Johnny Marr plays "Stop Me..." on "The Tonight Show"

VivaGil said:
I don't know if I'd agree with this. Vocals do not a band make. Johnny Marr is as important as Morrissey. They created the prefect compliment. They could've probably made it on their own but would not have been the success they were without each other. Discounting the music I think is a mistake. Johnny is without doubt a weak singer. Although having seen him live this video isn't really representative. Go to one of his shows and listen to him play smiths songs. It's easy to see the magic there.
Click to expand...

VivaGil, I posted the comment you're responding to here (not all the follow-up, but agree with some of what was said). I think this is an interesting debate, should have a thread of its own. Agree that vocals don't make a band, but I reckon they make a song. Most of us refer to 'songwriting' and 'songwriters' as if it's quite a cerebral process of sitting down and transposing the music that's in one's head onto a sheet of paper via musical notation; but of course, with most rock/pop music, it isn't - rather, it's a case of, as I said, literally breathing the song into life by singing the vocal melody over what's normally a fairly rudimentary chord progression/rhythm that suggests a melody to the singer: but crucially a dozen different singers would coin a dozen different melodies; a dozen different sets of lyrics. The difference is obvious when one compares a so-called Morrissey/Marr song to, for example, a Sumner/Marr song or a solo Marr song. To most people, the song is the vocal melody and the words - that was Morrissey's achievement; it's not the backing music. Morrissey has gone on to prove that he can craft great songs out of more simplistic backing tracks; Marr has not gone on to prove that his music can yield great songs with lesser vocal/lyrical talents than Morrissey's. Agree though that Morrissey owes his success in some degree to Johnny Marr - without Marr, Morrissey would probably still be living with his mum. But without Morrissey, Marr would almost certainly not be able to lay claim to having been part of a legendary, first class band. They owe their success to each other. Also agree that the music isn't to be discounted - it's a part of what makes the Smiths so brilliant; but that's the music, not the songs: Marr, and others, conflate the two as if it's the same thing, which I don't think it is, and thereby take credit where it's not due.
 
Jamie said:
Very anonymously, passionately, short-sightedly put. If Joyce and Rourke felt cheated out of writing credits, why was this not alleged in the court case? Are you saying that Porter and Street should have writing credits, too, by extension since they helped shape arrangements?

I suppose the fact that Marr sought out Morrissey at all is purely because of Morrissey's charisma, Johnny's initiative be damned? Actually, don't answer: you don't seem the type to let facts get in your way.
Click to expand...

Jamie, not my post you replied to, but I totally agree with it. I think the answer to your first question is that Joyce and Rourke didn't feel cheated out of writing credits, so that's why it's never been an issue. But the point being made by the post you've replied to (if I understand it right) and by others including myself, is that if 'songwriting' is to be defined the way Marr defines it, then on that basis Rourke at least - and for that matter, John Porter (not so sure about Mike Joyce, that's a bit of a stretch) - probably should have a claim to songwriting credits, since their input to the music was as intrinsic as Marr's. See my post above, where I'm pointing out that what Marr gave Morrissey was just music, not songs - Morrissey created the songs.

As to your second point, it's not one or the other, it's both: yes, Johnny showed great initiative in seeking out Morrissey, but for sure it WAS because of Morrissey's charisma (and reputed lyrical/vocal talent) that Marr sought him out.
 
While I appreciate the responses, I am firmly in agree-to-disagree mode. I was not an original Smiths fan, but even I find it somewhat sad at how much the perception of Johnny's contributions has been diminished in some quarters. Perhaps Morrissey has been on the right path with his hubristic self-mythologizing: he's brainwashing some into truly believing that Johnny was just "some guy" who played a little guitar, who wrote the bare minimum of a Smiths song, took advantage of his bandmates, and was not truly Morrissey's full partner. Do some of you even realize that we may not have ever heard The Queen Is Dead or Strangeways because Morrissey couldn't keep a manager and Johnny was the de facto manager for those last two years running damage control after every last diva fit? I suppose he was just "mopping up" and Morrissey would have saved the day when he got it together. Bejaysus.

The singing criticism continues to amuse. I wonder how many of you can actually sing, much less play guitar brilliantly simultaneously in front of a paying audience.
 
"he's brainwashing some into truly believing that Johnny was just "some guy" who played a little guitar, who wrote the bare minimum of a Smiths song, took advantage of his bandmates, and was not truly Morrissey's full partner"

this is a pretty big exaggeration of the responses imo.

even if some cant play and sing that way it doesnt make his music any better or the performance any better. high school bands can play and sing at the same time and it doesnt make there out put or performance any better or immune from criticizing the musical out put/product. nickleback can play and sing at the same time but i doubt youd say we shouldnt criticize there music. i understand the loyalty but i have the same issue with bernard butler and his solo abums though i suspect the problems with those albums was compromise.
 
Jamie said:
While I appreciate the responses, I am firmly in agree-to-disagree mode. I was not an original Smiths fan, but even I find it somewhat sad at how much the perception of Johnny's contributions has been diminished in some quarters. Perhaps Morrissey has been on the right path with his hubristic self-mythologizing: he's brainwashing some into truly believing that Johnny was just "some guy" who played a little guitar, who wrote the bare minimum of a Smiths song, took advantage of his bandmates, and was not truly Morrissey's full partner. Do some of you even realize that we may not have ever heard The Queen Is Dead or Strangeways because Morrissey couldn't keep a manager and Johnny was the de facto manager for those last two years running damage control after every last diva fit? I suppose he was just "mopping up" and Morrissey would have saved the day when he got it together. Bejaysus.

The singing criticism continues to amuse. I wonder how many of you can actually sing, much less play guitar brilliantly simultaneously in front of a paying audience.
Click to expand...
Amen.


I don't understand why some people here seem determined to push this revisionist account of Marr as an expendable, barely competent hired hand whose presence was marginal at best and whom Morrissey deigned to hang around only long enough for the rest of the world to recognize him for the preternatural demigod he really is, by which time he dropped Marr like a hot potato. :rolleyes:

Morrissey might have been the mastermind behind the band's aesthetic and ideology, but it's the alchemy of the duo, the meeting of these two specific minds, that made The Smiths such a potent musical force.

Marr was vital to The Smiths, not only compositionally and sonically, but also on a much more fundamental level. Simply put, he possessed all the qualities that Morrissey lacked, and vice versa. They were very different people, but they complemented each other perfectly and were likeminded in drive and attitude. This synergy was first and foremost the impetus for their collaboration. When examining the music of the Smiths and their legacy, Marr and Morrissey are indivisible. Anyone who needlessly turns it into a competition or a popularity contest is painfully missing the point.
 
Belligerent Ghoul said:
Is there anyone out there thinking he had no right to play that song ? Is there a difference between playing this song in concert and singing it on national television? I'm curious and I'm admittedly stirring it.
Click to expand...

Then Morrissey has no right to play Johnny's Smiths music.
No one ever attacks Morrissey for performing Smiths songs, but Johnny is constantly attacked for doing likewise. Odd. The Smiths wouldn't have ever hatched let alone gotten off the ground were it not for Johnny.
 
Jamie said:
The singing criticism continues to amuse. I wonder how many of you can actually sing, much less play guitar brilliantly simultaneously in front of a paying audience.
Click to expand...

Just because someone can do something doesn't mean that they should.
 
joe frady said:
Hello P.,

On the last few concerts the Singer has been flashing a new backdrop ~

image073.jpg

~ Did 10 years with the toffees back in the 60s.


All together now: It's A SIGN!

The name of the new band for 2015? It's gonna happen. Right Uncle?
Click to expand...

He ate toffees for 10 years back in the 60's?? I don't get this Brit Benny Hill humor.

Yes, just add Morrissey as Johnny Marr's band lead singer and you have a great band. I guess Jesse can still be official foot massager for Morrissey.

