Andrew Collins and Morrissey

It's a f***in Union Jack. The man is proud to be British, nothing wrong with that. Just because you love your country doesn't make you racist.
 
Unbeknowns to many people apparently, skinheads origins were born before the National Front. Just so you know every time you see an image of a dude with a shaved head wearing doc martins it doesn't mean he's a racist. Have a read here if you like. Me on the other hand I couldn't give a toss about Nationalistic pride. There are far too many things wrong and right with all countries to favor just one :) As one of my favourite dudes said -

"If you're that proud of where you came from we should have flags with pictures of our parents f***ing!"

Bill Hicks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinheads

carry on :D
 
Last edited:
There really is no point Andrew. You are going to stick with your story of "We were only asking questions" and anyone with a brain who saw the original articles can see the holes in that. A discussion is not going to achieve anything as long as you can't see the parallels in the two cases.
 
I wonder if somebody might answer me this question.

Morrissey chose to boycott the NME after the August 1992 issue. He kept up this boycott for 15 years - an admirably committed stance. However, when Danny Kelly, Stuart Maconie and myself moved to Q magazine (Danny and Stuart in 1992, myself in 1993), Morrissey was happy to deal with us at Q. His quarrel was clearly with the newspaper itself, not the staff who worked on the cover story that offended him.

Morrissey gave a number of interviews to Q while we were there, and once came up to the Q office to approve some cover photographs - the only time I ever met him. He was charming on this occasion.

He clearly held nothing against any of us. Stuart remains one of his favourite writers. All three of us remain huge fans of Morrissey's solo work. Now, I know a certain strata of Morrissey fan still holds the Madstock issue against those who created it - and some presumably boycott the NME (especially after the more recent furore). But if Morrissey himself can move on. Surely we all can.

I'm really interested to know any thoughts you may have on this issue. And I hope my presence here does not offend anyone.
 
I don't think anyone is holding it against you. I think some people quite rightly made some obvious comparisons when you sprang to the defence of Richard Herring against a much milder article from the Guardian (there is nothing in that article that would make an intelligent person think Richard is a racist). That doesn't mean they hold some deep dark grudge.

I think people might be a bit more forgiving if you were prepared to see the problems with the original story (as Stuart Maconie has done) but your position seems to be that you did nothing wrong and you weren't calling Morrissey a racist (which you blatently were even if you didn't actually come out and say it).
 
I wonder if somebody might answer me this question.

Morrissey chose to boycott the NME after the August 1992 issue. He kept up this boycott for 15 years - an admirably committed stance. However, when Danny Kelly, Stuart Maconie and myself moved to Q magazine (Danny and Stuart in 1992, myself in 1993), Morrissey was happy to deal with us at Q. His quarrel was clearly with the newspaper itself, not the staff who worked on the cover story that offended him.

Morrissey gave a number of interviews to Q while we were there, and once came up to the Q office to approve some cover photographs - the only time I ever met him. He was charming on this occasion.

He clearly held nothing against any of us. Stuart remains one of his favourite writers. All three of us remain huge fans of Morrissey's solo work. Now, I know a certain strata of Morrissey fan still holds the Madstock issue against those who created it - and some presumably boycott the NME (especially after the more recent furore). But if Morrissey himself can move on. Surely we all can.

I'm really interested to know any thoughts you may have on this issue. And I hope my presence here does not offend anyone.

The World is full of Crashing Bores and you are one.
have you seen the Madstock on youtube, well you really lied about that!!!!!!
I guess you didn't predict people who wheren't at the gig being able to see the FACTS, you wanted to mislead them and taint Morrissey for the rest of his career.( I bet you got a real kick out of the power you had over him)

now get off this forum as you're a Journalist, a know yes man, a liar and a deluded bore.
This forum is for Morrissey fans and you are not one.
 
Andrew your presence doesn't offend some of us and it's clear some of us are offended but props for entering the lion's den. Not sure what you're going to get by visiting this site but it seems you're going to have to roll with the punches at least while you're here I guess.
 
I wonder if somebody might answer me this question.

Morrissey chose to boycott the NME after the August 1992 issue. He kept up this boycott for 15 years - an admirably committed stance. However, when Danny Kelly, Stuart Maconie and myself moved to Q magazine (Danny and Stuart in 1992, myself in 1993), Morrissey was happy to deal with us at Q. His quarrel was clearly with the newspaper itself, not the staff who worked on the cover story that offended him.

Morrissey gave a number of interviews to Q while we were there, and once came up to the Q office to approve some cover photographs - the only time I ever met him. He was charming on this occasion.

He clearly held nothing against any of us. Stuart remains one of his favourite writers. All three of us remain huge fans of Morrissey's solo work. Now, I know a certain strata of Morrissey fan still holds the Madstock issue against those who created it - and some presumably boycott the NME (especially after the more recent furore). But if Morrissey himself can move on. Surely we all can.

I'm really interested to know any thoughts you may have on this issue. And I hope my presence here does not offend anyone.


I remember reading the piece at the time and being so shocked. Yes, there were no outright accusations of racism, but the cumulative effect of all those 'questions'... so much more than the sum of its parts. Surely you can see that now. Detailed analysis can lead to the wrong conclusions. Not only can you not see the wood for the trees, you can't even see the trees for the bark.

I'm a huge fan of Richard Herring and of course he isn't racist. I admire the fact that he is willing to expose himself to these accusations by refusing to pander to the intellectual lowest common denominator. However, we are fortunate enough to live in times where the discussion of racial identity and what does or does not constitute racism has achieved a reasonable level of sophistication. Morrissey was 'refusing to pander' when many people and most of the media were still tripping over themselves when it came to the 'black board or chalk board' debate.

It's high time Morrissey was lauded for the risks he has taken (and continues to take) with regard to discussions of British and English cultural identity. Instead, he is pilloried. To his credit, for the most part he just takes it on the chin.

Which, I suspect, is why God thought it necessary to equip him with that particular brand of chin.

Thanks for taking the time to address us Forum users directly.
 
I've been seaching online and discovered that this topic as been done alot better.(7 YEARS AGO)
here are afew comments.
Ist Andrew Collins (bold) and someone named Dave q

'I never said the Morrissey witch-hunt issue was real journalism, Jon. I said it was "real" journalism, ie. closer to journalism than the shit we usually did. [WELL THAT'S DOWN TO YOU, ISN'T IT?]

I was at Madstock and the crowd were pretty dodgy, some of them - fat, middle-aged skins who looked like they hadn't come out of their North London pub since Madness's heyday [DODGY, OBVIOUSLY1].

Whether Moz is/was a racist or not was less important than the fact that he was flirting with far right imagery - like a cultural tourist [LIKE SOMEONE WHO GOES ON SAFARI TO SEE NORTH LONDON PUB REGULARS AT PLAY!] - and not going on record about his reasons, or his real feelings. He could have stopped that cover story with one statement. He chose to remain enigmatic and distant [i.e., NOT SAYING 'HOW HIGH' WHEN IPC SAYS 'JUMP'], compounding his error.

There was an artificial excitement in the office [IT CERTAINLY COMES ACROSS] over those two days (we dropped Kylie from the cover for Moz you know!)
At first, as features editor, I refused to get involved, but I was ordered by my boss into the big emergency [IPC'S PRIORITIES ARE COOL!] staff meeting, and once the decision was made, it was up to the senior staff (me, Danny Kelly and Stuart Maconie) to get the copy done, along with an excellent piece by Dele Fadele who is black and could therefore offer a perspective none of us NME white boys could.[JUST THINK ABOUT THIS STATEMENT FOR A WHILE. LIKE REALLY THINK ABOUT IT.]

(Dele was furious about Moz's actions and needed no coercion to write.) All I did was compile Morrissey's faux-racist quotes from every interview he'd ever done, and collate the lyrics. My own personal opinion never appeared [NO COMMENT, SEE PREVIOUS SENTENCE],

but I was part of the staff and stood by the issue. It asked questions of an increasingly remote but still hugely influential artist who refused to answer them [...'FOR US'].
There are very few issues of NME from that period that anybody remembers let alone still talks about. We did our job. 'Unless I've COMPLETELY got the wrong end of the stick (first time for everything) and 'Andrew Collins' is really...
dave q, Monday, 4 February 2002 01:00 (7 years ago)
 
Last edited:
here's the link http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=41&threadid=4328
a few more comments.
'he chose to remain enigmatic and distant, compounding his error''He chose to remain enigmatic and distant' = he was an artist, who knows that you have no obligation to explain away your art's ambiguities and ironies with simple statements in a Jimmy Hill voice to the press.

'Compounding his error' = we, the NME, have our own game plan for 'Moz' (we even have a different name for him). It is through us that he tells the world what he 'means', and it is for us to tell him when he is making mistakes. We are deeply invested in him because he sells a lot of papers for us. If he stops talking to us we are in trouble. We will make him pay. We will find some slur that will stick, then he will be sorry.
Momus, Monday, 4 February 2002 01:00 (7 years ago)

If you really want context, I think the relevant facts are these.
Morrissey, well-known for severing ties with friends over real or imaginary slights, had already decided to cut the NME dead, probably because of editor Danny Kelly's undisguised partisanship for Johnny Marr. Morrissey's failure to speak to them (although, as noted above, he continued speaking volubly to people like Les Inrockuptibles in France) was as big a blow to the NME circa 1990 as it would have been for Oasis to cut them dead in 1997. They could have said lamely 'The biggest star in the music firmament will no longer talk to us.' Instead, they said 'The biggest star in the music firmament is, er, a racist! Down with him! Long live, er, Kingmaker and, er, The Wonder Stuff!'

― Momus, Monday, 4 February 2002 01:00 (7 years ago)

I wonder if Momus is among us now:thumb:
 
I wonder if somebody might answer me this question.

Morrissey chose to boycott the NME after the August 1992 issue. He kept up this boycott for 15 years - an admirably committed stance. However, when Danny Kelly, Stuart Maconie and myself moved to Q magazine (Danny and Stuart in 1992, myself in 1993), Morrissey was happy to deal with us at Q. His quarrel was clearly with the newspaper itself, not the staff who worked on the cover story that offended him.

Morrissey gave a number of interviews to Q while we were there, and once came up to the Q office to approve some cover photographs - the only time I ever met him. He was charming on this occasion.

He clearly held nothing against any of us. Stuart remains one of his favourite writers. All three of us remain huge fans of Morrissey's solo work. Now, I know a certain strata of Morrissey fan still holds the Madstock issue against those who created it - and some presumably boycott the NME (especially after the more recent furore). But if Morrissey himself can move on. Surely we all can.

I'm really interested to know any thoughts you may have on this issue. And I hope my presence here does not offend anyone.

It's very comendable for you to register and come on here and face the hostile hordes. You are going to get a lot of vitriol from some of the more, er, apostolic users. I am and always have been a huge Morrissey fan, and I do take your account as a true and faithful one, why should I not? Anyway, I'm going to sit back and watch this one flow. I think that the default position of trasactional analysis is "I'm OK, you're OK", and it would be nice to think that the more committed fans could be more objective.

Anyway, welcome aboard.

Peter
 
It's very comendable for you to register and come on here and face the hostile hordes. You are going to get a lot of vitriol from some of the more, er, apostolic users. I am and always have been a huge Morrissey fan, and I do take your account as a true and faithful one, why should I not? Anyway, I'm going to sit back and watch this one flow. I think that the default position of trasactional analysis is "I'm OK, you're OK", and it would be nice to think that the more committed fans could be more objective.

Anyway, welcome aboard.

Peter

I will be objective, I obect to him being on here:straightface:
Is that ok?
I'm not an Apostles but I'm a loyal fan.
It doesn't even take a fan of Morrissey to I know a bully when you see one.

'He won't do interviews with us anymore, lets teach him a lesson, ha, ha'
 
Blimey, it's going to be harder than I thought to cut through all the hate. Maybe I over-estimated how objective I could be.

As for the old comments from Momus somebody has dug up - when he says Morrissey "cut the NME dead" because of Danny Kelly's "partisanship" for Marr - this would lead one to assume that Morrissey never spoke to the NME after the break-up of the Smiths, which he did, continually. The NME and Morrissey had a very good relationship up until 1992. (He agreed to appear on our 40th anniversary cover when we asked him.) It's amazing how history gets rewritten.

And nobody has answered my question about why Morrissey chose to work with myself, Danny Kelly and Stuart Maconie on Q - and, as I say, came up to the office to look at the photo session, where he was as nice as pie. Why would he do that if he bored a grudge against individuals? You may have some insight on this.
 
Blimey, it's going to be harder than I thought to cut through all the hate. Maybe I over-estimated how objective I could be.

As for the old comments from Momus somebody has dug up - when he says Morrissey "cut the NME dead" because of Danny Kelly's "partisanship" for Marr - this would lead one to assume that Morrissey never spoke to the NME after the break-up of the Smiths, which he did, continually. The NME and Morrissey had a very good relationship up until 1992. (He agreed to appear on our 40th anniversary cover when we asked him.) It's amazing how history gets rewritten.

And nobody has answered my question about why Morrissey chose to work with myself, Danny Kelly and Stuart Maconie on Q - and, as I say, came up to the office to look at the photo session, where he was as nice as pie. Why would he do that if he bored a grudge against individuals? You may have some insight on this.

Thank you for coming here, Andrew. I know some of us are impressed.

A post on your website made the same point: why would Morrissey come and talk to those against whom he publicly bore a grudge?

I don't know the answer to that. I also don't see how it's relevant. Most of us who were critical of the NME's 1992 cover story viewed the fiasco as something that happened completely without Morrissey's involvement. Really, that was one of the key points about the whole incident (which you obviously get, since you lament his choice to "retire into silence"). The anger was about what the NME did. What would it prove to say that he came round and was nice as pie? Not much, it seems. Why don't you explain why you think this is important, first?

Is your point simply that if Morrissey isn't angry, why should his fans be? Or is there more?

Asking us to explain Morrissey's grudge or lack thereof is pointless-- as is any attempt by a mere mortal to explain what the hell goes on in his mind. You probably know that better than anyone. The fact that he was jolly with you, Danny, and Stuart over at Q is just one of many riddles we'll never solve. On the other hand, why you made such an articulate defense of Richard Herring using the same arguments you could have applied to Morrissey 17 years ago is a riddle that has an answer, I'm sure.
 
I wonder if somebody might answer me this question.

Morrissey chose to boycott the NME after the August 1992 issue. He kept up this boycott for 15 years - an admirably committed stance. However, when Danny Kelly, Stuart Maconie and myself moved to Q magazine (Danny and Stuart in 1992, myself in 1993), Morrissey was happy to deal with us at Q. His quarrel was clearly with the newspaper itself, not the staff who worked on the cover story that offended him.

Morrissey gave a number of interviews to Q while we were there, and once came up to the Q office to approve some cover photographs - the only time I ever met him. He was charming on this occasion.

He clearly held nothing against any of us. Stuart remains one of his favourite writers. All three of us remain huge fans of Morrissey's solo work. Now, I know a certain strata of Morrissey fan still holds the Madstock issue against those who created it - and some presumably boycott the NME (especially after the more recent furore). But if Morrissey himself can move on. Surely we all can.

I'm really interested to know any thoughts you may have on this issue. And I hope my presence here does not offend anyone.
Welcome to the madhouse. I do admire your guts in entering, and there are plenty of people around here whose presence offends me far more than yours, so feel free to post away.
I don't want to get in to the question of the whole NME'92 vs Moz thing. Sufficent to say that my position could best be summarised by the Mighty Worm's point-by-point post above.
But the question of his boycott has always intrigued me, and gives a little further insight into Morrissey. I believe that Moz's shunning of the NME for 12 years reflects his faith in NME as a 'thing', an entity above and beyond the actual individual hacks who make it up, so to speak. That faith was betrayed on 22 August 1992! The faith was forged in the white hot pop of the 60s and 70s that kid Moz worshipped. In them days NME was a main conduit through which Morrissey could facilitate his obsession with Bowie, NYD, Sparks, et al. You can get a sense of that passion in the letters he sent to NME towers in the mid-to-late 70s, and in the fact that for many years he harboured a desire to become a music journalist. Even 10 years into his pop 'career', at that time, and having seen the ways of the Industry and the Media from the inside, this faith was still intact.
So the fact that Morrissey boycotted the NME as an organ yet continued to have good personal dealings with the men who were responsible for 'Flying the flag or flirting with disaster' doesn't smack of hypocrisy or sneakiness; to me it's just one further reflection of Morrissey as a fully grown man borne of a poor, fat Stretford child's obsessive love of pop culture. He is not normal you know. :thumb:
 
And nobody has answered my question about why Morrissey chose to work with myself, Danny Kelly and Stuart Maconie on Q - and, as I say, came up to the office to look at the photo session, where he was as nice as pie. Why would he do that if he bored a grudge against individuals? You may have some insight on this.

I think Morrissey can speak for himself on this issue -

In my life
Why do i smile
At people who i'd much rather kick in the eye ?
 
Thank you for coming here, Andrew. I know some of us are impressed.

A post on your website made the same point: why would Morrissey come and talk to those against whom he publicly bore a grudge?

I don't know the answer to that. I also don't see how it's relevant. Most of us who were critical of the NME's 1992 cover story viewed the fiasco as something that happened completely without Morrissey's involvement. Really, that was one of the key points about the whole incident (which you obviously get, since you lament his choice to "retire into silence"). The anger was about what the NME did. What would it prove to say that he came round and was nice as pie? Not much, it seems. Why don't you explain why you think this is important, first?

Is your point simply that if Morrissey isn't angry, why should his fans be? Or is there more?

Asking us to explain Morrissey's grudge or lack thereof is pointless-- as is any attempt by a mere mortal to explain what the hell goes on in his mind. You probably know that better than anyone. The fact that he was jolly with you, Danny, and Stuart over at Q is just one of many riddles we'll never solve. On the other hand, why you made such an articulate defense of Richard Herring using the same arguments you could have applied to Morrissey 17 years ago is a riddle that has an answer, I'm sure.

Thanks for being so calm and reasoned in your response.

Why do I think it's important that Morrissey bore no grudge against those instrumental in compiling the cover story that caused him to boycott the NME? Because it demonstrates a level of magnanimity that runs counter to the grudge borne by some of his fans, even 17 years later.

Morrissey rolled his sleeves up and got on with the business of communicating to his fans via press interviews, this time in Q magazine, rather than the NME - albeit with ex-NME staffers. We had moved on, but so, it seems, had he. Joe's stab at what was going through his mind is interesting (he felt betrayed by the publication that had once meant so much to him) - but I still wish he'd addressed the issues we covered in that August '92 cover story. As I have said elsewhere, it would have changed the nature of the story. Without his input, it came across - necessarily - as an editorial. With his input, it would have been a story, with two sides.

I honestly think history would have been very different if Morrissey had just consented to talk to one of his biggest supporters at the paper that week - most visibly Danny and Stuart, with whom he'd developed a trusting relationship.

Since the NME cover story was traditionally a meaty interview with a musician, this is how the Madstock issue could have played out. Why conjecture when you have an interview? No need. No mystique. No enigma.

And yet, after all that, we remained on good, workable terms with him. I think some of the Q interviews were among the best he gave at that time. You've probably got better access to them than I have right now.
 
I think Morrissey can speak for himself on this issue -

In my life
Why do i smile
At people who i'd much rather kick in the eye ?

Very good. But you'd have to ask Morrissey why he smiled when he'd have much rather kicked us in the eye? For the sake of his career? I hope not. He's above all that, isn't he?
 
While i think Bengali in platforms is a beautiful song though with its shall we say dubious lyrics as noted by the NME. It seems a bit odd Morrisseys never played it live and wouldnt allow Nancy Sinatra to cover it

Just saying
 
Andrew, I sent in a letter to NME in June 1992 about some unkind comments you made about Kingmaker. Every week until now I've been scanning the letters page for my letter. You're not going to print it - I'm right, aren't I?

Tony
 
Tags
tldr
Back
Top Bottom