Heaven knows he's miserable now!! ;-)

[Rich]

Love The Smiths, hate Morrissey.

[SpondonBassed]

I always thought of The Smiths being somewhat limited by their singer.  The instrumental bits were always special.

[Beedster]

10 hours ago, tauzero said:

"I wouldn't want to be on a label that dictates so specifically how their artists should behave - especially when the word 'talent' is notably never mentioned."

Well, there's a reason that talent is never mentioned in association with you...

It's a little recognised fact by the like of Morrissey that in producing a decent album the talent outside of the tracking room significantly outweighs that in it; engineers, producer, sleeve designers, even dare I say label execs/PR/marketing, without any of whom his work would never have seen the light of day. The only trait that tends to be seen at a much higher level in the tracking room is ego 

[spencer.b]

On 18/11/2020 at 14:21, Woodinblack said:

Even the bbc isn't allowed to come up with an opinion without having to add 'but some people think it is reasonable to drown immigrants in the channel' too to balance it out.

 

I agree with the rest of your post about dangerous far right stuff being given oxygen by the media and Morrissey has said some pretty abhorrent stuff but I listen to radio 4 alot and I've never heard anything like what you've mentioned here , got any examples? 

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, spencer.b said:

I listen to radio 4 alot and I've never heard anything like what you've mentioned here , got any examples? 

I haven't listened to radio 4 for a while (news got too depressing and had to stop listening), but although there are a lot more examples of this on BBC1 television channels, Radio 4 is far from immune.  I listened when they had a 'climate debate' between a number of climate scientists talking about man made global warming and the well known climate scientist Nigel Lawson, who was saying there was no evidence of it. Yes, that Nigel Lawson (ex thatcher CoE and Prominant brexiter who then failed to get his french citizenship after we left). Both sides were given equal weigh so they were 'Balanced'.

I hope if you say you have never heard anything like that, you have only just started listening and it has got better, but it was certainly not uncommon back a few years ago.

- edit

Oh yes, here is a bit on that: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/09/bbc-radio-4-broke-impartiality-rules-in-nigel-lawson-climate-change-interview

and I note that they had been done for that previously, but there are other examples of this sort of behaviour. As I said, radio 4 is about the best. BBC1 news is about the worst, 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Woodinblack

[Beedster]

5 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

I haven't listened to radio 4 for a while (news got too depressing and had to stop listening), but although there are a lot more examples of this on BBC1 television channels, Radio 4 is far from immune.  I listened when they had a 'climate debate' between a number of climate scientists talking about man made global warming and the well known climate scientist Nigel Lawson, who was saying there was no evidence of it. Yes, that Nigel Lawson (ex thatcher CoE and Prominant brexiter who then failed to get his french citizenship after we left). Both sides were given equal weigh so they were 'Balanced'.

I hope if you say you have never heard anything like that, you have only just started listening and it has got better, but it was certainly not uncommon back a few years ago.

- edit

Oh yes, here is a bit on that: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/09/bbc-radio-4-broke-impartiality-rules-in-nigel-lawson-climate-change-interview

and I note that they had been done for that previously, but there are other examples of this sort of behaviour. As I said, radio 4 is about the best. BBC1 news is about the worst, 

No such thing as BBC News any more - certainly on TV/web - it's BBC Entertainment/BBC Opinion/BBC Clickbait, shocking what they have become, especially their habit of reporting what people have said on social media as news. The pursuit of 'balanced arguments' often gives the impression that both sides of a debate carry equal weight/credibility, which is so often not the case (one of the worst examples being the mobile phone/'brain cancer' story a few years back that appeared to be a single scientist against the rest of the scientific community, but that single scientist was getting equal air time and therefore altering public opinion without any basis in science), but is something that proponents of various fake news/conspiracy theories etc jump on to advance their agendas, and there are plenty of third sectors who get in on the BBC Opinion game as well.

The BBC appear scared of having a position on so many issues, which suggests very poor editorial leadership; the idea that 'we have to present both sides of an argument', whilst appearing good editorial policy, to my mind represents the failure of editors and journalists to identify which side of the argument is more valid and therefore represents 'news' per se.

[howdenspur]

1 hour ago, Beedster said:

No such thing as BBC News any more - certainly on TV/web - it's BBC Entertainment/BBC Opinion/BBC Clickbait, shocking what they have become, especially their habit of reporting what people have said on social media as news. The pursuit of 'balanced arguments' often gives the impression that both sides of a debate carry equal weight/credibility, which is so often not the case (one of the worst examples being the mobile phone/'brain cancer' story a few years back that appeared to be a single scientist against the rest of the scientific community, but that single scientist was getting equal air time and therefore altering public opinion without any basis in science), but is something that proponents of various fake news/conspiracy theories etc jump on to advance their agendas, and there are plenty of third sectors who get in on the BBC Opinion game as well.

The BBC appear scared of having a position on so many issues, which suggests very poor editorial leadership; the idea that 'we have to present both sides of an argument', whilst appearing good editorial policy, to my mind represents the failure of editors and journalists to identify which side of the argument is more valid and therefore represents 'news' per se.

Agreed re the social media "news" and the spurious balance interviews. There have been plenty of examples of the latter on scientific and even political issues.

[Old Man Riva]

2 hours ago, Beedster said:

No such thing as BBC News any more - certainly on TV/web - it's BBC Entertainment/BBC Opinion/BBC Clickbait, shocking what they have become, especially their habit of reporting what people have said on social media as news. The pursuit of 'balanced arguments' often gives the impression that both sides of a debate carry equal weight/credibility, which is so often not the case (one of the worst examples being the mobile phone/'brain cancer' story a few years back that appeared to be a single scientist against the rest of the scientific community, but that single scientist was getting equal air time and therefore altering public opinion without any basis in science), but is something that proponents of various fake news/conspiracy theories etc jump on to advance their agendas, and there are plenty of third sectors who get in on the BBC Opinion game as well.

The BBC appear scared of having a position on so many issues, which suggests very poor editorial leadership; the idea that 'we have to present both sides of an argument', whilst appearing good editorial policy, to my mind represents the failure of editors and journalists to identify which side of the argument is more valid and therefore represents 'news' per se.

I agree in the most part, but I do have a degree of sympathy for the BBC as I feel their decision making is being dictated in part as a consequence of the seemingly constant attacks and accusations of bias from the Tories and elements of the right wing press.

By attempting to please everyone they end up pleasing no one... 

Here’s a piece from a year ago - and, yes, I am aware that the piece is from a liberal viewpoint!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/17/tories-bbc-line-of-fire-destroy

 

[Beedster]

58 minutes ago, Old Man Riva said:

I agree in the most part, but I do have a degree of sympathy for the BBC as I feel their decision making is being dictated in part as a consequence of the seemingly constant attacks and accusations of bias from the Tories and elements of the right wing press.

By attempting to please everyone they end up pleasing no one... 

Here’s a piece from a year ago - and, yes, I am aware that the piece is from a liberal viewpoint!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/17/tories-bbc-line-of-fire-destroy

 

I don't have sympathy, they're a public broadcaster, perhaps one of the most prestigious in the World, they have a responsibility to defend their core principles, as do other news agencies worldwide on a daily basis, and against far stronger forces that Boris and his gang. It's either weak leadership or strategic, slowly moving towards being just another form of meta social media. If it was another broadcaster it would be much less of a problem, the issue for me is that for many in the UK and elsewhere, the idea that 'If the BBC says it, it must be true' still holds, so when I see them allowing air time to fringe views on news programmes as if those fringe views are a form of news, not simply a reaction to the news, it worries me. Too many of the people on the BBC News are representatives of interest groups who can never be expected to speak in unbiased terms, but are often presented as if they are. I get the 'two sides to every story' thing, but that's where good journalism comes in, weigh the evidence and report the consensus, don't just simply present both sides and let the already biased views of most of the audience become more entrenched as the result. We need a return to the idea of trusted journalists and strong and transparent editorial policy, not simply "Hey, this'll get some clicks, even more if we get this person in as well" 

[Beedster]

Anyway, back to Morrissey

[Dan Dare]

8 minutes ago, Beedster said:

Anyway, back to Morrissey

I think we've pretty well dealt with him. Let's talk about something interesting.

[Beedster]

12 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

I think we've pretty well dealt with him. Let's talk about something interesting.

Morrison? Doors? 

[Lfalex v1.1]

9 minutes ago, Beedster said:

Morrison? Doors? 

Supermarkets and Access portals hold very little interest for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So still significantly more than Morrissey.

[Marvin]

The Smiths were a great band of musicians ruined by Morrissey moaning over the top.

I've always viewed him as one of those terminally irritating schools dweebs who think they're far above, and way cooler, than anyone else, when in fact the opposite is true. 

It's quite telling that some of the 'musicians' held up as being rebellious or cool in their day, have just turned out to be the conspiracy theorist and/or pub bores they were supposed to rebel against.

Perhaps I've been lucky so far, I've never liked Morrissey, Ian Brown, John Lydon, Roger Daltrey... I'm sure there are a few more.

 

As for the BBC, it's been on a downward trajectory  since it had to apologise for Andrew Gilligan's piece for Today on R4. Now it's scared witless of rocking the boat of those in government, whatever the colour of their rosette.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Marvin

[Old Man Riva]

33 minutes ago, Beedster said:

I don't have sympathy, they're a public broadcaster, perhaps one of the most prestigious in the World, they have a responsibility to defend their core principles, as do other news agencies worldwide on a daily basis, and against far stronger forces that Boris and his gang. It's either weak leadership or strategic, slowly moving towards being just another form of meta social media. If it was another broadcaster it would be much less of a problem, the issue for me is that for many in the UK and elsewhere, the idea that 'If the BBC says it, it must be true' still holds, so when I see them allowing air time to fringe views on news programmes as if those fringe views are a form of news, not simply a reaction to the news, it worries me. Too many of the people on the BBC News are representatives of interest groups who can never be expected to speak in unbiased terms, but are often presented as if they are. I get the 'two sides to every story' thing, but that's where good journalism comes in, weigh the evidence and report the consensus, don't just simply present both sides and let the already biased views of most of the audience become more entrenched as the result. We need a return to the idea of trusted journalists and strong and transparent editorial policy, not simply "Hey, this'll get some clicks, even more if we get this person in as well" 

Not saying it’s right at all, and in a perfect world they’d hold their nerve and not be bullied/pander to outside influence, but as I say, given the unrelenting pressure they come under I can see how it’s happened... and therefore do have a degree of sympathy!

Anyway, as you say, back to Morrissey... I once saw a band called Morrissey Mullen. The group didn’t actually feature the Smiths singer in any way shape or form. I didn’t enjoy them at all - not for the fact it wasn’t Morrissey the Smiths singer, it’s just that I found them really boring...

[Lozz196]

1 hour ago, Marvin said:

The Smiths were a great band of musicians ruined by Morrissey moaning over the top.

I've always viewed him as one of those terminally irritating schools dweebs who think they're far above, and way cooler, than anyone else, when in fact the opposite is true. 

It's quite telling that some of the 'musicians' held up as being rebellious or cool in their day, have just turned out to be the conspiracy theorist and/or pub bores they were supposed to rebel against.

Perhaps I've been lucky so far, I've never liked Morrissey, Ian Brown, John Lydon, Roger Daltrey... I'm sure there are a few more.

Good point, my favourite band of all time is The Sex Pistols, but to be honest John Lydon in interviews more often than not gives me the hump. Maybe he is an intellectual but he always seems to be trying to lord it over others that (he considers) are less intelligent than him. 

[PaulWarning]

1 hour ago, Lozz196 said:

Good point, my favourite band of all time is The Sex Pistols, but to be honest John Lydon in interviews more often than not gives me the hump. Maybe he is an intellectual but he always seems to be trying to lord it over others that (he considers) are less intelligent than him. 

yep, the bloke is an arrogant narcissist, which is why he makes a good frontman, the best ones usually are, like Morrissey

[Woodinblack]

I think in the time of the smiths, Morrisey was fairly important to the band just because no-one else sounded that dreary and moaning which contrasted fantastically with the bouncy upbeat music, and if it had been someone else it wouldn't be the same. However, listening to Johnny Marrs album, which he is singing himself, its pretty clear he could have done it all himself, but the group just needed a focus.

Post smiths, it doesn't work - morrisey is not interesting on his own, it was the contrast that was good. So I will say, yes, he was important for a small part of the 80s.

[upside downer]

1 hour ago, Lozz196 said:

Good point, my favourite band of all time is The Sex Pistols, but to be honest John Lydon in interviews more often than not gives me the hump. Maybe he is an intellectual but he always seems to be trying to lord it over others that (he considers) are less intelligent than him. 

I like Lydon but he's certainly got worse over the last few years. Surrounded himself with too many 'yes' men and looks like he has a bit of an issue with alcohol, IMHO.

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, Lozz196 said:

John Lydon in interviews more often than not gives me the hump. Maybe he is an intellectual but he always seems to be trying to lord it over others that (he considers) are less intelligent than him. 

John Lydon always strikes me as someone who thinks he is far smarter than he really is.

A lot of these people forget just how much luck was involved in them being where they are.

[howdenspur]

3 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

I think in the time of the smiths, Morrisey was fairly important to the band just because no-one else sounded that dreary and moaning which contrasted fantastically with the bouncy upbeat music, and if it had been someone else it wouldn't be the same. However, listening to Johnny Marrs album, which he is singing himself, its pretty clear he could have done it all himself, but the group just needed a focus.

Post smiths, it doesn't work - morrisey is not interesting on his own, it was the contrast that was good. So I will say, yes, he was important for a small part of the 80s.

Agreed. I liked the Smiths and I think Morrissey's style and lyrics hit the spot for the time. However, the other members of the band were key to the band's attraction. I've had no desire to listen to his solo stuff from a musical perspective and certainly not as his worldview has become increasingly unpleasant.

[Newfoundfreedom]

Interesting to read people saying how great (musically) The Smith's were. They were just another band that passed me by because I couldn't stand the droaning throat singing vocals. Shame really. I'd like to give them another listen, but I know I'd be lucky to get through a whole song. 

[Old Man Riva]

1 minute ago, Newfoundfreedom said:

Interesting to read people saying how great (musically) The Smith's were. They were just another band that passed me by because I couldn't stand the droaning throat singing vocals. Shame really. I'd like to give them another listen, but I know I'd be lucky to get through a whole song. 

If you did want to give them another listen then I’d always recommend How Soon is Now as a starting/returning point. Marr’s swampy/Bo Diddley riff/playing is top drawer, and the rhythm section tight as. I also think it’s one of the more listenable vocally for non Morrissey fans...

 

[gareth]

“Asked how he felt about  being called a racist, he responded: “If you call someone racist in modern Britain you are telling them that you have run out of words.”

 

“You are shutting the debate down and running off. The word is meaningless now. Everyone ultimately prefers their own race – does this make everyone racist?””

 

“The word “racism” is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything — and demanding evidence makes you a “racist.””

 

Thomas Sowell

[Newfoundfreedom]

2 minutes ago, gareth said:

“Asked how he felt about  being called a racist, he responded: “If you call someone racist in modern Britain you are telling them that you have run out of words.”

 

“You are shutting the debate down and running off. The word is meaningless now. Everyone ultimately prefers their own race – does this make everyone racist?””

 

“The word “racism” is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything — and demanding evidence makes you a “racist.””

 

Thomas Sowell

I can't say I disagree with him in this particular instance. Unfortunately his comments don't come in isolation. I've always found him to be a bit of an abrasive prick. Very fond of his own voice and opinions.