"Low In High School" review by Stephen Troussé in Uncut (5/10, Dec. 2017)

Oh dear:
“his weakest since Kill Uncle”
“the album is often musically splendid...”
5 out of 10

---

UPDATE Nov. 22, 2017

Link to online version posted by Uncleskinny.

---

Related item:

• "World Peace..." review by Stephen Troussé in Uncut (8/10, Aug. 2014) - June 21, 2014

 

[countthree]

But you seem to have quite alot of (as in...infinite) feelings, about how, for example, Morrissey chooses to express himself.
You seem very Zen this morning Unk. New Muesli?

The story is old, and it goes on, of how it would have been better for 'us', or music history, or music journalists, or...music, generally, if Morrissey had choked himself in Chelsea in 1987.

Perhaps that's true.

But i'm guessing it may not have been quite so canny for Steven Patrick Morrissey's family, friends and loved ones.

That is where the offense is sourced.

And stating it via an anonymous twitt is a cop-out. As well as a crappy opening to a review.

ps ~ í like "Kill Uncle" so...


.

Agree. That review is riddled with insults and lack of objectivity. The author made it very clear in the first sentence, when he wished Morrissey had died young. Not a nice opening for an art critic. You can agree or not with Morrissey's ideas, or you can agree with some of them and disagree with others -which seems to be the case with most people- but wishing the death of the person you are going to judge the merits of his work speaks badly about the review, the magazine that published it and the person who wrote it.

 

[ordinaryboy86]

Agree. That review is riddled with insults and lack of objectivity. The author made it very clear in the first sentence, when he wished Morrissey had died young. Not a nice opening for an art critic. You can agree or not with Morrissey's ideas, or you can agree with some of them and disagree with others -which seems to be the case with most of people- but wishing the death of the person you are going to judge the merits of his work speaks badly about the review, the magazine that published it and the person who wrote it.

Can it not just be that the album is not that good? Uncut has been kind to morrissey's last few albums, giving WPINOYB 8/10 and very favourable to Ringleader and Years Of Refusal. I don't think there's any hidden agenda here, it's just an honest review in my opinion.

 

[Orson Swells]

I don't know why but somehow I'm guessing the reviewer isn't a fan. Imagine if Morrissey had died in 1986 all the songs and albums that wouldn't exist. It's an ill-informed statement at best as are many of his other statements - songs about "molesting students"? Really!? This reads more like a reviewer reviewing their own narrow concept of Morrissey rather than the songs themselves. And of the songs we do know I disagree with practically everything he has to say about them. I can't comment on the other five, of course, but it seems telling, probably tactical, that Home Is A Question Mark isn't even mentioned...

 

[Maurice E Maher]

I don't know why but somehow I'm guessing the reviewer isn't a fan. Imagine if Morrissey had died in 1986 all the songs and albums that wouldn't exist. It's an ill-informed statement at best as are many of his other statements - songs about "molesting students"? Really!? This reads more like a reviewer reviewing their own narrow concept of Morrissey rather than the songs themselves. And of the songs we do know I disagree with practically everything he has to say about them. I can't comment on the other five, of course, but it seems telling, probably tactical, that Home Is A Question Mark isn't even mentioned...

Actually, it's the same reviewer who gave World Peace 8/10 for Uncut. http://www.uncut.co.uk/reviews/album/morrissey-world-peace-is-none-of-your-business
I must admit I squirmed at the titles of a few of the songs we've yet to hear - Oboe Concerto sounds like a great title, 'The Girl in Tel Aviv who wouldn't kneel' and 'In your lap' sound a bit rubbish.
I think the review scores will vary according to the relative importance given to the words and music. It could score 8s and 9s if the music and singing is the focus of the review, but just 5s and 6s if they pick up more on the words.

 

[001]

Of course it's acceptable. The journalist wrote it. They can write what they like, and there's nothing you or I can do about it. I have no feelings about how they choose to express themselves.

Having read several comments of yours over the past week I'm not surprised by your comment...

 

[Maurice E Maher]

Surely the 'only thing that matters' is whether you (or any other individual) likes the album. The little picture. I love lots of records (and films, books, plays, exhibitions) that have been panned by critics. Similarly, I have been unimpressed by things lauded by critics. Not always, but often.

Admittedly, for Morrissey to continue making music, he needs some degree of commercial success, but that rarely has anything to do with critical reception.

