Morrissey autobiography

[El Kabong]

Morrissey is an odd dude. He's a bit depressing and self important. But to each their own

[Gandalf]

Each their own, I'm not sure he has an original thought in his head though. If Oscar Wilde weren't funny, charming, insightful or a talented writer Morrissey would be a carbon copy.

I don't think many people have truly original ideas though, so I wouldn't blame Morrissey for that. I think people like Einstein are an exception, but in terms of language and opinions, I find it hard to imagine a truly original thinker.

For me, what Morrissey has done is what Lou Reed has done. In the case of Reed he was putting alternative views into the rock lyric. The topics were nothing new to anyone who had read a DeSade or Burroughs book, but in terms of rock, it was something new. I think Morrissey in a similar way, but using an entirely different lexicon, introduced something new into the rock lyric, obviously using his own influences.

Also, if we are to talk about Wilde being so unique, talented and clever (which he was), one should also point out his own influences. His first book of poems was widely slated as being derivative and manipulating a voice, rather than having a voice. It took Wilde a long, long time to find his own way with words and for a long time was known for having long hair and velvet trousers, rather than anything he actually did. For a man known for being so intelligent, it is also interesting to read many of his letters to new lovers using exactly the same language. Oscar Wilde was not above following a formula and an excessive use of the word 'charming'. He was a very naughty boy.

[p4pking]

Loud Reed takes a shit on Morrissey as an artist though, he is someone I would consider an original. The guy was so much more musical and innovative than Morrissey it's ludicrous to compare them. Johnny Marr was at least an equal brain behind the Smiths, he wrote all of their tunes save for a couple, Morrissey just put lyrics to the music, which he was tremendous at as well as being a great singer.

[Gandalf]

No, I am talking mainly as a wordsmith. I think Morrissey knows what he likes musically, but probably can't produce the music on his own. However, in saying that, I'm not sure Marr would have got as far on his own either. I think the role of someone who puts the words together and provides the vocal melodies can be very underrated. It isn't an easy thing to do. I always think of Suede in that regard too. Many dismissed Suede as being finished without Bernard Butler, but Butler's solo work wasn't a patch on the work he did with Suede and that is because Brett Anderson was really important. I think Morrissey stamped the indentity on The Smiths and Marr hasn't really impressed me with his post Smiths work which somewhat validates that view. Morrissey on the other hand, has produced a lot of really solid work. Your Arsenal, Vauxhall and I, and Ringleader of the Tormentors, stand up to most of The Smiths back catalogue for me and the other albums have great songs.

I think much of the great music is about collaboration and you cannot have one without the other. The Velvet Underground wouldn't have been made with just Lou, it needed John Cale too. The Beatles too, I think making a full album of original material was something John and Paul found it hard to do on their own. It sometimes worked great, but all too often didn't. Who needed to hear half an album of Yoko or Red Rose Speedway from start to end?

[p4pking]

Well sure, but Lou Reed wasn't limited like that was my point. I like the V.U. more than The Smiths though so I can't pretend to be impartial regardless of how you compare the two men I'll admit.
Of course Morrissey was a very talented lyricist and singer. He was crucial to the Smiths sound, but no moreso than Marr for my money is all. I could listen to a number of their tunes without lyrics and there are some I would rather were recorded that way frankly. Marr was a terrific guitar player and arranger, most of their songs are extremely good instrumentally and Morrissey had nothing to do with that.
As far as the collaboration point of course you're right, but the fact is that McCartney, Lennon, Reed and Cale were all more than capable musicians and great composers in their own right. Morrissey was neither of these things and really shouldn't be in the same category, as much as his new autobiography will no doubt try and convince otherwise.

[Gandalf]

I agree with you. I think a significant reason Morrissey has made good albums since The Smiths is no doubt largely because of talented collaborators. He has his own talents, but putting those chords and structures onto paper is something I'm not sure he is capable of. Morrissey definitely knows who and what he can feed off. He knows how to make partnerships which in turn feed into decent albums.

I'm a big fan of the Velvets and have most of Lou Reed's solo stuff. Lou Reed is a musician, writes songs lyrically and structurally, and has sustained it over half a century. You can't really argue with that and the body of work is immense. I think I was one of the only people in the world who really enjoyed Lulu too. Perversity knows no bounds. I put it on the other day in the car and was really into it. It's the only time I have ever tolerated Metallica.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

[QUOTE=p4pking;1197511]Well sure, but Lou Reed wasn't limited like that was my point. I like the V.U. more than The Smiths though so I can't pretend to be impartial regardless of how you compare the two men I'll admit.
Of course Morrissey was a very talented lyricist and singer. He was crucial to the Smiths sound, but no moreso than Marr for my money is all. I could listen to a number of their tunes without lyrics and there are some I would rather were recorded that way frankly. Marr was a terrific guitar player and arranger, most of their songs are extremely good instrumentally and Morrissey had nothing to do with that.
As far as the collaboration point of course you're right, but the fact is that McCartney, Lennon, Reed and Cale were all more than capable musicians and great composers in their own right. Morrissey was neither of these things and really shouldn't be in the same category, as much as his new autobiography will no doubt try and convince otherwise.[/QUOTE]

going to read it then or just spout opinion.

So I'm the only one who has actually bought a copy then?

as for Morrissey and Marr...it's a similar situation to Biafra and the Dead Kennedys (even though you can't read music doesn't stop you composing it!) anyhooo. Morrissey, as far as I'm aware has not claimed to have written any smiths music. Marr used to hand him a basic track and he'd write to it. People are forgetting what a significant frontman/mouthpeice Morrissey was in terms of building the Smiths career.

[p4pking]

I was really into the Smiths for years and have seen a bunch of Morrissey interviews, he has an incredibly high opinion of himself wouldn't you agree? I think he's a shitty person and have already said I wouldn't care to read anything of his, but I give him full credit for being a great singer and frontman. He forged a great identify for himself and the band and I've only pointed out that he isn't a musician of the same calibre as some others mentioned here, I do enjoy him though.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

I was really into the Smiths for years and have seen a bunch of Morrissey interviews, he has an incredibly high opinion of himself wouldn't you agree? I think he's a shitty person and have already said I wouldn't care to read anything of his, but I give him full credit for being a great singer and frontman. He forged a great identify for himself and the band and I've only pointed out that he isn't a musician of the same calibre as some others mentioned here, I do enjoy him though.

singers aren't musicians?

[p4pking]

How would you deduce that from my post

[Howlin Mad Missy]

How would you deduce that from my post

I was asking the question.

[Gandalf]

I'm about half way through, and I think it is a cracking read. Morrissey can write and is hilariously funny too. There have been a number of times where I have laughed at the way he has told a story or phrased something in a way only Morrissey would. You know most sprinters can't run a long distance race effectively, but Morrissey more than holds his own in being able to write a book. I try to avoid reading anything that doesn't interest me, but you know most books are shit. This is not a shit book, it's a genuinely well written book. Morrissey's depiction of his childhood is particularly strong. If anything it's much more Dickens than Wilde. Though I do love how he will use certain words which might well go over the heads of many modern readers. Using the term 'psychological' as a reason for avoiding the cane is an obvious reference to homosexuality in the Victorian usage of the term and it is noticing arch little things like that you yourself raise an eyebrow. Morrissey is too literate for this pop-star autobiography business. It's good, though I hear the court case at the end lowers it all slightly with 50 pages of moaning. I will be the judge of that. I mean the judge of the 50 pages, not the actual court case, which is long in the past in the minds of all but Morrissey himself.