the interviewer has been in breach of certain laws in the process of obtaining the interview.

Of course, copyright law varies from country to country, but generally, if an interviewee requests to see the final text of an interview, the interviewer cannot deny him/her that right.

Obviously Morrissey cannot control the articles Journalists write about him and he cannot stop people giving interviews about him (although I'm sure he'd try). It is just interesting to suppose that the things we see in interviews, are, perhaps, the things Morrissey would like us to see.

I think consent is given before the interview takes place. When a few years ago, one famous megalomaniacal rockstar was demanding final approval of interviews before they could be published, some magazines chose not to sign the contract, and did not get the interviews. This was in the US, so I don't know about other countries, but you read pretty regularly about pop stars and others claiming they were misquoted, so I don't think it is common practice anywhere for the subject of the interview to approve the final edit.

 

[Busy Clippers]

I think consent is given before the interview takes place. When a few years ago, one famous megalomaniacal rockstar was demanding final approval of interviews before they could be published, some magazines chose not to sign the contract, and did not get the interviews. This was in the US, so I don't know about other countries, but you read pretty regularly about pop stars and others claiming they were misquoted, so I don't think it is common practice anywhere for the subject of the interview to approve the final edit.

I was a journalist in the U.S. and we never gave anyone the right to approve an article before publication; we never even showed it to them. We didn't always use tape recorders, either. Most subjects were more comfortable when I just took notes, and if I wanted further clarification I would just phone them when writing the story. Never had a problem. The act of speaking with someone who identifies themselves as a reporter implies consent.

 

[Sunbags]

I think consent is given before the interview takes place. When a few years ago, one famous megalomaniacal rockstar was demanding final approval of interviews before they could be published, some magazines chose not to sign the contract, and did not get the interviews. This was in the US, so I don't know about other countries, but you read pretty regularly about pop stars and others claiming they were misquoted, so I don't think it is common practice anywhere for the subject of the interview to approve the final edit.

Do you know the details of that case? When you do an interview, the interviewee has to give consent to being interviewed and for the publication of the interview. I presume this involves a contract. If the interviewer/publication wants to interview you badly enough, they will compromise with you on the terms of the interview (i.e. allowing you to approve publication). I can't imagine Morrissey blindly going into interviews (post-Smiths, anyhow). Maybe that's why he does so few of 'em (and who could blame him). I'm not a lawyer (am practically just a kid), but I love finding out about this stuff.

 

[Sunbags]

I was a journalist in the U.S. and we never gave anyone the right to approve an article before publication; we never even showed it to them. We didn't always use tape recorders, either. Most subjects were more comfortable when I just took notes, and if I wanted further clarification I would just phone them when writing the story. Never had a problem. The act of speaking with someone who identifies themselves as a reporter implies consent.

I do know that, I don't think I made myself clear in the first post. I was trying to say that someone like Morrissey would, in all probability, be able to negotiate the terms of an interview (i.e. copyright and so forth). The average Joe doesn't really get a look in, as you said (but not in those words!)

 

[imogen11]

And Sunbags has just provided me with another interesting quote (thanks for the interview, Sunbags!) :

Les Inrockuptibles, 1995
http://www.oz.net/~moz/quotes/lesinroc.htm


"Q: Is your incurable sadness the result of your past ?
M: All comes from my past.
Q: Is there a launching factor, a determining event ?
M: Yes... and all the work set about with the psychoanalysts talking about my childhood to reconstruct certain situations. In this, these experiences were successful: they did me much good even if some wounds remain buried deep inside me. I'll certainly need centuries to settle everything.
Q: Can you be more precise about the nature of these events ?
M: There have been several of them.
Q: Things that happened at school ?
M: Yes, at school, but as well and especially at home.
Q: Is the answer to be found in your song Used To Be A Sweet Boy ? One day something went wrong ?
M: That's precisely what the shrinks wanted to find (embarrassed laughter.
QUOTE]

Hey thanks for that interview link..I don't recall having read that one. I just gotta say, imagine being Morrissey's psychoanalyst for 6 months. hehe. Jesus...Imagine you were a shrink and you looked up from your desk to greet your new patient and it was..Morrissey! Come to confess his deepest darkest secrets. Awesome.

 

[Dave]

Do you know the details of that case? When you do an interview, the interviewee has to give consent to being interviewed and for the publication of the interview. I presume this involves a contract. If the interviewer/publication wants to interview you badly enough, they will compromise with you on the terms of the interview (i.e. allowing you to approve publication). I can't imagine Morrissey blindly going into interviews (post-Smiths, anyhow). Maybe that's why he does so few of 'em (and who could blame him). I'm not a lawyer (am practically just a kid), but I love finding out about this stuff.

Here's an interview where the contract is discussed. And here's the section of the interview if you don't want to read it all.

The media contract that was put into effect before Guns n' Roses started the tour outraged a lot of journalists who felt that you were trying to control what was printed about the band. And I think that's a legitimate gripe on the part of the press.

Yeah. But I don't think they understood what we were trying to do. We were trying to cut down on our exposure. There is such a thing as overexposure. We were also trying to weed out the assholes from the people who were gonna be cool. You know, if you were willing to put your ass on the line and sign the damn thing, then we pretty much figured you weren't gonna try and screw us. There were people who agreed to sign it and then we told them they didn't have to.

Can you understand why even a reporter who wasn't out to get you would refuse to sign something like that?

I don't know. I guess only if they thought that we wanted everything to look peachy keen.

That's the way it came across, because the contract gave you the right of final approval over everything that was written by anyone who signed it.
I'm not that way. I want the real story. I never wanted "Steven Adler's on vacation." I wanted "Steven Adler's in a f***ing rehab." (Adler, G n' R's former drummer, was fired from the group for excessive drug use.) I wanted the reality. Maybe I'd like it a bit optimistic, but I've always been more into the reality of the situations, because that's what I wanted to read about the band. I can see where it would look like we just wanted everything to be right about us. But it was also trying to find a way to work with certain metal magazines. There are a lot of kids who collect those, and we'd rather they have real stories than bullshit stories. I haven't done an interview with Hit Parader or Circus in three or four years.

You've said you can't trust them to print what you actually say.

Yeah. And it's not that what they print is so bad. It's just that when someone puts corny little words in that you didn't say ... like Slash saying something about "Well, we're gonna just shake it up and see what happens." Slash would never say that, and it made him feel really dorky. Looking back at it and reading it, it may not be that bad. But we know that we would've come off a lot better if it had been what we really said. I think I've got a pretty good track record of not lying.

*********************************************************
I went looking for the contract, but can't find it. At the time Spin magazine printed the contract instead of agreeing to it because they saw the contract as the real story. This earned Bob Guccione, Jr, then editor of Spin magazine a mention on a Guns'N'Roses song.

No one ever wound up in court about this though, and I think that once the existence of the contract was known it was dropped. The contract is worth reading though, and I might even have the old Spin magazine where they printed it. If I find it I'll post it. I just remember that it used language about penalties for breaking the contract and I believe it required journalists to post a $50,000 bond that they would lose if they published somethng the band didn't like. But Axl's mood swung another direction, or he was embarassed when the contract was published and it was dropped. I don't know why I remember things like this, really...

 

[Worm]

There's no contract between interviewer and interviewee. Copyright is not awarded to the interviewee.

Typically editors or fact-checkers will review the stories for accuracy. In most respectable publications they'll contact the person interviewed to make sure quotes attributed to him or her are accurate. Errors are weeded out, and should something defamatory make it through, the interviewee can ask for a public retraction.

Even checked for accuracy, there is a great deal of leeway given to journalists. Direct quotations can be presented out of context, truncated, or become distorted by the writer's style.

Morrissey's complaint about journalists is that they are embellishing, twisting, and in some cases making wild claims about him by mixing a smattering of facts and his own words with the writer's own flawed interpretations. Somehow, between doing the interview and publication, these journalists, intentionally or not, mischaracterize Morrissey. The worst of the bunch, the ones Morrissey had in mind while writing "Journalists Who Lie", are the ones who present themselves as pals writing a puff piece who sneak off and publish a vicious attack.

There is no consent involved, though. It's fair play and both sides know it. The reason Morrissey continues to do interviews is very simple: they make for great publicity at no cost. For all the lies he says have been written about him, he would never, ever trade the great p.r. he's gotten. In spite of its despicable about-face in 1992, the NME has helped him far more than it has hurt him and he knows it. In the heyday of The Smiths the music press probably did more to sell records than Rough Trade's publicity department.

Such is the tradeoff. Morrissey takes his chances like the rest. Telling fans that some writers are out to get him is not unbelievable at all. Once the interview is over, it's basically out of his hands. I suspect he's wanted to take legal action but couldn't because of the grey areas inherent in journalism. For instance, in an article that tries to "out" Morrissey as gay, he probably has no recourse because the quotes used in the article are basically accurate, if stretched a little or emphasized by omission of other quotes. An editor doesn't call to say, "My reporter says you're all but admitting you're a poof because you said you love gay writers exclusively". He says, "My reporter says you told him you like Truman Capote, Tennessee Williams, Oscar Wilde, and Marcel Proust".

Nevertheless, most of the articles written about Morrissey have been fair, it seems to me. They've contained baseless speculation and some silly interpretative turns, but Morrissey, as outspoken as he is, is not an easy person to write about. As nakedly honest as his songs are, there are huge holes in his persona that afford many readings. This discussion board proves the point. I don't think more than a handful of posts ever written here would pass muster as truth in Morrissey's world.

Which isn't the point anyway. As long as people are talking...

 

[Danny]

I never meant Journalists are evil and deliberately go out of their way to misrepresent Morrissey.

What I mean is we all have prejudices and we tend to look for the facts to confirm our prejudices and ignore things that go against what we believe to be true. That's just how the human mind seems to work. Even liberal journalists do this (remember the "perhaps it's a gay thing" about racisim in the NME?).

A journalist might think he/she is giving an honest account of a meeting they had with Morrissey but quite often they are subtly editing the incident to fit with the idea of Morrissey they already had before meeting him. Our first impressions of people are always guided by our previous experience of what we think is their "type". It's only when you get to know someone properly that you realise they don't conform to the type you've allotted them to.

 

[nightandday]

Well, this conversation has now gone in a different direction - an interesting one, I must say, as I could write all day about the stereotypes and silly comments that can be found in many magazine/newspaper articles, about the ways people can misrepresent things, misquote, take statements out of context, etc... but, going back where we started:

But what you have to take into account is all the interviews he does are edited by journalists who already have a "story" about Morrissey before they start out. The whole "Morrissey is too close to his mother" theme is much more interesting to journalists interested in him being a stereotypical gay man. So therefore it's more likely they communicate quotes that back up that interpretation and ignore those that don't. This is true of quotes from Morrissey and also from people that might have known him. When you read interviews from anyone you have to be aware there is often an agenda behind what is being presented. I am always suspicious when I see someone being presented as if they fit into a convenient stereotype because real human beings aren't like that.

The quotes I was referring to are not from an interview, they are from Severed Alliance, and as far as I could see, that book did nothing to present Morrissey as a stereotypical gay man, or as a gay man at all for that matter.

Thought you could do with this:

Severed Alliance, p.86, newest edition

The easy-going father tried to lighten the tensions in the household with his customary good humour but, by late 1976, the situation was severely strained. Steven sided with his mother during the worst moments; it was a sad time. The underlying tensions are best exemplified by Stevens' acknowledgement that he had not spoken to his father in over six months. A cataclysmic Christmas beckoned.

Thank you. Here is more (p. 85-86):

"Peter Morrissey had occasionally puzzled over and almost despaired of understanding a son whose demeanour, attitude and personality often appeared unfathomable. As one of his friends observed: "Steven was one of those hip kids, who dressed funny and hung around with weirdos. Pete didn't like that and wanted him to be more of a man, as he thought." The differences between father and son were probably more nebulous than specific, and tended to manifest themselves in grand silences rather than bitter antagonism. Both father and son were placid personalities. As Peter himself told me: "He never seems to get upset or angry."

The easy-going father tried to lighten the tensions in the household with his customary good humour but, by late 1976, the situation was severely strained. Steven sided with his mother during the worst moments; it was a sad time. The underlying tensions are best exemplified by Steven's acknowledgement that he had not spoken to his father in over six months. A cataclysmic Christmas beckoned."

On a more positive note, it is mentioned (p. 207) that Morrissey's father unexapectedly came to a Smiths gig at Dublin SMX, in November 1984: "The SFX performance was well received, with Peter Morrissey making a surprise appearance backstage. It was a strange experience for Steven, who found himself unexpectedly entertaining his father on the occasion of his mother's 47th birthday."

About Morrissey's relationship with his mother:

"Morrissey always betrayed a strong filial affection for his mother, which even his class-mates noted. Mike Ellis still recalls the first time he saw Mrs Morrissey. "We were 13 and sitting on the grass when she walked by", he remembers. "Steve walked right up to her and gave her a kiss on the lips. That was really unusual. It was a sign of affection that kids of that age just don't do. The last person you want to kiss is your mother, especially in front of your mates. But she was more like an elder brother's girlfriend." " (p. 62)

about her involvement with her son's career:

(at the time when The Smiths were recording their first single: )
"It was at this point that Morrissey's mother appeared at a rehearsal session to check if the group's management was sound. She was sufficiently impressed by Joe Moss's obvious commitments to The Smiths to pen a note which said, "God will thank you for what you're doing for my son." " (p. 160)

"Morrissey's need for preferential care was communicated to his friends and supporters who rallied on his behalf. His protective mother soon became a thorn in the side of Rough Trade employees by audaciously deflecting "urgent" telephone calls. Once, when Geoff Travis himself attempted to coax the off-colour star to a meeting, he received the sharp end of Betty Dwyer's tongue." (p. 187)

Scott Piering (Rough Trade/The Smiths' promotion man & caretaker manager) on one of wannabe managers, Ruth Polski: " "Ruth made every effort to cater to those whims and basically point out how shabbily they were treated - which was, more or less, true! That psychology would attract Morrissey. His mother was constantly telling him the same. Nobody could do anything right for Morrissey, as far as his mother was concerned." (p. 188)

"After taking his leave of Shaw, Morrissey returned to the sanctuary of his mother's house in Manchester. The scheduled gigs in Vienna, Munich, Frankfurt, Cologne and Bremen were now history, although Rough Trade made vain attempts to persuade the elusive star to change his mind. Piering had the onerous task of tracking down Morrissey's but, in the event, failed to bypass his pugnaciously protective mother. The "official representative" was summarily informed that her son was bread and butter and he'd better start treating him with better consideration in the future. As Piering wearily explained: "When The Smiths had unruly audiences, or people stormed the stage or threw something, he'd report all this back to his mother and look for sympathy." (p. 201)

Grant Showbiz (The Smiths' soundman) on the 1987 disagreements within the band concerning management: "Everybody chose sides with The Smiths", he emphasized, "that's just what happened. Morrissey's mother was on Morrissey's side, Johnny's wife was on Johnny's side, Geoff Travis was on Morrissey's side. It just got to the point where it was high school." (p. 276)

 

[Jones]

Well, this conversation has now gone in a different direction - an interesting one, I must say, as I could write all day about the stereotypes and silly comments that can be found in many magazine/newspaper articles, about the ways people can misrepresent things, misquote, take statements out of context, etc... but, going back where we started:


The quotes I was referring to are not from an interview, they are from Severed Alliance, and as far as I could see, that book did nothing to present Morrissey as a stereotypical gay man, or as a gay man at all for that matter.



Thank you. Here is more (p. 85-86):

"Peter Morrissey had occasionally puzzled over and almost despaired of understanding a son whose demeanour, attitude and personality often appeared unfathomable. As one of his friends observed: "Steven was one of those hip kids, who dressed funny and hung around with weirdos. Pete didn't like that and wanted him to be more of a man, as he thought." The differences between father and son were probably more nebulous than specific, and tended to manifest themselves in grand silences rather than bitter antagonism. Both father and son were placid personalities. As Peter himself told me: "He never seems to get upset or angry."

The easy-going father tried to lighten the tensions in the household with his customary good humour but, by late 1976, the situation was severely strained. Steven sided with his mother during the worst moments; it was a sad time. The underlying tensions are best exemplified by Steven's acknowledgement that he had not spoken to his father in over six months. A cataclysmic Christmas beckoned."

On a more positive note, it is mentioned (p. 207) that Morrissey's father unexapectedly came to a Smiths gig at Dublin SMX, in November 1984: "The SFX performance was well received, with Peter Morrissey making a surprise appearance backstage. It was a strange experience for Steven, who found himself unexpectedly entertaining his father on the occasion of his mother's 47th birthday."

About Morrissey's relationship with his mother:

"Morrissey always betrayed a strong filial affection for his mother, which even his class-mates noted. Mike Ellis still recalls the first time he saw Mrs Morrissey. "We were 13 and sitting on the grass when she walked by", he remembers. "Steve walked right up to her and gave her a kiss on the lips. That was really unusual. It was a sign of affection that kids of that age just don't do. The last person you want to kiss is your mother, especially in front of your mates. But she was more like an elder brother's girlfriend." " (p. 62)

about her involvement with her son's career:

(at the time when The Smiths were recording their first single: )
"It was at this point that Morrissey's mother appeared at a rehearsal session to check if the group's management was sound. She was sufficiently impressed by Joe Moss's obvious commitments to The Smiths to pen a note which said, "God will thank you for what you're doing for my son." " (p. 160)

"Morrissey's need for preferential care was communicated to his friends and supporters who rallied on his behalf. His protective mother soon became a thorn in the side of Rough Trade employees by audaciously deflecting "urgent" telephone calls. Once, when Geoff Travis himself attempted to coax the off-colour star to a meeting, he received the sharp end of Betty Dwyer's tongue." (p. 187)

Scott Piering (Rough Trade/The Smiths' promotion man & caretaker manager) on one of wannabe managers, Ruth Polski: " "Ruth made every effort to cater to those whims and basically point out how shabbily they were treated - which was, more or less, true! That psychology would attract Morrissey. His mother was constantly telling him the same. Nobody could do anything right for Morrissey, as far as his mother was concerned." (p. 188)

"After taking his leave of Shaw, Morrissey returned to the sanctuary of his mother's house in Manchester. The scheduled gigs in Vienna, Munich, Frankfurt, Cologne and Bremen were now history, although Rough Trade made vain attempts to persuade the elusive star to change his mind. Piering had the onerous task of tracking down Morrissey's but, in the event, failed to bypass his pugnaciously protective mother. The "official representative" was summarily informed that her son was bread and butter and he'd better start treating him with better consideration in the future. As Piering wearily explained: "When The Smiths had unruly audiences, or people stormed the stage or threw something, he'd report all this back to his mother and look for sympathy." (p. 201)

Grant Showbiz (The Smiths' soundman) on the 1987 disagreements within the band concerning management: "Everybody chose sides with The Smiths", he emphasized, "that's just what happened. Morrissey's mother was on Morrissey's side, Johnny's wife was on Johnny's side, Geoff Travis was on Morrissey's side. It just got to the point where it was high school." (p. 276)

I think you are unwittingly proving the point that people pick out the bits that suit their agenda without even realising you are doing it.

 

[nightandday]

I don't see how Rogan would have got much out of Morrissey's paternal aunts if it's true that he was only close to his mothers side of the family. Journalists like Rogan have a vested interest in persuading us they know more than they do. Yes, Rogan interviewed Peter Morrissey but it was pretty obvious he refused to talk directly about his son, the only quotes that appear in the book are about his life before Morrissey was even born, jobs he had and his footballing career.

The information about Morrissey's childhood, home life etc. (anything not connected to the school) must have come from somewhere, so it seems like someone from the family must have provided some info. I doubt that it was all just from neighbours or whatever. The aunts are among the people credited for providing "photographic/archive material" - which obviously refers to photos from family arhives (most of the photos are credited to 'Morrissey/Courtney family archive', 'Morrissey/Corrigan family archive' or 'Morrissey family archive').

The quotes which are supposed to be from adolescent Morrissey's diary always made me wonder - if that was a genuine diary, who made it available to Rogan?