I haven't actually read the review, by the way. I tend to read reviews afterwards, out of curiosity more than anything.

Yes, critical reception and commercial success do not always go hand in hand. Your Arsenal is a critical highlight of the back catalogue but is one of his lowest sellers. Quarry was the best selling solo album by miles but received very middling reviews. If there are two more big catchy singles that the radio stations pick up on, it is very likely to sell well.

 

[Quando quando quando]

Having read several comments of yours over the past week I'm not surprised by your comment...

Only thing is, he has a point.
But if Moz says or sings something the same view should be applied.
So no more outrage about anything.
It's gonna be boring here.

 

[001]

Only thing is, he has a point.
But if Moz says or sings something the same view should be applied.
So no more outrage about anything.
It's gonna be boring here.

The first paragraph of that review isn't acceptable Quando. If that review was online only I'm pretty sure they'd have pulled it by now. So how that got passed the editor is anyone's guess. Also, that paragraph clearly states the reviewers bias towards Morrissey, something a reviewer shouldn't do.

@Mutt Walker Thanks for the pics.

 

[BrummieBoy]

I would imagine the better the reviews, the more popular the album with become. But at the end of the day, this is just one person's opinion.

No, it isn't. It's the opinion of a reviewer in a very influential magazine & thus has far more weight than yours or mine. A lot of tosh on this thread that it doesn't matter what critics think, except it does....

There will be panic at BMG today. And in a suite in The Dorchester a very nervous PR person is going to have to break the news to Morrissey that his new album is off to a terrible start with reviewers.

 

[BrummieBoy]

Agree. That review is riddled with insults and lack of objectivity. The author made it very clear in the first sentence, when he wished Morrissey had died young. Not a nice opening for an art critic. You can agree or not with Morrissey's ideas, or you can agree with some of them and disagree with others -which seems to be the case with most of people- but wishing the death of the person you are going to judge the merits of his work speaks badly about the review, the magazine that published it and the person who wrote it.

Morrissey has repeatedly wished death upon people or noted their deaths as inconsequential. Why on earth should others give him any respect? I dream of him being shorn alive then to have a cardigan made of his hair. What happened to that cancer stuff?

 

[Shyness 1s nice]

I couldn't care less what the 'press' say about his music. The only review I am interested in, is my own.

 

[001]

Moron. Why do you think people make records for people to buy?

Well done, moderator.

 

[Uncleskinny]

I don't know why but somehow I'm guessing the reviewer isn't a fan. Imagine if Morrissey had died in 1986 all the songs and albums that wouldn't exist. It's an ill-informed statement at best as are many of his other statements - songs about "molesting students"? Really!? This reads more like a reviewer reviewing their own narrow concept of Morrissey rather than the songs themselves. And of the songs we do know I disagree with practically everything he has to say about them. I can't comment on the other five, of course, but it seems telling, probably tactical, that Home Is A Question Mark isn't even mentioned...

That must be it, because what other possible explanation could there be? That the album's not that good? Perish the thought.

 

[BrummieBoy]

Actually, it's the same reviewer who gave World Peace 8/10 for Uncut. http://www.uncut.co.uk/reviews/album/morrissey-world-peace-is-none-of-your-business
I must admit I squirmed at the titles of a few of the songs we've yet to hear - Oboe Concerto sounds like a great title, 'The Girl in Tel Aviv who wouldn't kneel' and 'In your lap' sound a bit rubbish.
I think the review scores will vary according to the relative importance given to the words and music. It could score 8s and 9s if the music and singing is the focus of the review, but just 5s and 6s if they pick up more on the words.

An excellent link that debunks all in this thread who have tried to dismiss this review/reviewer as motivated by malice.

What's more likely is that the reviewer has simply given up giving Morrissey the benefit of the doubt and arrived at the same conclusion I did years ago: Morrissey is a Singing Troll who will offend anybody just to get attention. The fact that he has some artistic qualities is now irrelevant as his real career is as a Media Troll. What is very gratifying is that, at long last, he is reaping the rewards of his trolling. His career will stagger on because he still has his 'Reform The Smiths' insurance policy. If Johnny Marr died, Morrissey would no longer be given these 'trophy' deals with Big Music whose only reason for engaging with him is in expectation of a big Smiths payday.

 

[Maurice E Maher]

No, it isn't. It's the opinion of a reviewer in a very influential magazine & thus has far more weight than yours or mine. A lot of tosh on this thread that it doesn't matter what critics think, except it does....

There will be panic at BMG today. And in a suite in The Dorchester a very nervous PR person is going to have to break the news to Morrissey that his new album is off to a terrible start with reviewers.

It certainly matters in terms of doing well in end-of-year polls and Mercury prizes etc. Bad reviews mean you don't stand a chance. But in terms of sales, they have surprisingly little impact either for Morrissey or much more successful acts like Sheeran. Sheeran got duff reviews for his current album but it has sold (and continues to sell) shed loads. As previously mentioned, Your Arsenal got great reviews but is one of the worst selling Morrissey albums. The opposite is the case for Quarry which bafflingly even outsold all the Smiths studio albums. Radio airplay is what drives album sales. Three catchy singles on the radio and your album will be a success.

 

[ordinaryboy86]

Its a f***ing 5/10 get over it. @Orson Swells, so anyone who gives a sub par review isnt a fan? On the contrary, i think he is a fan, just a disappointed one. The fact he has to go back 26 years to find an album which is comparably worse, suggests to me that he's enjoyed most of the stuff inbetween. He's reviewed Morrissey favourably on many occasions. I'm a fan, a massive fan, and i think the new stuff is shit. Thats my review, five thumbs down.

 

[Anonymous]

That must be it, because what other possible explanation could there be? That the album's not that good? Perish the thought.

Your eyes are blinded to the point of the matter,
Merely open to the line you pursue,
You're a terrible cancer my friend,
and there's nothing that anyone can do.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not going to weigh in on the writer's opinions on the music.
They have heard the record and these are their opinions, you have to leave that to them as scathing as this review is.

However, to say that Morrissey should have died/been killed, even going as far as suggesting aping the late Ian Curtis' actions, to cement his legacy is nothing short of crude and disgusting.
I suppose at the point this journo writes something bordering on ''worth'' they should immediately leave the office and go meander on a motorway, just in case they falter and end up writing distasteful chip paper diatribes like that intro again.

 

[I_Am_A_Disco_Dancer]

Which song/songs does he sing about "molesting students"?

 

[BrummieBoy]

It certainly matters in terms of doing well in end-of-year polls and Mercury prizes etc. Bad reviews mean you don't stand a chance. But in terms of sales, they have surprisingly little impact either for Morrissey or much more successful acts like Sheeran. Sheeran got duff reviews for his current album but it has sold (and continues to sell) shed loads. As previously mentioned, Your Arsenal got great reviews but is one of the worst selling Morrissey albums. The opposite is the case for Quarry which bafflingly even outsold all the Smiths studio albums. Radio airplay is what drives album sales. Three catchy singles on the radio and your album will be a success.

The evidence suggests otherwise. The music business has changed radically from the model you set out. It is no longer enough for an artist to demand their record company spend money on promotion & wine & dine radio dj's to play a track. Morrissey's new single has been played sufficiently for the UK public to decide if it's a track they want to add to their collections. The evidence is they are ignoring it as it isn't even in the Spotify Top 200 chart even though it's free to hear! It's also no longer in the industry orchestrated Viral chart which suggests the attempts to win over the radio stations was a short-lived effort.

Ed Sheeran's songs are played non-stop by vast numbers of people. He is one of the few artists who can still sell physical CDs as he has the brand power to have them in petrol stations and supermarkets for legacy CD equipment in cars. He is immune to reviews as his audience know the industry is full of people trying to foist legacy hype such as Morrissey on to listeners. In the era of Spotify, it's viral streaming that drives album sales for a select few artists. Morrissey isn't one of them.

The evidence suggests that you could play STDIB non-stop on UK radio but nobody would ever listen to it again. For free. On Spotify and other streaming services. Why? Because these 'clueless consumers' as Morrissey called them think it's not worth listening to again.

You could plaster every billboard in the UK with the cover of LIHS and people would ignore it. The 'clueless consumers' aren't ast stupid as Morrissey thinks. His decades long posturing as a 'radical artist trying to break into the mainstream media' has been exposed as nonsense. He is a Singing Troll and the British Public are not interested. At least not in the numbers that Morrissey bizarrely imagines he is 'entitled' to. His conspiracy theory must now shift from the record labels, radio stations and print media to the music listening public. Why are the music listeners of the UK refusing to play his new single even when it's free on Spotify? Should be amusing to watch his contortions to explain that one!


https://spotifycharts.com/regional/gb/weekly/latest