The Guardian: "‘An astounding rush of real-time creativity’: 40 years of the Smiths’ Peel Sessions" by Michael Hann (May 31, 2023)

The Guardian has a new article by Michael Hann, celebrating the power of the first Smiths radio sessions.

Not everyone finds it easy to listen to the Smiths now, but those early transmissions were utterly formative for this vital new band and their enraptured fans

full


Full text below:

It’s 40 years this month since anyone bar the attenders at their handful of gigs heard the Smiths. On 13 May 1983, they released their first single, Hand in Glove, on Rough Trade. Then, on 31 May, John Peel broadcast their first session for his BBC Radio 1 show. Before the year was out, they would have recorded one more for him, as well as two for David Jensen. A total of 14 songs were broadcast, all being heard for the first time, apart from a new version of Handsome Devil, the B-side to Hand in Glove.

The Smiths’ radio sessions were as astounding a rush of real-time creativity as pop has witnessed. When they released their first album the following year, only two of its 10 tracks had not previously been recorded for Radio 1. It was those sessions that built up their following so rapidly and so rabidly.

The late David Cavanagh wrote of the sessions, in his Peel biography Good Night and Good Riddance, that they “have given the Smiths so much momentum that an album is almost superfluous. There’s no question that the momentum began with Peel. The Smiths’ universe is at odds with almost everything happening on a cultural or commercial level in Britain’s 80s, and Peel is the arbiter of taste in the alternative society.” (The truth of that was proved by the utter lack of success of another hugely idiosyncratic but gorgeously melodic provincial indie band with an eccentric singer – Peel did not care for Felt and their career went nowhere.)

I didn’t hear Hand in Glove when it was released because I wasn’t yet listening to night-time Radio 1. A few weeks later though, I was: I had noticed that there were often heavy metal bands on Top of the Pops when Peel presented it and I wondered whether he might play any of it on the radio. (I was 13 and fondly imagined that the presenters picked at least some of the acts for Top of the Pops.) He didn’t – not at that point in time, anyway – but on one of the first shows I listened to I heard a repeat of that first Smiths session. I had never heard music that sounded like that before, and I had never heard a singer whose words – in any way at all – actually reflected my life, as a bullied, lonely kid who had no idea how to navigate the world safely, let alone confidently.

Of course, countless kids around the country responded the same way as I did. I wasn’t allowed to stay up until midnight, when Peel finished, so I would go to bed and turn the light off, then plug the headphones into the radio-cassette recorder. I had a handful of C90s that I filled with Peel sessions, one finger poised over the pause button. But it was only with the Smiths’ sessions that I would diligently transcribe the lyrics when I came home from school the next day.

And the songs! Those strange and beautiful songs. Peel described them as “a band with no obvious influences whatsoever”. Well, this is true and yet it’s false. The Smiths sounded like nothing because they sounded like so much: Marr brought Motown and the Stooges and the Patti Smith Group and Bert Jansch and Buffalo Springfield and so many more things into his writing, but because the juxtapositions were so unexpected, they went unheard, and because the influences were filtered through his playing (“fractured yet fluid”, I recall Morrissey calling it in an early interview with Sounds), the Smiths sounded only like the Smiths.

Sometimes the Smiths evolved from their sessions, and sometimes they went backwards. Reel Around the Fountain was one of the latter cases. Recorded for the first Peel session, it was a grave and stately thing, with Marr’s spectral and sparse guitar-playing draped over the song like gauze. A couple of months later they recorded it for Jensen (though this version was not broadcast for two years owing to a tabloid claim that it was a paedophile anthem), and there are acoustic guitars drowning out those spidery lead lines. The following year, on their self-titled debut album, the bassline had changed and it was no longer a strange, misty message from the ether, but a wholly conventional country-pop song. Shame.

This Charming Man, recorded for the second Peel session, underwent the reverse process. Marr wrote the track specifically for the session, trying to create something reminiscent of Rough Trade labelmates Aztec Camera, but with the bass rhythm of the Supremes’ You Can’t Hurry Love (and, of course, it ended up sounding like neither). But that version of This Charming Man is an unopened flower compared to the version released as a single just a few weeks later. For the single version, producer John Porter advised them to change the rhythm from that Motown bounce to a stricter, more rigid style, which foregrounded Andy Rourke’s brilliant bassline, and to introduce the sudden pauses that give the song drama. That’s how fleet-footed the Smiths were at this point: from sketch to one of the decade’s great singles in weeks.

And there were the songs that got away – the sternly empathic This Night Has Opened My Eyes, one of Morrissey’s Shelagh Delaney homages, which was never recorded for Rough Trade. “In a river the colour of lead / Immerse the baby’s head,” he sang, prompting producer Roger Pusey to stop the session to check he wasn’t about to record a song celebrating the drowning of infants.

