"The Smiths: Better than the Beatles?" - Salon article, interview with Tony Fletcher

The Smiths: Better than the Beatles? by David Daley - Salon

No band captured the tormented teen soul like The Smiths. The author of a new 700-page bio explains why they matter.

The terrific British music writer Tony Fletcher has just published the definitive biography of the group, “A Light That Never Goes Out: The Enduring Saga of The Smiths,” taking almost 700 pages to tell the story of just 70 songs and this essential slice of the 1980s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a great quote, but out of context in the interview - Moz said in 1990 when his solo career had barely begun, and Fletcher makes it sound as though it's some sort of nostalgic comment from 2010 or something. I think it's pretty clear these days that Moz doesn't want to romanticise the Smiths to the detriment of his solo career.

thanks amy, 1990 does add context,
 
Great insight.

I was out by a year - it was 1991. If you want to read the original interview, here it is :):
http://motorcycleaupairboy.com/interviews/1991/wakeme.htm

I thought this snippet was particularly interesting:

"I guess, I feel a complete sense of hopelessness about the demise of The Smiths. I think Johnny was very unhappy that he didn't get an overwhelming degree of attention in the general assessment of The Smiths during their existence. There would be many, many album reviews which scarcely mentioned his name. And I feel that he wanted - that he needed - a stronger platform. He needed to be seen, and that's been his aim since the demise of The Smiths.
But that's only one facet. I also think that The Smiths evolved too quickly, too constantly - it just never stopped. It was all very emotional. Constant recording, constant observation, no guiding light at all, no managerial figures, nobody around the group who could offer a really useful, guiding - almost parental - hand.
"

He seems to have a different view to Fletcher - Fletcher said Johnny was too scared to try again after the Smiths and wanted to hide, Moz thought Johnny left because he wanted more attention and success. Hmmm.
 
Last edited:
Surprised that no-one has mentioned yet the snippet about Morrissey not paying Andy his paltry 10% Smiths royalties. Money really is Morrissey's achille's heal - how many of his relationships have gone down the swanny over the years due to issues over money?

As the years have gone by, I have come to perceive that Morrissey's entire public image is/was 100% fabricated - how can someone supposedly so "sensitive" seemingly not have any care in the world about throwing people like Andy under the bus?
 
To me personally, The Smiths AND the Beatles are the two most musically important UK bands that I have ever heard.I have NEVER been able to fathom why the Stone Roses are held in such high estimation at all...I just don't "get it" myself..I would rather hear an old "Hollies" album than anything by Ian Brown and co....Second coming was( again, to me personally) Utter shite. I used to DJ in a club in Lverpool, ( early 90's) and the Roses were often requested ( WAY more than the Smiths OR Beatles..), and I bought the second coming album in anticipation of their "fans" wanting to hear something from it...nobody ever asked...it was just can you please play "I wanna be adored", as usual.( the same happened with "Suede", I bought their 1st album, as the NME said they were gonna be huge.....but nobody in the ( mainly Studenty-crowd) club gave a damn about them). ( and don't even get me started on PJ Harvey!!!...another waste of my cash that would have been better spent on a kylie minogue or Take that CD...Hey...thats what the hep-cats wanted to hear!!!)
I ended up giving the Second Coming album to an old friend of mine, who liked Led Zeppelin...he kind of "Dug it, Man"... ... Meat is murder and TQID were ground breaking albums at their time, as was Rubber soul, Revolver...and Sgt. Pepper...so, I make that score to be:- Beatles 3, Smiths 2, Roses 1 ( decent single).
 
Last edited:
I think The Smiths output befitted the number of years they were around, both in terms of quantity and maturation. The quality of the songs was extremely high throughout, but they didn't change that much, though Strangeways hinted at new directions.

The Beatles, on the other hand, were around a couple of years longer (in terms of album release years) but it's as if there were decades of maturation, musical exploration and changing group dynamics packed into that period. Yes, the 60s itself was a time of change, but still... I don't think any band will ever emulate a journey like that again. Nor will there be a band like the Stones again, now in their 50th year. In short, it's very hard to compare.

The Smiths' music set the bar extremely high for musical quality and songs that will stand the test of time. No band has reached that high (and especially that often) since. I'm not actually convinced The Smiths would've kept getting better if they had stayed together, but that's something we'll never know...
 
I like the Smiths more.... but without the Beatles you probably wouldn't have the Smiths as we knew them. The Beatles are the Elvis of bands, in that they inspired everything that followed in somewhat or other because there wasn't really anything like the Beatles, before the Beatles. So please show some respect, even if they're not your cup of tea.
 
King Leer you said, "I don't think any band will ever emulate a journey like that again"; and you are partially right, no "band" ever did that, but a man named David Bowie did and he made more of an evolution (I'm talking about 1971 through 1981) and wrote better songs in the distinct genres he worked in.
 
The Beatles are the most overrated band.
Unfortunately you're right but I believe this is because The Beatles are not regarded simply as a great band but as some kind of demi gods.
In my 'umble opinion, they were terrific and came at exactly the right time to change the world but in the final analysis, still just a band with the usual flaws.
To people growing up in the 60's, the Beatles mean more than just the music, similarly with the Smiths and the 80's.
Asking which band is better is the wrong question. (don't ask me what the right question is!)
 
Can't argue. I can't imagine another solo artist ever achieving as impressive a decade. When I watch the 70s performances and interviews it's mesmerizing. But he seems like a completely different human now, as if he shed anything and everything that was interesting.

Morrissey is, for better or worse, the same person. People changed their own worldviews and lifestyles because of Morrissey's words. Bowie's creativity was staggering but didn't change lives (?)

King Leer you said, "I don't think any band will ever emulate a journey like that again"; and you are partially right, no "band" ever did that, but a man named David Bowie did and he made more of an evolution (I'm talking about 1971 through 1981) and wrote better songs in the distinct genres he worked in.
 
Well, as someone who is self-appointed Queen of Everything Beatle, I must admit, I'm a loss for words when it comes to these "who's better" arguments.

I don't want to turn this post into a boring comparative essay. I just want to point out that these two groups have much more in common than they are different; two great English bands, great songwriting, musicianship, engaging personalities, and dynamic positive forces in the pop realm.

But, they came from different eras and the Beatles came first. They pointed out the direction to where pop music needed to go. Everyone else followed and eventually carved out their own paths.

I'm thankful for both the Beatles and the Smiths and I'll leave it at that.
 
Can't argue. I can't imagine another solo artist ever achieving as impressive a decade. When I watch the 70s performances and interviews it's mesmerizing. But he seems like a completely different human now, as if he shed anything and everything that was interesting.

Morrissey is, for better or worse, the same person. People changed their own worldviews and lifestyles because of Morrissey's words. Bowie's creativity was staggering but didn't change lives (?)
Hey King Leer, regarding your comment "People changed their own worldviews and lifestyles because of Morrissey's words", do you really think this is true? I cannot see anything in Moz's lyrics that could change a persons life. Ofcourse there is plenty that one can relate to or find witty or whatever but to change ones lifestyle?
 
Hey King Leer, regarding your comment "People changed their own worldviews and lifestyles because of Morrissey's words", do you really think this is true? I cannot see anything in Moz's lyrics that could change a persons life.
Of course there is plenty that one can relate to or find witty or whatever, but to change ones lifestyle?

You forgot about Meat Is Murder which made many people vegetarians / vegans.
 
Last edited:

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom