The history of the relationship between Morrissey and 'Morrissey-Solo'

[smiler]

Honestly can I proclaim this post complete shite?

As for the 'not getting Morrissey' anymore part, may I be allowed to quote directly from the 'Sing Your Life' fanzine that David co-published back in 1993.

"And a message to those who want to but haven't had the opportunity to meet Morrissey: as he himself said, ......sometimes it's better to cherish your illusions about people you admire than it is to meet them."

Now that little nugget was written some 18 years ago. I would say David has been acutely aware of the 'limitations' of Morrissey's personality for some time now. I would also attest that it shows David has been more than capable of seperating the artist from the art pretty much right from the get go.

I've been a fan since I was 13 back in 1986 and I have to say that with each album and the public pronoucements that precede and follow it the veneer and mystique of Morrissey crumbles slightly more each time. Do I still have enormous respect for the man? Yes undoubtedly, but by no means do I follow him blindly. There seems to be a segmentation of fans that believe that because he once wrote "it's so easy to laugh it's so easy to hate, it takes guts to be gentle and kind" means he can do no wrong. And to criticize Morrissey is in some way to disavow your loyalty to him.

If that's your point of view then so be it. I guess you would say I don't 'get him anymore.'

But then again I'm not sure I want to.

okay then.....fine

but the point you are missing is under your nose "cherish your illusions" was the advice - not all of us have "illusions" - you're illusions were (or are) your own projections and they are individual to you - after all none of us know the real Morrissey - even those that have met him

the 'limitations' you see are not evident to all of us because they are not there, they are shaped by your illusions, - you all sound like children mad at the world because you dropped your icecream - get over it

I can and do critize Morrissey but i also do feel the need to be loyal as a fan i am not ashamed of that

 

[bhops]

okay then.....fine

but the point you are missing is under your nose "cherish your illusions" was the advice - not all of us have "illusions" - you're illusions were (or are) your own projections and they are individual to you - after all none of us know the real Morrissey - even those that have met him

the 'limitations' you see are not evident to all of us because they are not there, they are shaped by your illusions, - you all sound like children mad at the world because you dropped your icecream - get over it

I can and do critize Morrissey but i also do feel the need to be loyal as a fan i am not ashamed of that

Sure I'll admit when I was a 13 year old fan I had illusions, at an impressionable age it's hard not to. But then I grew up.

And is it disappointing to discover your hero's have feet of clay? Yeah again as a youngster it is, but hardly to the point where I'm huddled in a darkened corner rocking back and forth listening to 'Well I Wonder.'

What has surprised me over time is just how nasty and vindictive Morrissey can be. To parapghrase a quote form Uncut magaizine "he's evil in a way that damaged people are." And yeah at 13,14,15 I suppose I didn't quite understand that part of Morrissey, however now being 38 and having seen a bit of the world I get this a lot more now.

I'm not mad at the world nor am I particularly mad at Morrissey. After 25 years of being a fan it's a bit like a marriage that slowly disintegrates over time. You just slowly stop caring.

Simply put, for me Morrissey has ceased to be ace.

I guess I really am like that fan in Rubber Ring, I really did grow up.

 

[Mr Reynolds]

I guess I really am like that fan in Rubber Ring, I really did grow up.

Amy Pond - 'I grew up'

The Doctor - 'Don't worry. I'll soon fix that!'

 

[goinghome]

Is it actually sound to withdraw normal civitilies from someone because they are not exactly as you wanted them to be? How would meting out arbitrary punishment on acquaintances go down in everyday life on discovering that they don't match the ideal you've set them, although they continue being themselves? Wouldn't that be a little absurd and often quickly detected and challenged? The platform artists have is often wasted by lock-jawed popstars...

In the history of this site, several themes and tensions have arisen again and again. Rather than being an expert on Information Technology, in any organisation I've worked for, there have been units dedicated to dealing with decisions on rolling out policies, formats, ongoing changes etc to computerised systems employed by them. These essentials, however, aren't at the heart of the question about regulating material allowed on a fansite like this which is technically efficient.

Blog pages generally give their author the option to filter comments before they are displayed. There are probably many variants in the degree to which site owners can intervene in information handled. Hardly anyone would vote for an over-controlled fansite. Censorship would do nobody a real service. Moderation to a standard observed on similar sites, however, seems to be desired by many visitors indicated by the endless pleas framed in utter frustration and disgust on the main page to get rid of the drivel. The problems with moderators, maybe for some reason a shortage of volunteers, lack of/misunderstanding of/failure to apply guidelines and ground-rules under the TOS, is not transparent. As well as persistent complaints about the excessive tolerance for any quality of comment, repeated over and over down through the years is the recommendation to introduce registration-only use for members due to the perception that most of the harrassment and trolling is done by anonymous users. The resistance to such a move is usually formulated in words to the effect that anonymous posts have sometimes supplied valuable information.

Is a compromise possible? On the one hand, many people would like a visual/trash clear-up by banning anonymous access while on the other hand, a channel for the occasional unnamed messenger is considered to be worth the discomfort and ire suffered by many weary and fleeing witnesses of its abuses. One possibility might involve raising the threshold by requiring all users to register, a very frequent criteria elsewhere for participation, while also opening a new route for stories to be submitted by anonymous users who would post to an area that is private, not for public viewing, where the submission could be quickly assessed by the oversight team for a decision as to its suitability for publishing, which could eliminate most of the junk. Despite the long-standing impression of negligence about what is published, if not diabolic glee in the power to attract and show contributions from people who enjoy expressing unrestricted and mischievous hatred for the artist and art, trying something different might just restore some faith, unless it is too late, that the ethos is well-meaning underneath it all.

 

[Anaesthesine]

What has surprised me over time is just how nasty and vindictive Morrissey can be. To parapghrase a quote form Uncut magaizine "he's evil in a way that damaged people are." And yeah at 13,14,15 I suppose I didn't quite understand that part of Morrissey, however now being 38 and having seen a bit of the world I get this a lot more now.

Interesting, I've not seen that quote before (but I believe it may well be true, if a bit overstated). It is the "damage," of course, that has enabled him to sing so movingly for so long from such a fascinating perspective. The fact that Morrissey has very self-consciously "turned sickness into popular song" is something that I am eternally grateful for. As a matter of fact, it is probably damage more than anything else that has shaped most of the art/literature/music that I love. Not just any damage, mind, but the kind of emotional alienation that prompts a sensitive, intelligent soul to produce something that reaches out and connects with the same troubled part of so many imperfect psyches.

Morrissey's private affairs have never been of much interest to me, but his public pronouncements are indeed an often painful reminder that damage has a lot less charm when not set to music.

Is it actually sound to withdraw normal civitilies from someone because they are not exactly as you wanted them to be? How would meting out arbitrary punishment on acquaintances go down in everyday life on discovering that they don't match the ideal you've set them, although they continue being themselves? Wouldn't that be a little absurd and often quickly detected and challenged? The platform artists have is often wasted by lock-jawed popstars...

Of course, that could apply to disgruntled fans as well as Morrissey himself (who has a tendency to arbitrarily turn on people without a moment's notice). Morrissey goes on being himself, but he has taken a bit of a dark turn: it shows in his music and in his increasingly ill-considered language. I still find enough enjoyment in his art and his remarkable voice to look forward to his live performances and his next musical release (in whatever form that may take). I'm also greatly looking forward to his memoirs, but I can understand how, for a certain segment of his admirers the bloom is not only off the rose, but the entire bush seems to have gone to seed.

Blog pages generally give their author the option to filter comments before they are displayed. There are probably many variants in the degree to which site owners can intervene in information handled. Hardly anyone would vote for an over-controlled fansite. Censorship would do nobody a real service. Moderation to a standard observed on similar sites, however, seems to be desired by many visitors indicated by the endless pleas framed in utter frustration and disgust on the main page to get rid of the drivel. The problems with moderators, maybe for some reason a shortage of volunteers, lack of/misunderstanding of/failure to apply guidelines and ground-rules under the TOS, is not transparent. As well as persistent complaints about the excessive tolerance for any quality of comment, repeated over and over down through the years is the recommendation to introduce registration-only use for members due to the perception that most of the harrassment and trolling is done by anonymous users. The resistance to such a move is usually formulated in words to the effect that anonymous posts have sometimes supplied valuable information.

I've made more than a few pleas of my own over the years to have anonymous comments dropped from this site (or to shut down the front page commentary completely). Davidt's insistence on anonymous posting led me to suspect that there were occasional posts by "insiders" that were worth making everyone wade through all the garbage; I'm increasingly skeptical of that argument (as you point out):

Is a compromise possible? On the one hand, many people would like a visual/trash clear-up by banning anonymous access while on the other hand, a channel for the occasional unnamed messenger is considered to be worth the discomfort and ire suffered by many weary and fleeing witnesses of its abuses. One possibility might involve raising the threshold by requiring all users to register, a very frequent criteria elsewhere for participation, while also opening a new route for stories to be submitted by anonymous users who would post to an area that is private, not for public viewing, where the submission could be quickly assessed by the oversight team for a decision as to its suitability for publishing, which could eliminate most of the junk. Despite the long-standing impression of negligence about what is published, if not diabolic glee in the power to attract and show contributions from people who enjoy expressing unrestricted and mischievous hatred for the artist and art, trying something different might just restore some faith, unless it is too late, that the ethos is well-meaning underneath it all.

I'm beginning to agree with you GH.

 

[Black Cloud]

About that last part - banning anonymous posters - I'd have to come down on the other side of the argument. If you want proof that registration won't stop the nastiness altogether, just look at the forum. I agree that the benefits of anonymous posting outweigh the drawbacks; having to register would probably inhibit some more casual posters and/or those wanting to share inside information, and the community would lose their input, which I value. I posted here irregularly and anonymously for about four years before I registered my first screen name back in 2006, and I have friends who have never registered. For some people, having to go through the hassle of registering just makes them think, "forget it." On an internet that is increasingly regulated I think it's refreshing.

 

[goinghome]

Of course, that could apply to disgruntled fans as well as Morrissey himself (who has a tendency to arbitrarily turn on people without a moment's notice). Morrissey goes on being himself, but he has taken a bit of a dark turn: it shows in his music and in his increasingly ill-considered language. I still find enough enjoyment in his art and his remarkable voice to look forward to his live performances and his next musical release (in whatever form that may take). I'm also greatly looking forward to his memoirs, but I can understand how, for a certain segment of his admirers the bloom is not only off the rose, but the entire bush seems to have gone to seed.

But has he taken a dark turn, when right from 1984 he was being both hailed and reviled for stepping on toes and putting noses out of joint with the same sharp tongue in his big mouth? He acknowledged a few years ago that people go through phases of making him a big part of their lives before moving on and maybe returning later. Something's changed and if not him, in that respect, has the world changed? Communication media have become much more accessible and more permissive, losing former layers of accountability, in particular, and very quickly, The InterWeb. According to one of its biggest offshoots, Wikipedia, "it is estimated that in 1993 the Internet carried only 1% of the information flowing through two-way telecommunication, by 2000 this figure had grown to 51%, and by 2007 more than 97% of all telecommunicated information was carried over the Internet."

Choices can still be exercised, though, in how the interface is managed where tone and function, amongst other things, is set.