Each of these songs arrived a few weeks apart. The Smiths were, truly, a teenage semaphore, sending out messages of hope: you are not alone. (Morrissey later remembered how Accept Yourself, recorded for Jensen, prompted a rash of letters from fans thanking him for telling them they were fine as they were). In the conflict zone that is adolescence, the songs were comfort packages. And you could get these joys simply by tuning into Radio 1 of an evening.

I rarely listen to the Smiths these days. I know the songs too well. And too many of them have been coloured by the current views of their singer. But every so often I am taken on the time machine again. In autumn of 2021, I saw Rick Astley singing the songs of the Smiths with the Stockport band Blossoms. My friends and I had thought we would be at the centre of the demographic. In fact, we were among the older people there. The teenage semaphore never stopped communicating. The miracle of the Smiths is too profound to ever truly be overshadowed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think anyone would argue that they would be lesser - but they would be very definitely different.
They would only be considered to be ‘definitely different’ if we at the same time had the English Smiths to compare them to.

Likewise with the artists below.
Artists are infused with the world around them. What would The Velvet Underground have sounded like in a city other than New York? What poems would Baudelaire have written in a city other than Paris?

David Bowie once said in an interview that what British bands do so well is irony. They know that rock and roll is really American and they feel a bit like impostors - so they do irony really well to make up for that. I think that's very true. It's probably true about British humour too. The Smiths did irony really well. As does Moz, of course. It's why so many people never 'got' The Smiths, or 'get' Morrissey.

Yep. But this idea of ‘getting’ The Smiths or Morrissey, may simply be the case of not relating to his art in general, not being turned on and made curious when one first hears that sound, that voice, even before they know what the words are. It’s not for everyone.
 
Though back to the subject of lyrics. I’ve noticed this in my evolving musical tastes, that I needed less and less to understand, to control, by needing to know what the words were, the need for meaning, studying the lyric sheet. I’m thinking that for some, when one is a teenager, that the lyrics are important because they help to sculpt and support one’s identity, building a sense of self and an understanding of their place in the world, for better or worse.

That's true. Take Suffer Little Children. I think it's one of Johnny Marr's most beautiful compositions. As a sixteen-yr-old American, I didn't know about the Moors Murders or who Myra Hindley was when I first heard it. So the subject matter eluded me, but it still resonated as a macabre pastiche. You don't have to know who John or Edward or Lesley-Ann are for the lyrics to spook you: "tonight will be your very last night," "and you'll never see your home again." "You might sleep but you will never dream" is sublime, even if you don't know that it's meant as a curse on a child-killer. It's powerful regardless.

But it can't be ignored that Morrissey was singing about a piece of modern British history that impacted him as child. And when you do know that, the lyrics come more into focus and can be appreciated on a more intimate level. British listeners knew what it was about, even if some of them didn't bother to understand Morrissey's intent.

His cultural preoccupations about England are so often woven into the music and the aesthetic of the Smiths, I don't know how to categorize them without using "British." I've never liked the terms "jingle-jangle" or "indie" for them. For me the Smiths were everything I romanticized about England: literate, acerbic, fey, anachronistic, and eccentric. Morrissey checked off every box of the exoticisms, but at the same time it wasn't a pose: he was so authentic and confrontational. I don't know, I just can't imagine liking the Smiths without any of this. I think it's why Morrissey fans are so particularly obsessive. It's not just the music; it's all the details and minutiae.
 
I'm always amazed when people take such offense at his "subspecies" comment instead of taking offense at the absolutely appallingly cruel treatment of animals in China. One would think any decent person would be way more deeply upset and perturbed by that and not by his comment on it...

Guess it shows how much (how little) most people care about animals.

BTW, no one has said people - you, the writer of the article or whoever - does not have a right to disagree with whatever he says. But that's different from people acting like the holders of some universal truth which is a deadly sin to challenge.
Isn't it possible to be offended by the cruel treatment of animals in China and other countries (it's not like factory farming in the West is an ethical model), and also be offended by Morrissey’s remark, which simply came off as incredibly racist however you try to spin it. It was only about 100 years ago that virulantly racist anti-Chinese laws still were in place in the U.S. and we have also seen a wave of anti-Asian hate crimes in recent years. Morrissey’s clumsy words distracted from his point and added fuel to a dangerous racist fire.
 
That's true. Take Suffer Little Children. I think it's one of Johnny Marr's most beautiful compositions. As a sixteen-yr-old American, I didn't know about the Moors Murders or who Myra Hindley was when I first heard it. So the subject matter eluded me, but it still resonated as a macabre pastiche. You don't have to know who John or Edward or Lesley-Ann are for the lyrics to spook you: "tonight will be your very last night," "and you'll never see your home again." "You might sleep but you will never dream" is sublime, even if you don't know that it's meant as a curse on a child-killer. It's powerful regardless.

But it can't be ignored that Morrissey was singing about a piece of modern British history that impacted him as child. And when you do know that, the lyrics come more into focus and can be appreciated on a more intimate level. British listeners knew what it was about, even if some of them didn't bother to understand Morrissey's intent.
No one’s trying to ignore anything. Actually it goes without saying how important the lyrics are to fans. But more importantly, and rare, I believe, is the subject of his voice. Criminally underrated, not many seem to recognize the value of it, or investigate what and why it does to so many what it does. Maybe things as magical ( yes, magical) as that voice can’t really be put into words. But still.

His cultural preoccupations about England are so often woven into the music and the aesthetic of the Smiths, I don't know how to categorize them without using "British." I've never liked the terms "jingle-jangle" or "indie" for them. For me the Smiths were everything I romanticized about England: literate, acerbic, fey, anachronistic, and eccentric. Morrissey checked off every box of the exoticisms, but at the same time it wasn't a pose: he was so authentic and confrontational. I don't know, I just can't imagine liking the Smiths without any of this. I think it's why Morrissey fans are so particularly obsessive. It's not just the music; it's all the details and minutiae.

Agree, and yes, the craft of bringing that particular culture into song for others to experience it, even second hand, is an art in itself. I guess, if The Smiths/Morrissey didn’t exist, you may have turned to, or would just be left with other musical artists that were skilled ( in their own way) at this, such as, early Stones, Who, The Move, etc. But out of the 60’s bands, I think Ray Davies may have been the best one at putting British culture and everyday observation into pop song.

While some Americans may see British life even the mundane aspects of it as ‘exotic’ brings me to think, from what I’ve read, was the same for some British 60’s artists in how they saw American 50’s culture, early rock’n’ roll, blues, etc as exotic also, and influenced them to create their own version, at least the music and fashion part.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it possible to be offended by the cruel treatment of animals in China and other countries (it's not like factory farming in the West is an ethical model), and also be offended by Morrissey’s remark, which simply came off as incredibly racist however you try to spin it. It was only about 100 years ago that virulantly racist anti-Chinese laws still were in place in the U.S. and we have also seen a wave of anti-Asian hate crimes in recent years. Morrissey’s clumsy words distracted from his point and added fuel to a dangerous racist fire.
"Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies."
...all said in relation to animal welfare and the idea that the cruel treatment of animals makes us less than human. When someone says something 'problematic' or 'controversial' it is best to ask - what was their intention? Was it to 'add fuel to a dangerous racist fire'? No, of course not. And I can't help but feel that your words are more hyperbolic than Morrissey's. Or was his intention to encourage the Chinese government to be more human and more humane? Clearly the latter.
 
"Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies."
...all said in relation to animal welfare and the idea that the cruel treatment of animals makes us less than human. When someone says something 'problematic' or 'controversial' it is best to ask - what was their intention? Was it to 'add fuel to a dangerous racist fire'? No, of course not. And I can't help but feel that your words are more hyperbolic than Morrissey's. Or was his intention to encourage the Chinese government to be more human and more humane? Clearly the latter.
The context doesn't change anything. His statement was the textbook definition of a racist statement. If you don't see that, you have a problem.
 
The context doesn't change anything. His statement was the textbook definition of a racist statement. If you don't see that, you have a problem.
All I see with this, & some of your other posts, is you being deliberately provocative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The context doesn't change anything. His statement was the textbook definition of a racist statement. If you don't see that, you have a problem.
When we treat animals with compassion, we become more human. When we treat animals with cruelty, we become less human. If you don't see that, you have a problem.
 
The context doesn't change anything. His statement was the textbook definition of a racist statement. If you don't see that, you have a problem.

He isn't American & he wasn't in America - so he wasn't adding to your racism problem.

His focus was on the cruelty to animals, his follow up statement makes it clear his issue is the trade & the laws that allow it.

If anyone has seen the horrific and unwatchable footage of the Chinese cat and dog trade – animals skinned alive – then they could not possibly argue in favour of China as a caring nation. There are no animal protection laws in China and this results in the worst animal abuse and cruelty on the planet. It is indefensible. (Morrissey, The Guardian, September 2010)

And if his words are dangerous - then repeating them endlessly for 13 years has done more damage than the one time he said it.
 
Agree, and yes, the craft of bringing that particular culture into song for others to experience it, even second hand, is an art in itself. I guess, if The Smiths/Morrissey didn’t exist, you may have turned to, or would just be left with other musical artists that were skilled ( in their own way) at this, such as, early Stones, Who, The Move, etc. But out of the 60’s bands, I think Ray Davies may have been the best one at putting British culture and everyday observation into pop song.

While some Americans may see British life even the mundane aspects of it as ‘exotic’ brings me to think, from what I’ve read, was the same for some British 60’s artists in how they saw American 50’s culture, early rock’n’ roll, blues, etc as exotic also, and influenced them to create their own version, at least the music and fashion part.

Great insights. We just have different temperaments: you love the unique quality of his voice, which I love too, and it's universal for a ton of people. But for me that voice is inextricable from his parochial concerns. Before I discovered the Smiths, I did like a lot of the British bands you mentioned, and in similar terms of exoticism I also liked R.E.M., who were digging up the odd ghosts of the American South. I think for some us, when we're young and if we're bored with where we are, we dream about other places, and certain artists are able to make it come alive.

But anyway, this all started when a Scottish agitator (who can probably be forgiven, as our legal system here in the states would put it, "by reason of mental disease or defect") labeled the Smiths "an Irish Catholic band." I think we can agree, that's absurd. I mean, points for being clever and for knowing what we all do (that Johnny Marr was born Maher, and they're all of Irish descent) but it's completely off the wall.
 
The context doesn't change anything. His statement was the textbook definition of a racist statement. If you don't see that, you have a problem.
I do struggle with some of the things Morrissey's said but his line about the Chinese has never been one of those. I simply don't see how it fits with any kind of standard definition of racism, for example:

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." (Oxford)

If there's any antagonism going on in that situation, surely it's by the Chinese people towards the animals they're mistreating.
 
Great insights. We just have different temperaments: you love the unique quality of his voice, which I love too, and it's universal for a ton of people. But for me that voice is inextricable from his parochial concerns. Before I discovered the Smiths, I did like a lot of the British bands you mentioned, and in similar terms of exoticism I also liked R.E.M., who were digging up the odd ghosts of the American South. I think for some us, when we're young and if we're bored with where we are, we dream about other places, and certain artists are able to make it come alive.

But anyway, this all started when a Scottish agitator (who can probably be forgiven, as our legal system here in the states would put it, "by reason of mental disease or defect") labeled the Smiths "an Irish Catholic band." I think we can agree, that's absurd. I mean, points for being clever and for knowing what we all do (that Johnny Marr was born Maher, and they're all of Irish descent) but it's completely off the wall.
I do agree that it was the sound of Moz's voice that really struck me when I first heard The Smiths. His voice was a strange combination of the sensuous and soothing - versus the unsettling and disturbing. After that it was Johnny's guitar. And then after that it was the words and the lyrics. But the sound of Moz's voice is totally unique. He's become more of a crooner over the years - but you never forget the first time hearing Moz's voice from those early years with The Smiths.
 
I do struggle with some of the things Morrissey's said but his line about the Chinese has never been one of those. I simply don't see how it fits with any kind of standard definition of racism, for example:

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." (Oxford)

If there's any antagonism going on in that situation, surely it's by the Chinese people towards the animals they're mistreating.
You're missing a key element of racism throughout history. From the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on racism, "The ideology underlying racist practices often assumes that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior."
 
You're missing a key element of racism throughout history. From the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on racism, "The ideology underlying racist practices often assumes that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior."

He hasn't done that either - since he regularly condemns absolutely everyone who is cruel to an animal.
 
Homophobia is 'the' thing - none of the recent stuff matters except that they were delighted because they thought they could retcon it & even if someone busted them on the old lies they could say it didn't matter because he turned out to be a fash anyway.

In 2004 they were bricking it because America Is Not The World was clearly left-wing, Irish Blood made it obvious he was not in fact English - a thing they'd left out of the Madstock article because the far right had been in London that day to attack an Irish Republican march - & All The Lazy Dykes was a terrifying sign he might start talking about being gay which would lead to questions about their 90s coverage.
You're missing a key element of racism throughout history. From the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on racism, "The ideology underlying racist practices often assumes that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior."
Humans aren’t divided into groups that are different in their social behavior?
 
Humans aren’t divided into groups that are different in their social behavior?
"that can be ranked as inferior or superior" is the part that you are choosing to ignore. Do you believe that some racial groups are superior or inferior? And how do you think a Chinese person would feel about Morrissey's comment? I work with Chinese immigrants on a daily basis, so I am particularly attuned to this.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom