Hey Anaesthesine, yup, I think you nailed this thread. I agree totally. You see, although I'm not up on the rivalry betwen the various rivalries between Moz sites, I have seen lots of people getting very upset about this site, claiming posters are unreasonable and hate Morrissey etc. Your post (and many others) appear to me completely fair and well written. Can someone explain the controversy?A valid question.
We've hashed this out before here on Solo, but I haven't had a good whine about it in a while.
It's particularly vexing that Morrissey doesn't reach out to more innovative, interesting performers/musicians. As you have pointed out, there are any number of artists from Morrissey's generation (and a generation before) who are constantly experimenting (often with mixed results). I have nothing but respect for musicians who continue to expand their horizons, even if the resulting music is less than stellar.
I used to think that the problem was stubbornness, or insecurity, or laziness on Morrissey's part. I've come to the conclusion (today at least) that Morrissey finds himself in an unavoidable bind: he is singular, entirely self-possessed, and not open to most outside influence (musical or otherwise). This is both his strength as an icon and his artistic weakness. I do believe that at this late stage of the game he simply cannot change, even if he wanted to.
As for "Years of Refusal," I've spoken to plenty of people who genuinely like it. I think it's a very good album, but it's too dark for me, even though I do relate to much of what he has to say.
As for his latest offerings I try to listen objectively, as if I'd never heard of Morrissey before, as if I didn't know his back story. Some songs, like the dire "The Kid's a Looker" are simply whinging, and not particularly interesting whinging at that. "Art-Hounds" however, is more interesting. If I didn't know who Morrissey was, and I heard that song, I'd want to know/hear more, because he's expressing something intriguing, and in a pleasing, bizarre, artful way. "Action is My Middle Name" is not quite as profound, but it's pretty amusing (especially if you're anywhere near his age). I will also give Morrissey credit for continuing to push his vocals. Again, "Art Hounds" is a real winner in that regard.
All that being said: I agree with folks who want something more acoustic - more piano please, a few strings, less bombast and more reflection. And give Alain Whyte a call - he was very good for you.
Is Morrissey in a massive musical rut?
- Thread starter Peterb
- Start date
Hey Sparklehorse, Good point about Metallica. And christ yeah, people do get very testy. It must be hard work being them.
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
Well Peterb: this forum used to be a lovely place filled with clever, engaging, unselfconsciously earnest, nerdy Moz fans (and I say that with much affection). There were butterflies and rainbows and spontaneous friendships galore. Then came the bannings, and the backbiting, and a few ill-advised, VERY nasty, disrespectful threads that broke the camel's back.
The Nice People mutinied and formed their own site, where most of them still reside (I don't blame them one bit). The Trolls mushroomed here (taking advantage of the dank conditions), and today we have a somewhat moldy, rather slow and distinctly snarky site that is a damp shadow of its former self.
Yes, there are still interesting, thoughtful people here who have persevered, but it ain't like it used to be.
Such silliness.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Qvist: Better a sociopath on the web, than a sociopath in the alley brandishing a butcher's knife. Better they blow off steam "here" than here, I say.
Anaesthesine: Your post was well thought-out and as always I appreciate the nuances of your message, but there's something wrong with the fact that one can no longer defend his music unless one writes a well thought-out, nuanced message explaining why Leonardo Da Vinci insists on producing all his work in Windows Paint and then has the gall to call it a virtue. Admiring Morrissey for having the guts to go down with the ship-- did you get a chuckle out of the latest news about Lou Reed's collaboration with Metallica?-- shouldn't preclude us from noting that the ship is, in fact, going down.
Anaesthesine: Your post was well thought-out and as always I appreciate the nuances of your message, but there's something wrong with the fact that one can no longer defend his music unless one writes a well thought-out, nuanced message explaining why Leonardo Da Vinci insists on producing all his work in Windows Paint and then has the gall to call it a virtue. Admiring Morrissey for having the guts to go down with the ship-- did you get a chuckle out of the latest news about Lou Reed's collaboration with Metallica?-- shouldn't preclude us from noting that the ship is, in fact, going down.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
As I said, I liked your post, but I'd like to mention here that this is sort of a false choice. There's a middle ground between slinging the same old hash and "constantly experimenting". He doesn't need to experiment at all. He doesn't need to expand his horizons, he needs to stop narrowing them to a pinhole. As played out as the basic indie rock template may be, there's still a lot you can do within the confines of guitar-bass-drums-keyboards and solid production in the studio. Would anyone really complain if he just turned his current band loose and said, "Imitate The Smiths" or "Imitate Stephen Street/Vini Reilly"? Or recruited a new band to sound exactly like the old days? I don't think so. Not really. If 90% of his greatness comes down to his words and vocals, then he will instantly elevate any band he plays with from Smiths Tribute Act to, simply, Morrissey's backing band.
Instead he opts for...uh, rudimentary music as if to make some grand point about the purity of his art. Personally I can't respect that choice anymore. It's not artistic bullheadedness, it's a crisis of confidence. If he's as vital an artist as he thinks he is, he will never, ever sound like he's merely a Vegas act regurgitating his own past. As evidence I would point to the fact that most of The Smiths songs he sings in concert sound subtly different than the originals, as if he's somehow reproduced the original perfectly while still making some kind of statement about who he is now, in 2011. He could do the same with 'new' music just as easily. There are 50 guys living right off the L train, right now, who could turn out killer jingly-jangly riffs by the dozen. Unoriginal? Yes, but how is that different than what he's doing anyway? If he wants to be different, why not recruit an ace songwriter like (say) Lonelady with whom to partner? Why not just reform Talulah Gosh as his backing band? Etc etc.
Last edited:
Worm
Taste the diffidence
I adore The Fall and don't disagree with you here, but Smith's spirit is too protean for his own good. There comes a point when doing everything suddenly veers into doing nothing.
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
Anaesthesine: Your post was well thought-out and as always I appreciate the nuances of your message, but there's something wrong with the fact that one can no longer defend his music unless one writes a well thought-out, nuanced message explaining why Leonardo Da Vinci insists on producing all his work in Windows Paint and then has the gall to call it a virtue. Admiring Morrissey for having the guts to go down with the ship-- did you get a chuckle out of the latest news about Lou Reed's collaboration with Metallica?-- shouldn't preclude us from noting that the ship is, in fact, going down.
Blunt.
The ship is listing and taking on water, it's true. The Captain is aware of the problem, and is lashing himself to the mast. Luckily he still has a magnificent voice, some artful venom, and a tune or two left.
Leonardo would probably be experimenting with 3D interactive software by now, and garnering lukewarm reviews.
Lou Reed, Elvis Costello, all the oldies, if they are to survive, must look for higher ground (we're post-hurricane, after all), and they either flop around as fish out of water or do something novel and gain a bit of positive attention before chucking it in completely. Morrissey remains on his island. Or his ship. To ferment in his own magnificent isolation.
What you say is true: there is still much to be done with his current guitar-base-drum-keyboard setup that would yield delightful results. It's not a matter of experimenting or innovating but of going deep and giving up control, which Morrissey refuses to do.
I don't think it's a crisis in confidence. I have no way of knowing, of course, but I think he's simply a closed system. He's still vital (to my ears anyway) - he doesn't sound like Vegas, he sounds like a great vocalist trying to continue a proud legacy of making people feel something, anything, but entertained. I think he's still succeeding, but in a somewhat more malignant way than he has in the past.
Some of those L train hipsters are marvelous - there's wonderful music to be had. But Morrissey seems to be married to this band of brothers. Yes, if he gave the word and went all Stephen Street I don't think anyone would mind one bit, but that is going backwards, it is an admission that it is all over, and he refuses to do so. I think that's a laudable position to take.
Do you really believe that Morrissey sees this band's occasionally plodding bombast as purity?
Worm
Taste the diffidence
"f*** [Insert Villain Du Jour Here]" is artful?
This was always the view I took, but my thinking has changed inasmuch as it's now obvious he can remain in his own magnificent isolation and still turn out quality music. Again, I think it's a false choice between total self-mummification and flailing about experimentally. He's not John Travolta in "The Boy In The Bubble", for heaven's sake.
He doesn't even have to give up control. Kids in their 20s must now enter a rootless, itinerant workforce without any guarantees or protections. In the neoliberal equation, they are simply variables to be inserted here and there-- or cut out altogether-- as the bosses choose. They expect it! Thus, the timing is perfect for him to recruit some of those L train hipsters, talented mimics who would probably consider supporting him as unpaid interns. Gains in artistic stature would be matched by savings in overhead. Doesn't Boz have a family to feed? (Or, what amounts to the same financial consideration, doesn't he have himself to feed?) Stay isolated! Remain a closed system! Give up no control! Hire cheap/free labor!
Musically speaking, is it an admission that it's all over? Depends where you're standing. To hardcore Morrissey fans like us, the evolution of his art is apparent. We know how he's different and we appreciate the way he's grown over the years. But jump in a boat and paddle away-- not even that far away, just a quarter mile or so-- from the island of his magnificent isolation. From that distance it appears he admitted it was over, that he was either running in place or going backward, years ago, perhaps even as far back as "Viva Hate". You're talking about the difference between Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann here. There is a difference, but try telling that to the 36% of Americans who are still sane, looking on in horror.
Sorry, that was needlessly inflammatory.
I think he sees the band's plodding bombast (speaking of inflammatory...) as "pure", yes. A punk rock thing, his take on the spirit of stone-age Ramones rock. I say that because, in fact, I do respect the talents of Boz, Jesse, and the others. He's repressing them. A dull background makes for a vivid foreground. I've believed this ever since the 1991 "Kill Uncle" tour. At the time it was absolutely the right choice. Twenty years on I feel a yawn forming.
Last edited:
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
Are you suggesting that Morrissey become some sort of altruistic post-punk paterfamilias? I can't even conceive of such a thing. That would require a leopard to change its spots utterly and completely.
Musically speaking, is it an admission that it's all over? Depends where you're standing. To hardcore Morrissey fans like us, the evolution of his art is apparent. We know how he's different and we appreciate the way he's grown over the years. But jump in a boat and paddle away-- not even that far away, just a quarter mile or so-- from the island of his magnificent isolation. From that distance it appears he admitted it was over, that he was either running in place or going backward, years ago, perhaps even as far back as "Viva Hate". You're talking about the difference between Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann here. There is a difference, but try telling that to the 36% of Americans who are still sane, looking on in horror.
Sorry, that was needlessly inflammatory.
There's no need to drag the Dominionists into this - let's handle one apocalypse at a time. And there is, in fact, very little functional difference between Perry and Bachmann; Jesus ain't coming back until his Kingdom on Earth is completed, one way or another.
I don't think that Morrissey saw his solo career as an admission that his glory days were in the past - that conclusion was reached by certain members of his audience. No, I think he just kept on going, spinning out one long narrative with whomever he could recruit to back him up. There was no admission I could see that he felt he was winding down until fairly recently.
I also like this band: they're solid, they're thunderous, and they put on a good show. What they lack is artistry, and here you are implying that this is all Morrissey's fault - that he's intentionally sabotaging them to make himself sound better. That's quite a vicious charge.
I missed the Kill Uncle tour, but in the clips I've seen the band does indeed sound quite weak. That may be the fault of the neo-rockabilly sound he was reaching for, however. Oh don't get me started...
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Didn't he more or less do what I described in 1991, when he and Boz put together his band?
Jesus can't come back until He's satisfied we have completely turned our backs on the poor, the needy, and the downtrodden.
Oh, I agree. Morrissey probably felt he was just getting started. I meant only on a musical level. He kept Stephen Street on board and then, with Street and Reilly, did not depart too much from The Smiths' template; heavier use of strings aside, "Viva Hate" could easily have been The Smiths' fifth album. It did continue the narrative as you put it. That's what I mean. He chose not to stray from what worked, hence my assertion that he was implicitly declaring his sound a more or less zero-growth enterprise.
And that takes me back to my point, which is that I don't believe he would be seen as backsliding if he deliberately went to an obvious simulation of The Smiths. If the music for his next single was similar to Marr's bright, jingly-jangly guitar sound, do you think his fans would react in disgust at his nostalgic turn? Or would they wet their pants with glee? Glee. Pee. You know it's true.
'Tis only in the seeming. I stick on the words "intentionally sabotaging". Look back on the anecdotal evidence we have of how he records music. From Marr to Tobias it's basically the same: someone presents him with a rough sound, he takes what he needs, re-shapes it, and lets a producer slap on a coat of pretty. With Marr he probably had less input, since Marr was both more collaborative and a stronger partner on his own, but starting with Stephen Street it sounds as if he simply took backing tracks in demo form, wrote his words, spun his vocal melodies, and threw it in a pie pan and baked it at 400 degrees.
In other words, he takes skeletal songs and re-works them to suit his needs. It's not a question of deliberately sabotaging his music. He trusts his own process, that's all. Do you recall how Stephen Street said he sent demo tapes to Morrissey, thinking they were simply a handful of threadbare tracks to be used as rough markers for a possible album? To his surprise, Morrissey instantly wrote back, saying he wanted to record them. This is the source of the controversy about the authorship of the songs on "Viva Hate". Street says the songs were on that initial tape he sent Morrissey, which Reilly doesn't dispute-- he simply says the tracks were barely "songs" at all, and in the process of finishing them he transformed them so thoroughly they became his own.
From this, and other stories, you can imagine how it goes. Songwriter puts an extremely raw piece of music on tape/CD/file, sends it to Morrissey, Morrissey works his writing magic, and then the song goes through some final changes when they actually perform it in the studio. Morrissey doesn't start off saying, "Send me plodding bombast". They just send him a slab of rock and he sculpts it. And what I'm saying here is, he's not as gifted a sculptor as he thinks, and he works with people who don't challenge him. They don't challenge him not because they're afraid, or because they feel inferior, but because this is the way Morrissey has always worked. I'll bet good Monopoly money every one of his songwriters had different plans for the songs they sent him, and if you asked any of them they'd admit to wishing the songs had been developed more than they were. But the Artist demands absolute unquestioning trust in his own Process, and they give it to him.
Look, I'll simplify my argument. It couldn't be easier to grasp. In fact, the 'secret' has been out in the open for years. Since 1988 he's been recording demo-level songs. Okay? He's plucking green fruit. Forking up uncooked pasta. Serving grape juice and calling it wine. Dancing on wet cement. Must I go on?
They weren't weak, exactly. They were bashy and brassy and hopping with energy. Think early Clash, maybe. I liked them then and still do, because it was the direction he needed to follow. At the time they were perfect. Now the pendulum has swung back and he might do better with a sound that's a little more, I dunno, precise and accomplished? I think Boorer, Tobias, et al are talented enough to supply that sound, but a crucial stage in their own artistic process is either shortened or left out during the creation of the music. Good Monopoly money!
Last edited:
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
Jesus can't come back until He's satisfied we have completely turned our backs on the poor, the needy, and the downtrodden.
Technically, I do believe that Jesus can't come back until we have 1) eradicated homosexuality 2) converted all the Jews and 3) outlawed abortion. That's the Dominionist doctrine, anyway. Destroying the environment and the social safety net is just icing on the cake.
Oh, I agree. Morrissey probably felt he was just getting started. I meant only on a musical level. He kept Stephen Street on board and then, with Street and Reilly, did not depart too much from The Smiths' template; heavier use of strings aside, "Viva Hate" could easily have been The Smiths' fifth album. It did continue the narrative as you put it. That's what I mean. He chose not to stray from what worked, hence my assertion that he was implicitly declaring his sound a more or less zero-growth enterprise.
Yes, "Viva Hate" has always sounded like the last Smiths album, but he moved on from there.
I think he did change his musical forms: "Kill Uncle" is not "Vauxhall" is not "Quarry." True, to someone not quite so, er, obsessed with Morrissey it may seem like a small difference (and production does play a part), but all those changes imply an artist who was not standing still.
'Tis only in the seeming. I stick on the words "intentionally sabotaging". Look back on the anecdotal evidence we have of how he records music. From Marr to Tobias it's basically the same: someone presents him with a rough sound, he takes what he needs, re-shapes it, and lets a producer slap on a coat of pretty. With Marr he probably had less input, since Marr was both more collaborative and a stronger partner on his own, but starting with Stephen Street it sounds as if he simply took backing tracks in demo form, wrote his words, spun his vocal melodies, and threw it in a pie pan and baked it at 400 degrees.
In other words, he takes skeletal songs and re-works them to suit his needs. It's not a question of deliberately sabotaging his music. He trusts his own process, that's all. Do you recall how Stephen Street said he sent demo tapes to Morrissey, thinking they were simply a handful of threadbare tracks to be used as rough markers for a possible album? To his surprise, Morrissey instantly wrote back, saying he wanted to record them. This is the source of the controversy about the authorship of the songs on "Viva Hate". Street says the songs were on that initial tape he sent Morrissey, which Reilly doesn't dispute-- he simply says the tracks were barely "songs" at all, and in the process of finishing them he transformed them so thoroughly they became his own.
From this, and other stories, you can imagine how it goes. Songwriter puts an extremely raw piece of music on tape/CD/file, sends it to Morrissey, Morrissey works his writing magic, and then the song goes through some final changes when they actually perform it in the studio. Morrissey doesn't start off saying, "Send me plodding bombast". They just send him a slab of rock and he sculpts it. And what I'm saying here is, he's not as gifted a sculptor as he thinks, and he works with people who don't challenge him. They don't challenge him not because they're afraid, or because they feel inferior, but because this is the way Morrissey has always worked. I'll bet good Monopoly money every one of his songwriters had different plans for the songs they sent him, and if you asked any of them they'd admit to wishing the songs had been developed more than they were. But the Artist demands absolute unquestioning trust in his own Process, and they give it to him.
Look, I'll simplify my argument. It couldn't be easier to grasp. In fact, the 'secret' has been out in the open for years. Since 1988 he's been recording demo-level songs. Okay? He's plucking green fruit. Forking up uncooked pasta. Serving grape juice and calling it wine. Dancing on wet cement. Must I go on?
That is the problem with his material now: he's not challenged, and he won't be challenged any time soon because he's not going to open himself up to work someone artful. J. Marr was the first and last great one, and he got very, very lucky with Alain.
Yes, his form of collaboration is after-the-fact: he is given tracks and he finishes them to his specs and his specs alone. He cooks that pasta, ferments that grape juice and sets that cement like no one else. J. Marr's stories of crafting Smiths songs are absolutely fascinating for that reason: Marr presented a challenge, but even he didn't hear the song until Morrissey was done with it. There are stories of both Marr and Whyte being a bit miffed with Morrissey's capricious songwriting skills.
I wasn't there, so I cannot judge. They just sounded rather small, and loose, and, yes, full of energy. Charming, but not my cup of tea.
As for your last point - I disagree. Boz does come up with some winning songs (witness the current crop), but Tobias hasn't got that subtlety (Morrissey said something along those lines himself). As for being a more creative band live, if Morrissey really is stifling those impulses, then he's making a big mistake.
Technically, I do believe that Jesus can't come back until we have 1) eradicated homosexuality 2) converted all the Jews and 3) outlawed abortion. That's the Dominionist doctrine, anyway. Destroying the environment and the social safety net is just icing on the cake.
Yes, "Viva Hate" has always sounded like the last Smiths album, but he moved on from there.
I think he did change his musical forms: "Kill Uncle" is not "Vauxhall" is not "Quarry." True, to someone not quite so, er, obsessed with Morrissey it may seem like a small difference (and production does play a part), but all those changes imply an artist who was not standing still.
That is the problem with his material now: he's not challenged, and he won't be challenged any time soon because he's not going to open himself up to work someone artful. J. Marr was the first and last great one, and he got very, very lucky with Alain.
Yes, his form of collaboration is after-the-fact: he is given tracks and he finishes them to his specs and his specs alone. He cooks that pasta, ferments that grape juice and sets that cement like no one else. J. Marr's stories of crafting Smiths songs are absolutely fascinating for that reason: Marr presented a challenge, but even he didn't hear the song until Morrissey was done with it. There are stories of both Marr and Whyte being a bit miffed with Morrissey's capricious songwriting skills.
I wasn't there, so I cannot judge. They just sounded rather small, and loose, and, yes, full of energy. Charming, but not my cup of tea.
As for your last point - I disagree. Boz does come up with some winning songs (witness the current crop), but Tobias hasn't got that subtlety (Morrissey said something along those lines himself). As for being a more creative band live, if Morrissey really is stifling those impulses, then he's making a big mistake.
Hey Worm and Anaesthesine, I hesitate to get involved in your exchange. Your analysis is very detailed, well written and I can find no fault. I would like to say in regards to collaborators that some artists do their best work (often their only good work) when working with another artist of comparable profile. The obvious example is Lennon and McCartney. To stretch it a bit, John Wayne with John Ford, Bruce Willis with Terry Gilliam.
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
Gilbert and Sullivan. John Waters and Divine. Jaz Coleman and Geordie Walker.
I do take issue with Gilliam and Willis: Gilliam is always awesome.
Yes, Morrissey and Marr were one of those incredible partnerships; they perfectly complemented, completed and inspired each other, and the two were never really artistically whole again. It's really rather romantic (and quite a thrill for a live audience) to witness that kind of chemistry.
Morrissey did continue to make great music even if (as Worm pointed out) it was an aftershock. Folks who fell in love with Morrissey's music before they heard The Smiths can attest to that fact.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Thanks.
"Chemistry" is one of those tricky words-- a total cliche applied to pop music, and yet nobody has found a better way to describe the magic of two or more artists working together to create something neither could do as well separately.
My list:
Anna Karina and Jean-Luc Godard
Jean-Pierre Léaud and Francois Truffaut
Martin L. Gore and David Gahan
Aubrey Beardsley and Oscar Wilde
Peter Saville and Factory
Factory and Every Band On Factory
Johnny Depp and Hunter S. Thompson (or "Hunter S. Thompson")
Robert Forster and Grant McLennan
Mick Jones and Joe Strummer
Bill Murray and Sofia Coppola
Bob Odenkirk and David Cross
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Word.
Do they know what they missed from '83 to '87?
Not being condescending. I missed it too, and I wonder.
Hey Anaesthesine, you're right about Gilliam (Ford was pretty good too!), in those examples I meant to imply that Ford and Gilliam forced Wayne and Willis to raise their game. Presumably because these directors would not be star struck and would make these pretty poor actors work.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
To be fair, I think they also want to make sure they've done away with the menace of the Soviet Union.
Musically, though? I see three phases:
I: YOU CAN'T GO HOME AGAIN
"Viva Hate": Smiths plus strings.
Post VH singles and Wolverhampton: Smiths 2.0, but short-lived; fallout with Street; true end of Smiths era.
II: I GOT CONFUSED, I KILLED A HORSE
"Kill Uncle": Post-polka; camp; mostly uneven collaboration with Nevin/Suggs et al. Creative paralysis, even by his own admission.
III: EXPLOSIVE KEGS
Kill Uncle Tour and singles (1991-1992): Rockabilly; Welcome, Boz! Kicks off solo career in full force.
"Your Arsenal": Rockabilly plus glam; Mick Ronson!
"Vauxhall and I": Mix of VH's lushness with YA's razory edge.
"Southpaw Grammar": Raw, muscular; recognizable mish-mash of YA and Kill Uncle Tour rock.
"Maladjusted": V&I plus SG.
"You Are The Quarry"/"Ringleader Of The Tormentors"/"Years Of Refusal": V&I plus SG; slight differences in each due to commercial sensibilities of producers.
So there you go. That's my take. It boils down to this: Boz, Alain, Gary and Spencer gave him his mojo back and formed the backbone of his backing music; for artistic direction, he turned to Mick Ronson first; Mick was a one-off career highlight because of his tragic death; and from there the sound he settled on was the flash of "Your Arsenal", the filigree of "Vauxhall and I", and the raw power of "Southpaw Grammar".
From a distance I think that smooths out into a pretty neat line. Lots of fans can point out differences between, say, "You Have Killed Me" and "Suedehead". My argument here is that, taken as a whole, his music has been pretty much the same all the way through after he shook off the past and recovered from a mistake: Smiths - False step with "Kill Uncle" - Solid ground with glam/rockabilly/pop mix accented differently by various producers (Ronson, Lillywhite, Finn et al).
And (still awake?) this all goes back to my contention that he has no need to protect himself from charges of musical backsliding. He wasn't an innovative shapeshifter to begin with. So he ought to jump back into the sweet spot I stubbornly believe exists, if he ever wants to locate it: the space between slavishly copying his old sound and perversely departing again and again from a blueprint that works.
Put it this way: after listening to the new songs, even if you like them you have to admit they're Color By Numbers Morrissey. If he's going to be strapped down to a formula, why not the formula of bright, catchy, melodic, highly accomplished indie rock?
Basically I agree, but I give all the credit for those years to Ronson and Lillywhite, not Whyte. They were the strong collaborators. Morrissey's songs are always stamped by the producer as much, if not more than, the guitarist who wrote them. Remember, Marr also produced The Smiths, Street wrote and produced, Ronson was a guitarist in his own right and almost certainly contributed riffs (e.g. "Rock and Roll Suicide")...those are his three best partners, hands down. Every song is a dialogue between Morrissey and his producer. The band's just a tool to articulate that dialogue.
Last edited:
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
I was thinking of examples of mutual greatness.
I'm not a big fan of Bruce Willis, but he was BRILLIANT in "The Fifth Element." Luc Besson pulled out the best Willis performance that I've ever seen.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Bruce Willis peaked with "Moonlighting". Sadly, an often overlooked TV classic.
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
Boy, It's a good thing that I have the day off.
Yes, it's a pretty neat line (you could say the same for most great artists/musicians). Morrissey is a fixed point but (whether through chance or design) he's changed it up throughout his career: silly rockabilly, melancholy crooner, alt-Sinatra bombast. He ceased being innovative after The Smiths split, but he did change it up enough to keep it interesting.
After almost thirty years in the business Morrissey is running out of words and sounds that will not imitate what has gone before. I agree with you; part of that sweet spot lies somewhere in the past, which he steadfastly does not want to revisit. As for his new stuff - it's all consistent with the rest of his "third act," which is now getting a bit stale (but can still yield some pretty good music). It's high time for:
What a novel idea.
A producer can make or break a sound, it's true.
However, I think that you are unnecessarily belittling Alain's contributions: I think about what Morrissey once said about Alain Whyte's music - how Alain wrote dreamy, romantic music as opposed to Jessie who, as I recall, wrote music that was a bit more "muscular" (or something to that effect). Look at the list of magnificent songs that Alain co-wrote, look at the consistently high quality over a long period of time (and through an ever-changing cast of producers). No, I think Alain was a profound inspiration to Morrissey in his own right.
Similar threads