I still hope for my Morrissey reunion fantasy of Morrissey's idol Buster Poindexter joining him on stage and having both of them sing a rendition of "Hot Hot Hot".
 
Anonymous said:
I agree that they complemented each other perfectedly; Marr's guitar playing was ethereal, which matched Morrissey's angelic vocals; however, I'd disagree that the vocals don't make the band. Traditionally, it's the front man who gets the band noticed. In this case, you have a front man who writes intelligent and emotionally riveting lyrics, a man who can back those words up with an amazing voice, a man who has an enigmatic persona, and a man who is incredibly handsome; these attributes are the perfect combination for the creation of a pop star. While I greatly admire Johnny Marr's talent, Morrissey was the reason that the public fell in love with the Smiths. His success as a solo artist all these years verifies that. Far more people recognize Morrissey's solo work than Marr's, so it's probable that Morrissey would have made it on his own eventually. Fortunately, they met and we all got to experience the magic. As for Marr's singing, I find it cringe-worthy. I really wanted to be pleasantly surprised, but I was not.

lynnda
Click to expand...

Steven would never have made it on his own and that's a fact, people fell in love with The Smiths not just because of him either it was he whole package, the looks, the sound, the songs, the times, the artwork and giving the attitude that it's ok not to get picked to be in the school football team, it's ok to be different.

Troubled Joe
 
There isn't a joke to get lol, Everton are a football club in England whose nickname is the Toffees, this Johnny Morrissey lad played for them for 10 years in the 1960's.
 
i always thought that if you were a record buying fan then that gave you free reign to critique away. they want you to buy it based on what you think of the album but not to say something critical for the same reasons. praise me for my album and buy but if you dont like you dont have the right to be critical. that just sounds like nonsense.
 
Multi said:
Considering that I used to run a record label, I think I'm qualified enough to comment on Johnny's slop.
Click to expand...

Label name? Roster? Your statement, in and of itself, does not invalidate mine. Frankly, I was referring only to the statement in your post with the intention of directing it at the plethora of anonymous chirpers on this thread who have a seriously unrealistic sense of artistic attribution.
 
Jamie said:
Frankly, I was referring only to the statement in your post with the intention of directing it at the plethora of anonymous chirpers on this thread who have a seriously unrealistic sense of artistic attribution.
Click to expand...

My intention? You just CREATED that intention. I say what I feel. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Jamie said:
Label name? Roster? Your statement, in and of itself, does not invalidate mine. Frankly, I was referring only to the statement in your post with the intention of directing it at the plethora of anonymous chirpers on this thread who have a seriously unrealistic sense of artistic attribution.
Click to expand...

well try changing stuff in the songs and see if it still makes you feel the way it used to. take away the pointless base line they didnt write and see if the songs still move you. johnny himself has said many times people will approach him about a guitar line that he has to explain is actually the bass line. but hey the bass lines are unimportant and johnny could have just sneezed them out anyway and the songs would have been the same. i mean come on, its not like the bass here is just playing the root note of a chord like in the ramones or something, its pretty integral to the way the song hits me and others. if we have an unrealistic sense of artistic attribution please tell us whats correct. explain away
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kissmyshadestoo
Johnny Marr was on Tonight Show 4/26
Replies
6
Views
2K
DAVIE
D
Uncleskinny
Johnny Marr plays Still Ill - on Radio 6 Live, 6th October 2014, BBC Maida Vale Studios
Replies
3
Views
4K
MozRecording
MozRecording
kissmyshadestoo
new Johnny Marr fanzine
Replies
0
Views
768
kissmyshadestoo
kissmyshadestoo
davidt
Johnny Marr references "First Of The Gang To Die" on BBC 6?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Chickpea
Chickpea
Kewpie
Johnny Marr on "The Joy of the Guitar Riff" (BBC 4) clip
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
fredkocherpepsi
fredkocherpepsi

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom