The Guardian: Johnny Marr - "You ask the questions" (February 6, 2022)

J'en ai marre?

Johnny Marr: ‘When I play Smiths songs I experience this huge wave of elation’

Particularly liked Bernard Butler's question...



Excerpt:
Did the Smiths ever fall out over football or politics?
Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester

We never discussed football so that’s that. And we never fell out over politics, but we probably would now.

Morrissey’s recent political views have cast a shadow over the Smiths for me – reaching back into the past and tainting something that was very important to me. I’m so disappointed in him. Has it impacted how you feel about the Smiths or are you able to separate the past from the present, the band from the man? I find it very difficult to do so.
Johnny Spence, Northern Ireland

It hasn’t impacted how I feel about the Smiths. That’s all I can say about that. I’m certainly able to separate the past from the present. I don’t know whether you can separate the band from the man, but I can separate myself from the man and what I did, so when I do see how disappointed people are, it really does make me sad. But it’s completely out of my control. And I can only really do what is in my control. So I play Smiths songs for reasons that I think are real. And over the years I’ve tried to take care of the catalogue and the releases as much as I was able to. As I would have done anyway. So, you know, I see it the way everybody else sees it. I don’t have any answers. And I don’t want to have any answers.

...

We have both had many casual musical flings but one very strong personal bond in our lives. How has your relationship with the wonderful Angie influenced your creativity, and does she have a favourite guitar?
Bernard Butler, musician

I’ll answer the easy bit first: Angie’s always loved Les Pauls. That’s to do with when we first met – she was 14 and I was 15. We were into Johnny Thunders and the Heartbreakers, so she became bit of a Gibson fan. I’ve had a Gold Top guitar for 20-odd years and I think if I’ve ever got rid of that one, she’d leave me. The important thing I can say about my relationship with Angie is that she made me brave at 15, 16. Not only did Angie know me before everybody else knew me, but she knew me before I knew myself. She was there before the Smiths started: it was me and Angie. And then when that whole thing got together, it was me and Angie and Joe Moss [the late manager of the Smiths]. Not only was I with my soulmate, but I was with somebody who was very smart and very talented.
...

Johnny, out of 10 what would you give me for my turn as Mozzer on Celebrity Stars in Their Eyes? [Hill sang This Charming Man.] PS: if you and the fellas ever decide to regroup and his nibs won’t play ball, I still have the wig – and more importantly, the hearing aid.
Harry Hill, comedian

I sort of remember that. I’m going to have to give Harry a solid two out of 10 for that, and he can make of that what he will. As for the offer, I don’t even know what to make of that…!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do think you're reading too much into it. I can understand why (Lettergate has rocked the boat) but yeah... let's not swing to the point where we're actively looking to trip JM up, I think that's a bit far.

Amy, I don't agree with either this view or the post you yourself disagreed with. I don't think their Marr's songs, their Morrissey's. As has been discussed before on this forum, it's the vocal melody and the lyrics that define a song, until those are added it's just music. Marr created the music, Morrissey created the songs.

But let's accept there's an argument that he co-wrote them. Fine. Only what he's claiming here is indisputably, point-blank wrong - he didn't write the songs, he (at best) co-wrote them.

Of course, Marr's not stupid and he knows what he's doing. This is classic Marr, a bitchy, veiled dig at Morrissey wrapped up in an attempt to inflate his own contribution to the group.

He's surrounded by sycophants like the ones who contributed to this interview, and the media who court him, and he's incredibly rich so he can get away with absurd statements like saying he wrote the songs of The Smiths - absurd because his own solo work is testimony to the fact that he demonstrably wasn't the person who wrote/created the songs of The Smiths. The music, yes, but not the songs.

10 years from now, all of Marr's solo work will be languishing in whatever the digital equivalent is of the Woolworth's bargain bin. None of the songs he has written are going to stand the test of time, because they have desperately bad lyrics and unremarkable vocal melodies.
 
He left it way too late to come close to Morrissey's work as simply Johnny Marr, that's just how it is.

He could have started the day after he left The Smiths, and it wouldn't have made any difference. He obviously just doesn't have it in him to be a great singer or lyricist, and as for comparing with Morrissey, who has always been out there in a league of his own as a lyricist, vocalist and performer.... well, absolutely no chance.
 
So being ultra left is fine? Roll on Stalin

Moz is not about to make a spectacle out of himself FFS
whats up with the:handpointright::guardsman::handpointleft: ? is his 🧠 membrane functioning?
poor wretch
hes not right in his mind so much is obvious.🇭🇷>:hammer:
 
He could have started the day after he left The Smiths, and it wouldn't have made any difference. He obviously just doesn't have it in him to be a great singer or lyricist, and as for comparing with Morrissey, who has always been out there in a league of his own as a lyricist, vocalist and performer.... well, absolutely no chance.

I don't think the lyrics would have been close, but all that skill and creativity he put in to collaborating and the fact he would certainly have developed as a singer(he was still young way back then) would have gone in to his own career. There are plenty of brilliant bands that don't come close to the lyrical standard of Morrissey. Morrissey isn't the only way to do things though.
 
He could have started the day after he left The Smiths, and it wouldn't have made any difference. He obviously just doesn't have it in him to be a great singer or lyricist, and as for comparing with Morrissey, who has always been out there in a league of his own as a lyricist, vocalist and performer.... well, absolutely no chance.

Is anyone saying he a great singer or comparing him with Morrissey from a lyrical perspective?
 
Amy, I don't agree with either this view or the post you yourself disagreed with. I don't think their Marr's songs, their Morrissey's. As has been discussed before on this forum, it's the vocal melody and the lyrics that define a song, until those are added it's just music. Marr created the music, Morrissey created the songs.

But let's accept there's an argument that he co-wrote them. Fine. Only what he's claiming here is indisputably, point-blank wrong - he didn't write the songs, he (at best) co-wrote them.

Of course, Marr's not stupid and he knows what he's doing. This is classic Marr, a bitchy, veiled dig at Morrissey wrapped up in an attempt to inflate his own contribution to the group.

He's surrounded by sycophants like the ones who contributed to this interview, and the media who court him, and he's incredibly rich so he can get away with absurd statements like saying he wrote the songs of The Smiths - absurd because his own solo work is testimony to the fact that he demonstrably wasn't the person who wrote/created the songs of The Smiths. The music, yes, but not the songs.

10 years from now, all of Marr's solo work will be languishing in whatever the digital equivalent is of the Woolworth's bargain bin. None of the songs he has written are going to stand the test of time, because they have desperately bad lyrics and unremarkable vocal melodies.
It sounds like you're agreeing with BookishBoy, really. Which is fine - but it's all meaningless semantics to me. Trying to break down something as fantastic as The Smiths into who 'created' the song, who now 'owns' more of the songs, who can lay claim to the legacy etc - is intrinsically wrong to me and makes art into a pissing contest. The Smiths were a partnership of songwriting equals and there is just no argument against that, as far as I'm concerned. For the same reason, I hated this comment in the article - "It felt like you were giving us permission to love these songs again." Absolute crap, fans do not need 'permission' to love the Smiths.

Some people (and I don't mean BB) have an attitude where Johnny Marr merely breathing and continuing to exist is perceived as an insult to Morrissey, because presumably he should have shrivelled and died in '87 when he left. If you want to look at everything he says and does in that light, it's up to you, but I think it's madness.
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you're agreeing with BookishBoy, really. Which is fine - but it's all meaningless semantics to me. Trying to break down The Smiths into who 'created' the song, who now 'owns' more of the songs, who can lay claim to the legacy etc - is intrinsically wrong to me and makes art into a pissing contest.

The Smiths were a partnership of songwriting equals and there is just no argument against that, as far as I'm concerned. For the same reason, I hated this comment from the fan - "It felt like you were giving us permission to love these songs again." Absolute crap, fans do not need 'permission' to love the Smiths.

Some people (and I don't mean BB) have this attitude that Johnny Marr merely breathing and continuing to exist is an insult to Morrissey, because he presumably he should have shrivelled into a husk in '87 and never emerged. If you want to look at everything he says and does in that light, it's up to you.

Yeh, i didn't even like M&M for stiffing Rourke and Joyce, the Smiths was a band to me and they contributed as well, none of them on their own would have created that body of work. Marr had other partnerships lined up but those two coming together had the magic that pushed them onwards. I was focused on Morrissey like 90% of peole were, but those musical flourishes by all the band members were just as important really.

Song=recording to me.
 
It sounds like you're agreeing with BookishBoy, really. Which is fine - but it's all meaningless semantics to me. Trying to break down something as fantastic as The Smiths into who 'created' the song, who now 'owns' more of the songs, who can lay claim to the legacy etc - is intrinsically wrong to me and makes art into a pissing contest. The Smiths were a partnership of songwriting equals and there is just no argument against that, as far as I'm concerned. For the same reason, I hated this comment in the article - "It felt like you were giving us permission to love these songs again." Absolute crap, fans do not need 'permission' to love the Smiths.

Some people (and I don't mean BB) have an attitude where Johnny Marr merely breathing and continuing to exist is perceived as an insult to Morrissey, because presumably he should have shrivelled and died in '87 when he left. If you want to look at everything he says and does in that light, it's up to you, but I think it's madness.

I've no objection to Marr breathing and existing. Or playing guitar and composing music. It's his singing and his songwriting I object to.

If you think it's intrinsically wrong to get into who created the songs of The Smiths, then why do you not object to Marr claiming that he wrote those songs? The credits say 'Morrissey/Marr', not 'Marr'.

I agree the notion that Marr is giving us "permission to love these songs again" us utter crap as far as I'm concerned - although true no doubt in the mind of the twat who wrote it, who probably literally needed Marr's permission to love those songs again rather than, oh I don't know, forming his own opinion on the subject.
 
It sounds like you're agreeing with BookishBoy, really. Which is fine - but it's all meaningless semantics to me. Trying to break down something as fantastic as The Smiths into who 'created' the song, who now 'owns' more of the songs, who can lay claim to the legacy etc - is intrinsically wrong to me and makes art into a pissing contest. The Smiths were a partnership of songwriting equals and there is just no argument against that, as far as I'm concerned. For the same reason, I hated this comment in the article - "It felt like you were giving us permission to love these songs again." Absolute crap, fans do not need 'permission' to love the Smiths.

Some people (and I don't mean BB) have an attitude where Johnny Marr merely breathing and continuing to exist is perceived as an insult to Morrissey, because presumably he should have shrivelled and died in '87 when he left. If you want to look at everything he says and does in that light, it's up to you, but I think it's madness.

The thing I find odd is that the people you're referring too are arguing with themselves. I don't think anyone on here has said Marr is a better singer or writer than Morrissey, I don't think anyone has said that Marr has had a more successful career than Morrissey, but some on here feel the need mention Morrissey's strengths and success compared to Marr's very single day, it's like they can't cope with Marr having a bit of success when Morrissey is currently dormant.
 
Morrissey needs to
Morrissey rarely if ever does/says what’s expected, especially if he’s told to, or knows already what the ‘correct thing’ to do is.
You should know this by now. Maladjusted, Years of refusal, these are more than just album titles and words to be dismissed. What others would perceive as his ‘downfall’, Morrissey wears as a badge of honor.


categorically and on-record distance himself from right-wing politics once and for all.
He needs to make a very clear statement with words to the effect of 'in my life I've expressed admiration for a number of people from the full range of political spectrums both left and right,

Funny how the media never pushes the fact that he also championed persons on the left. Though, that would be adding too much balance and would point out Morrissey’s contrary comments that wouldn’t help the media in pushing one angle a dumbed down image (for their readers) of ‘Morrissey as monster’ that they prefer to paint. To paint the full complex and not always perfect reality of Morrissey’s views would take too much work and most importantly would not be clickbait worthy.


but I have these days become exclusively associated with the far-right. I would like to make it abundantly clear that I do not have far-right politics etc.' and ideally include a formal retraction of his support for Anne Waters and For Britain.

I don’t think he considers FB ‘far-right’. Though, others do, so ...


He has publicly stated that ...


1644155758848.jpeg

1644155881415.jpeg

1644156049768.png



He refuses to be pinned down.
And again, like with his sexuality, he refuses to be labeled by others, and so he labels himself, going so far as to having to create new terms that he sees fit to fit him.

Until he does this he will forever be considered, however wrongly, as an intolerant far right w***er with horrible political views.

yes.

The ball is in his court.

but he refuses to play their games.


1644156436161.jpeg
 
When will marr cover ‘there is power in a union’
 
Song=recording to me.

Why? If you do a cover version of 'How Soon Is Now' and you only use the vocal melody and lyrics, is it no longer the song 'How Soon Is Now'? If you use the backing track to 'How Soon Is Now' and you use a different vocal melody and completely different lyrics, is it still the song 'How Soon Is Now?'.
 
No words can describe how sick and tired I am of sensitive snowflakes trying their damndest to make Moz come across as Hitler and talking about how f***ing sad they feel when they listen to the Smiths. For f***’s sake, get over it. Get over yourselves. Get over dedicating your lives to virtue-signaling.
 
He refuses to be pinned down.
And again, like with his sexuality, he refuses to be labeled by others, and so he labels himself, going so far as to having to create new terms that he sees fit to fit him.
"Far forward", "humasexual".. he's fooling absolutely no-one. The fact is, he aligned himself with Far-right scumbags (whether he really agrees with them or not) and then when he was questioned, dug himself deeper into the shit. You can't blame that on anyone else, sorry.
 
The thing I find odd is that the people you're referring too are arguing with themselves. I don't think anyone on here has said Marr is a better singer or writer than Morrissey, I don't think anyone has said that Marr has had a more successful career than Morrissey, but some on here feel the need mention Morrissey's strengths and success compared to Marr's very single day, it's like they can't cope with Marr having a bit of success when Morrissey is currently dormant.

I think you're completely missing the point of the recent debate. If you don't think anyone on here has been claiming Marr is a better singer or writer than Morrissey, then good for you, I don't think anyone has been suggesting or arguing otherwise.

The debate has been about the claim Marr makes in his Guardian interview that the wrote the songs of The Smiths, and whether or not this is a typical Marr-spin in his dealings with the press - inflating his own contributions to the group at the expense of Morrissey's. Which, of course, it is.
 
I've no objection to Marr breathing and existing. Or playing guitar and composing music. It's his singing and his songwriting I object to.

If you think it's intrinsically wrong to get into who created the songs of The Smiths, then why do you not object to Marr claiming that he wrote those songs? The credits say 'Morrissey/Marr', not 'Marr'.

I agree the notion that Marr is giving us "permission to love these songs again" us utter crap as far as I'm concerned - although true no doubt in the mind of the twat who wrote it, who probably literally needed Marr's permission to love those songs again rather than, oh I don't know, forming his own opinion on the subject.
For the same reason I wouldn't get upset with my mother for calling me "daughter" without mentioning I have a Dad, too. It's just obvious and everyone knows it, it doesn't need to be said. Morrissey has previously said "Those songs are more mine than anyone else's", which is far more contentious to my ears. Johnny's comment isn't offensive unless you are seeking to be offended.
 
Last edited:
"Far forward", "humasexual".. he's fooling absolutely no-one.

Is he trying to fool anyone? Or is he simply taking control of his own life, everyone has the right to do this, why not he?


The fact is, he aligned himself with Far-right scumbags (whether he really agrees with them or not)

Yes, but this so-called ‘alignment’
as perceived, should it be used as it has been rather than paint the full picture? As I said in my previous post ...

Funny how the media never pushes the fact that he also championed persons on the left. Though, that would be adding too much balance and would point out Morrissey’s contrary comments that wouldn’t help the media in pushing one angle a dumbed down image (for their readers) of ‘Morrissey as monster’ that they prefer to paint. To paint the full complex and not always perfect reality of Morrissey’s views would take too much work and most importantly would not be clickbait worthy.


and then when he was questioned, dug himself deeper into the shit.
‘dug himself deeper’? Or simply refused to say what was expected of him to say?


You can't blame that on anyone else, sorry.

I’m not blaming. We’re both just stating it as we see it, some will agree, some won’t. Don’t worry, your sure to get some thumbs up for your posts here on solo.

 
Why? If you do a cover version of 'How Soon Is Now' and you only use the vocal melody and lyrics, is it no longer the song 'How Soon Is Now'? If you use the backing track to 'How Soon Is Now' and you use a different vocal melody and completely different lyrics, is it still the song 'How Soon Is Now?'.

Marr is talking about the entire creation, the music that people listened to and fell in love with on Vinyl and on the radio.
You're focused on what is a song, unless i'm getting the wrong end of the stick(which is very possible, lol)
 
Is he trying to fool anyone? Or is he simply taking control of his own life, everyone has the right to do this, why not he?

Yes, but this so-called ‘alignment’
as perceived, should it be used as it has been rather than paint the full picture? As I said in my previous post ...

Funny how the media never pushes the fact that he also championed persons on the left. Though, that would be adding too much balance and would point out Morrissey’s contrary comments that wouldn’t help the media in pushing one angle a dumbed down image (for their readers) of ‘Morrissey as monster’ that they prefer to paint. To paint the full complex and not always perfect reality of Morrissey’s views would take too much work and most importantly would not be clickbait worthy.

‘dug himself deeper’? Or simply refused to say what was expected of him to say?

I’m not blaming. We’re both just stating it as we see it, some will agree, some won’t. Don’t worry, your sure to get some thumbs up for your posts here on solo.
Morrissey had opportunities to clarify his views long before that 'alignment' started to kill his career, and he didn't. Why? Was he just being stubborn? Did he expect everyone to agree with him?

I don't know how anyone can see that deliberate pig-headedness as a badge of honour, or some kind of proud rebellion against the masses. These political 'scandals' have hurt him in every way - personally, financially, commercially. The fact that he hasn't retracted his comments or at least tried to explain them is an unmitigated disaster, leaving the door wipe open for fans to draw their own conclusions and vote with their feet.
 
Tags
johnny marr

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom