The Guardian: "‘An astounding rush of real-time creativity’: 40 years of the Smiths’ Peel Sessions" by Michael Hann (May 31, 2023)

The Guardian has a new article by Michael Hann, celebrating the power of the first Smiths radio sessions.

Not everyone finds it easy to listen to the Smiths now, but those early transmissions were utterly formative for this vital new band and their enraptured fans

full


Full text below:

It’s 40 years this month since anyone bar the attenders at their handful of gigs heard the Smiths. On 13 May 1983, they released their first single, Hand in Glove, on Rough Trade. Then, on 31 May, John Peel broadcast their first session for his BBC Radio 1 show. Before the year was out, they would have recorded one more for him, as well as two for David Jensen. A total of 14 songs were broadcast, all being heard for the first time, apart from a new version of Handsome Devil, the B-side to Hand in Glove.

The Smiths’ radio sessions were as astounding a rush of real-time creativity as pop has witnessed. When they released their first album the following year, only two of its 10 tracks had not previously been recorded for Radio 1. It was those sessions that built up their following so rapidly and so rabidly.

The late David Cavanagh wrote of the sessions, in his Peel biography Good Night and Good Riddance, that they “have given the Smiths so much momentum that an album is almost superfluous. There’s no question that the momentum began with Peel. The Smiths’ universe is at odds with almost everything happening on a cultural or commercial level in Britain’s 80s, and Peel is the arbiter of taste in the alternative society.” (The truth of that was proved by the utter lack of success of another hugely idiosyncratic but gorgeously melodic provincial indie band with an eccentric singer – Peel did not care for Felt and their career went nowhere.)

I didn’t hear Hand in Glove when it was released because I wasn’t yet listening to night-time Radio 1. A few weeks later though, I was: I had noticed that there were often heavy metal bands on Top of the Pops when Peel presented it and I wondered whether he might play any of it on the radio. (I was 13 and fondly imagined that the presenters picked at least some of the acts for Top of the Pops.) He didn’t – not at that point in time, anyway – but on one of the first shows I listened to I heard a repeat of that first Smiths session. I had never heard music that sounded like that before, and I had never heard a singer whose words – in any way at all – actually reflected my life, as a bullied, lonely kid who had no idea how to navigate the world safely, let alone confidently.

Of course, countless kids around the country responded the same way as I did. I wasn’t allowed to stay up until midnight, when Peel finished, so I would go to bed and turn the light off, then plug the headphones into the radio-cassette recorder. I had a handful of C90s that I filled with Peel sessions, one finger poised over the pause button. But it was only with the Smiths’ sessions that I would diligently transcribe the lyrics when I came home from school the next day.

And the songs! Those strange and beautiful songs. Peel described them as “a band with no obvious influences whatsoever”. Well, this is true and yet it’s false. The Smiths sounded like nothing because they sounded like so much: Marr brought Motown and the Stooges and the Patti Smith Group and Bert Jansch and Buffalo Springfield and so many more things into his writing, but because the juxtapositions were so unexpected, they went unheard, and because the influences were filtered through his playing (“fractured yet fluid”, I recall Morrissey calling it in an early interview with Sounds), the Smiths sounded only like the Smiths.

Sometimes the Smiths evolved from their sessions, and sometimes they went backwards. Reel Around the Fountain was one of the latter cases. Recorded for the first Peel session, it was a grave and stately thing, with Marr’s spectral and sparse guitar-playing draped over the song like gauze. A couple of months later they recorded it for Jensen (though this version was not broadcast for two years owing to a tabloid claim that it was a paedophile anthem), and there are acoustic guitars drowning out those spidery lead lines. The following year, on their self-titled debut album, the bassline had changed and it was no longer a strange, misty message from the ether, but a wholly conventional country-pop song. Shame.

This Charming Man, recorded for the second Peel session, underwent the reverse process. Marr wrote the track specifically for the session, trying to create something reminiscent of Rough Trade labelmates Aztec Camera, but with the bass rhythm of the Supremes’ You Can’t Hurry Love (and, of course, it ended up sounding like neither). But that version of This Charming Man is an unopened flower compared to the version released as a single just a few weeks later. For the single version, producer John Porter advised them to change the rhythm from that Motown bounce to a stricter, more rigid style, which foregrounded Andy Rourke’s brilliant bassline, and to introduce the sudden pauses that give the song drama. That’s how fleet-footed the Smiths were at this point: from sketch to one of the decade’s great singles in weeks.

And there were the songs that got away – the sternly empathic This Night Has Opened My Eyes, one of Morrissey’s Shelagh Delaney homages, which was never recorded for Rough Trade. “In a river the colour of lead / Immerse the baby’s head,” he sang, prompting producer Roger Pusey to stop the session to check he wasn’t about to record a song celebrating the drowning of infants.

Each of these songs arrived a few weeks apart. The Smiths were, truly, a teenage semaphore, sending out messages of hope: you are not alone. (Morrissey later remembered how Accept Yourself, recorded for Jensen, prompted a rash of letters from fans thanking him for telling them they were fine as they were). In the conflict zone that is adolescence, the songs were comfort packages. And you could get these joys simply by tuning into Radio 1 of an evening.

I rarely listen to the Smiths these days. I know the songs too well. And too many of them have been coloured by the current views of their singer. But every so often I am taken on the time machine again. In autumn of 2021, I saw Rick Astley singing the songs of the Smiths with the Stockport band Blossoms. My friends and I had thought we would be at the centre of the demographic. In fact, we were among the older people there. The teenage semaphore never stopped communicating. The miracle of the Smiths is too profound to ever truly be overshadowed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"that can be ranked as inferior or superior" is the part that you are choosing to ignore. Do you believe that some racial groups are superior or inferior? And how do you think a Chinese person would feel about Morrissey's comment? I work with Chinese immigrants on a daily basis, so I am particularly attuned to this.


I think the Morrissey fans, and some of them may have been Chinese, that attended the Hong Kong’s MacPherson Stadium show after his comments were made, didn’t believe what he said about the Chinese that torture animals as being a racist comment.

btw, I believe it was a sold out show

 
Last edited:
"that can be ranked as inferior or superior" is the part that you are choosing to ignore. Do you believe that some racial groups are superior or inferior? And how do you think a Chinese person would feel about Morrissey's comment? I work with Chinese immigrants on a daily basis, so I am particularly attuned to this.
If that person participated in or supported abhorrent abuse of animals I wouldn’t be too preoccupied about how they felt about Morrissey’s comments. The rest probably did not feel aluded to to begin with.
 
"that can be ranked as inferior or superior" is the part that you are choosing to ignore. Do you believe that some racial groups are superior or inferior? And how do you think a Chinese person would feel about Morrissey's comment? I work with Chinese immigrants on a daily basis, so I am particularly attuned to this.
You seem determined to ignore the fact that Moz was making a moral judgment, based on the country's treatment of animals and lack of animal protection laws, rather than a racial judgment. It was an exhortation for the country to be more human and more humane - because a country and the people living in that country can change and improve how it treats animals. No racial judgment is stated or implied in what he said. You can't change your ethnicity. You can change how you treat animals.
 
You seem determined to ignore the fact that Moz was making a moral judgment, based on the country's treatment of animals and lack of animal protection laws, rather than a racial judgment. It was an exhortation for the country to be more human and more humane - because a country and the people living in that country can change and improve how it treats animals. No racial judgment is stated or implied in what he said. You can't change your ethnicity. You can change how you treat animals.
Exactly. It’s a moral judgement that has nothing to do with race, but with factual abhorrent treatment of animals.

Are we supposed to suspend moral judgement if it’s about a group from a different ethnicity, even if it has nothing to do with ethnicity or race? That makes absolutely no sense.
 
Exactly. It’s a moral judgement that has nothing to do with race, but with factual abhorrent treatment of animals.

Are we supposed to suspend moral judgement if it’s about a group from a different ethnicity, even if it has nothing to do with ethnicity or race? That makes absolutely no sense.
Though the meme continues to circulate, it's with praise too in these entertainment notes from The Atlantic:

Something I recently rewatched, reread, or otherwise revisited: I started listening to the Smiths again after their bassist, Andy Rourke, died last month. They’re another formative teenage band for me—two generations deep, because I got the CDs from my dad, who also found them formative in his youth... listening to the music, I understand entirely why I was so obsessed with it long before I’d ever read anything about the band. Rourke was a huge part of that. This video of the guitarist Johnny Marr inviting a kid onstage, basically daring him to play “This Charming Man,” a crucial Rourke song—and the kid suddenly, improbably, nailing the riff—is one of my favorite things on the internet.
- -https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/06/the-perfect-escapist-sci-fi-series/674289/
 
Though the meme continues to circulate, it's with praise too in these entertainment notes from The Atlantic:


- -https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/06/the-perfect-escapist-sci-fi-series/674289/
How does that relate to the post you replied to?
 
You seem determined to ignore the fact that Moz was making a moral judgment, based on the country's treatment of animals and lack of animal protection laws, rather than a racial judgment. It was an exhortation for the country to be more human and more humane - because a country and the people living in that country can change and improve how it treats animals. No racial judgment is stated or implied in what he said. You can't change your ethnicity. You can change how you treat animals.
He could have easily said "China is incredibly inhumane in how they treat animals". Instead, he said "The Chinese are a subspecies", language that is incredibly offensive and explicitly racist. Bigmouth strikes again indeed. Y'all are tying yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible.
 
He could have easily said "China is incredibly inhumane in how they treat animals". Instead, he said "The Chinese are a subspecies", language that is incredibly offensive and explicitly racist. Bigmouth strikes again indeed. Y'all are tying yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible.

His choice of of word can be called crude and not well thought out, I’ll give you that. But coming from the mind and heart of an animal activist, should it really be that surprising? For this is the position from which his comments are being made. And if criticized, context from which quote is pulled, and used as clickbait, should be added. But of course adding context wouldn’t help their case.
 
Is this true? But more importantly, is it nearly Wildean?

The only thing worse than practising racism is saying something that certain people insist on interpreting as racist.
 
Is this true? But more importantly, is it nearly Wildean?

The only thing worse than practising racism is saying something that certain people insist on

Is this true? But more importantly, is it nearly Wildean?

The only thing worse than practising racism is saying something that certain people insist on interpreting as racist.
Practicing racism is of course worse. But from the replies on this thread, the message is clear: it is worse to point out a racist statement than to make a racist statement. And that's the crux of the problem.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom