posted by davidt on Monday August 13 2001, @10:00AM
Jens writes and sends:

A review of the new Best of by Paul Morley (Uncut 09/01)

Nowhere Fast
The Smiths
The Very Best Of...
WEA
23 tracks, all the singles, plus "Still Ill", Some Girls...", "Stop Me..." and "I Know It's Over"
This compilation says nothing to me about my life as a Smiths fan. A stupid cover, with Charles Hawtrey pointlessly standing in for Morrissey, an annoying order, because someone else thought of it, although thought might be too strong a word, and no inclusion of a tacky badge, which would at least have been sadly funny. The fact that it's apparently digitally remastered might be a selling point, although the tracks still sound like a strange array of 78s sent back from the 22nd century. A digitally recast Smiths is as much an attraction as a coloured Citizen Kane. The glamour of The Smiths resides in the relationship between the songs and the imagination, not the songs and the ear.

The Very Best Of... is Singles (1993) with a few additions. If the idea is to introduce the group, who it cannot be denied were as special as thought, to a bunch of new boys - and the odd girl - not born when The Smiths began to Smith, why not do a Smith-like equivalent of the recent Pet Shop Boys reissues. Something that gets inside the spirit of the group, that doesn't just leech on their magnificence and spew up a lazy juggle of tracks, but that confirms their uniquentess by imagining a unque way of repositioning them. It's always particularly disturbing when original thinkers are processed in such an unoriginal way. A repackage - repackage! - that is treated as a work of art, that represents the songs in an intelligent, celebratory fashion, that doesn't look like some half-hearted cash-in. That could be treated with respect. This thing doesn't even have the budget quality of some old Decca World Of that is truly an introduction because it only costs a fiver.

This thing just goes through the kind of artless anti-romantic emotions that The Smiths loathed. The kind of thinking that leads to a compilation like this is exactly the kind of thinking that stops music like this developing in the first place. The Smiths emerged in the independent sector. After a series of takeovers and buy-outs, their work ends up owned by a big corporation. It's chopped up into pieces again and again. The feeling is this type of music might appeal to fans of Travis and Stereophonics, even though that music is closer to The Bachelors than to The Smiths. They might both use a guitar, but then Don DeLillo and Nick Hornby both use a word processor.

The thing that sums up this thing lies at the end of the press release, which has previously announced that, after The Smiths, bedsit angst was never the same again, which makes you wonder what it was like before The Smiths. It makes you wonder what it's like now. Actually, it makes you wonder what the fuck it is. It then states Warner Strategic Marketing UK has now brought out The Very Best Of The Smiths. It might as well have said that Barclays Bank has now brought out The Very Best Of The Smiths. At least then we might have got our tacky badge and a cheap loan.

Paul Morley
---
scan of article/images
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Well, could it have been put any better?

    Thing is, as much as I hate the idea of this 'best of' (And it really isn't 'the best of' is it...) it means that The Smiths are yet again getting press and there are great pictures published like the one in the article I've just read. It makes me happy anyway.

    Besides, despite the compilation getting a bad review I think the article was a fantastic tribute to the band's work. Good work Paul Morley.
    swallow_on_my_neck <United Kingdom.> -- Monday August 13 2001, @12:13PM (#16782)
    (User #2115 Info)
  • Well finally we have one intelligent journalist out there who really knows how dissapointing it is to see another re-packaging.
    leedoggpimp <[email protected]> -- Monday August 13 2001, @12:41PM (#16786)
    (User #2789 Info | http://www.morrisseymusic.com/)
    True friends stab you in the front.
  • ...about the PSB re-releases. Smiths fans, probably because they're insanely devoted, are easy targets for bullshit re-releases like Best I and II, this piece of crap and that unbelievably skimpy DVD release. Where are the re-released albums??? We're not talking about Frank Zappa here, it would be a fairly easy task. Better yet, wither the box set with a decent book, etc. etc. While their albums seem readily available, the time has come (more than 10+ years since the breakup) for a proper retrospective, promotion, posters, etc. etc.
    Anonymous -- Monday August 13 2001, @01:49PM (#16794)
  • no really ..... what The Smiths need is the boxed set treatment. The four studio albums (in their original UK running order) could be squeezed onto two discs, then have the Troy Tate demos plus some other demos/alternate versions (there must be some) on another disc. Plus a disc for ALL the radio sessions, and then another disc or two full of all the non-LP singles and b-sides. Plue either an unedited "Rank" or a brand new full concert live recording. Plus a nice booklet featuring intelligent writing (Paul Morley, Nick Kent, (gasp) Johnny Rogan or someone similar), and nice big pictures of all the sleeves etc. I think The Smiths really lend themselves to this sort of deluxe treatment ... they paid so much attention to the presentation of their albums and singles, and something like this would be only fitting.

    oh, and according to Beau in the marketplace, Morrissey has a new deal and an album in the can. Anyone know this? Is it true?
    LawrenceM -- Monday August 13 2001, @03:45PM (#16803)
    (User #3228 Info | http://listen.to/orangejuice)
    "I wore my fringe like Roger McGuinn"
  • 1-trying to somehow limit the Smiths/Moz audience("a bunch of new boys - and the odd girl");
    2-comparing The Smiths to other contemporary, albeit lesser, groups (Pet Shop Boys? Are you kidding me?);
    3-comparing The Smiths to the wannabes currently endorsed by record companies (Travis et al);
    3-quoting lines from "Paint a Vulgar Picture"(too obvious these days);
    4-"The thing that sums up this thing";
    5-failing to mention that the Man behind all those songs, Steven Patrick Morrissey, apparently still has no record deal.

    That said, it's a sensible, not unreadable piece of journalism.
    Anonymous -- Monday August 13 2001, @08:30PM (#16827)
  • Why is everybody saying PAUL MORLEY's piece was great? Its very obvious that all he has done is come to this website and written about what you all seem to have agreed with.

    Most haven't even bothered to hear this CD. Why? Because its nothing new & Morrissey/Marr have said they are not happy. Could this be because they're not getting alot of money from this release? You be the judge. Fact is it includes the short "Last Night.." which isn't just a crude cut up version. This is something new & I'm not aware of it being on any of the Hits albums.

    However, I do agree that the cover is poor and does include some amazingly stupid mistakes but If the sound of the record (apparently remastered)seems great does it matter?

    Someone mentioned that it would be great if a box set of the old Smiths albums would be issued with a fab booklet included with maybe write ups from Mr P Morley and Nik Kent!!! I'm sorry but these people have no idea about music writing.

    Nik Kent is infamous for his association with The Pistols (see Fith & The Fury film) and his putdowns of the then unknown "and going nowhere" Mr Adam Ant.

    And that leaves Paul Morley. The man who wrote that fantastic piece. Can I just quote a little of what he said:

    " A stupid cover, with Charles Hawtrey pointlessly standing in for Morrissey.."

    I'm sorry; I don't seem to have many Smiths records with Mozza on the front??

    DaveC.
    Anonymous -- Sunday August 19 2001, @05:34PM (#17286)


[ home | terms of service ]