Did Marr Deserve a Songwriting Co-Credit For The Songs of the Smiths?

[Anonymous]

Vocal melodies complement the chord progressions; they rarely follow them. Johnny Marr wrote the guitar chords, and Moz came up with the vocal melodies. Of course, Johnny wrote several guitar lines - rythm and lead- for most tracks, and directed, arranged, and produced the tracks to varying degrees, but I'm certain that the - hugely important - vocal melodies were Mozzer's.

Listen to There Is A Light.. and sing or hum the lyrics. Then see if you can find that melody in the guitars/strings/bass. It's not there.

There Is A Light is one example of a song written by Johnny and Morrissey sat down together in a room, so it's impossible to know who contributed what in terms of music.

In general, though, vocal melodies will follow the chord progression, because that's how you create something tuneful. If you take the shape of the vocal line to There Is A Light, the first verse starts with Johnny playing E, so Morrissey sings E followed by G sharp followed by E. Then Johnny switches to A, so Morrisey moves up to A. Then Johnny moves back to E and so does Morrissey. Then Johnny plays C sharp minor and Morrissey goes from G sharp to E, then repeats as Johhny returns to E. That might not be so easy to follow, but basically there's no point, probably though the whole song, where Morrissey isn't being guided by what the guitar is doing. It makes perfect sense that there wouldn't be, right?

It doesn't mean that the guitar is exactly dictating the vocal line, but I reckon that if the words and the backing music are already in place, then the vocal melody is already more than halfway to written.

 

[Anonymous]

there are a million different options for vocal lines in the key of e. dictation for the vocal line, no. also morriseys range is limited so its not hard to think they started in e so he could at all to it. that they catered to him. a better determination would be to see what songs they played live and how they sounded before they ever went to work with anyone producer included. are there a lot of performances like this out there where they were playing before the involvement of anyone that we can see and hear. that would allow people to see what exactly what the producer or person added to songs. they dont seem to have played out that often or at all before this point though. that could show you exactly what the producer at least contributed as we could see what changed from then to after.

 

[marred]

If I knew who this anonymous was who posted this thread then I'd bother to call him a witless c#%t.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

"I guess in the sense that they were Marr's ideas that started each song off then he's worthy of the music credit."

i for sure agree with this. im not trying to underwritre or write out completely marrs role but really to just debunk the myth of morrissey as a non musician, his voice is an instrument, in that he makes the vocal melodies and was largely influential to those songs coming out the way they did. those odd song structures and rhythms a lot of the time belong to morrissey. like when he insisted on the looping long bit in "well let you know' from the album your arsenal, with the crowd sound effects. that sounds very familiar to me. the story that marr did all the music as full compositions and morrissey just sang and wrote lyrics is very much not the case. i think this is obvious when comparing the twos output since the smiths split. most of the recording stuff im mentioning has come from listening to the producers speak about the experience.

also to be fair about chord progression, didnt marr write horsews like a million times already. in some draft he even writes the chord sequence and writes horses underneath in pencil. i find that funny.

You should watch a documentary called Beware Of Mr Baker, if you haven't seen it already it's about Ginger Baker. I think you'd like what he has to say on songwriting.

 

[Anonymous]

There Is A Light is one example of a song written by Johnny and Morrissey sat down together in a room, so it's impossible to know who contributed what in terms of music.

In general, though, vocal melodies will follow the chord progression, because that's how you create something tuneful. If you take the shape of the vocal line to There Is A Light, the first verse starts with Johnny playing E, so Morrissey sings E followed by G sharp followed by E. Then Johnny switches to A, so Morrisey moves up to A. Then Johnny moves back to E and so does Morrissey. Then Johnny plays C sharp minor and Morrissey goes from G sharp to E, then repeats as Johhny returns to E. That might not be so easy to follow, but basically there's no point, probably though the whole song, where Morrissey isn't being guided by what the guitar is doing. It makes perfect sense that there wouldn't be, right?

It doesn't mean that the guitar is exactly dictating the vocal line, but I reckon that if the words and the backing music are already in place, then the vocal melody is already more than halfway to written.

Although this is a much more straightforward process than the one I described above - i.e. two guys in a room working together, as opposed to (what was the norm) Marr giving Morrissey a cassette of music for him to mull over for a few days before going into studio to record his vocal - you've actually nevertheless cited an example which, to my mind, underlines my argument. What we have here, as the basis for claims to credit for writing the song 'There Is A Light That Never Goes Out' is, on the one hand, Morrissey conjuring up a lyric and a vocal melody, and on the other hand, Marr sitting playing a chord progression on guitar (and one which even I could play, at that). As the post above points out, there's no way it can be argues that this chord progression defined what the melody was going to be, as you seem to suggest, and in fact the chord progression could have given rise to a different melody/lyric for every different melodist/lyricist who attempted to set a tune to it. Think of 'Out of My League' on Electronic's second album. To me, it sounds very much like an attempt to do their own 'There is a Light..'. Sumner has set a vocal melody/lyric to a not dissimilar piece of Marr's music. Is the song in the same league as 'There Is a Light...'? No. Why not? Some would say "cos it's a different co-writer". I would argue it's because it's a different songwriter. Let's assume that Marr had decided to sit in a room with Sumner and play the chord progression for 'There is a Light...' back in 1985/6, instead of with Morrissey. We'd have gotten something very similar to 'Out of My League'. We certainly wouldn't have gotten 'There is a Light..'

Isolate the vocal melody from any Smiths record and, to the public at large, you'd still have the song - or, to put it more simply, get someone to sing the song, and see if it's recognisably the song. Unless they're an extremely bad singer, it will be. Take the vocal melody off a Smiths record, and you no longer have the song - you've got an instrumental.

Ergo, the songs are Morrissey's creation; the songs are Morrissey's, inspired by Marr's music.

S.F.

 

[Billtwasreallynowt]

It feels as if the fact Morrissey put in the vocal melody suggests he deserved more of the credit - music by Marr, and 'songs' rather than 'lyrics' by Morrissey.
I find this to be phoney in the extreme - without the 'backing track' in place in the first place - I struggle to see how Morrissey would have come up with his melody.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

There Is A Light is one example of a song written by Johnny and Morrissey sat down together in a room, so it's impossible to know who contributed what in terms of music.

In general, though, vocal melodies will follow the chord progression, because that's how you create something tuneful. If you take the shape of the vocal line to There Is A Light, the first verse starts with Johnny playing E, so Morrissey sings E followed by G sharp followed by E. Then Johnny switches to A, so Morrisey moves up to A. Then Johnny moves back to E and so does Morrissey. Then Johnny plays C sharp minor and Morrissey goes from G sharp to E, then repeats as Johhny returns to E. That might not be so easy to follow, but basically there's no point, probably though the whole song, where Morrissey isn't being guided by what the guitar is doing. It makes perfect sense that there wouldn't be, right?

It doesn't mean that the guitar is exactly dictating the vocal line, but I reckon that if the words and the backing music are already in place, then the vocal melody is already more than halfway to written.

I like your thoughts on this but Morrissey's vocal melodies are quite something, plus the expression! He deserves extra credit for that alone. Couple those with Johnny's riffs and playing along with those brilliant bass lines.

The Smiths were shit hot, brilliant, better than anyone else. I read Johnny saying somewhere about wanting to be better than the Beatles. For me The Smiths mixed The Beatles' songwriting nous with the Stones' riffs. All that stopped them from mass appeal was Morrissey - in the sense of his forthright views and forthright emotions - but that's what really made them special. How could everybody in the World not get it? Most didn't. The Smiths lack of popularity is one of life's great mysteries.

 

[Anonymous]

You should watch a documentary called Beware Of Mr Baker, if you haven't seen it already it's about Ginger Baker. I think you'd like what he has to say on songwriting.

dude i love ginger baker and blind faith. there show in the park was legendary and ive read much about the man. havent seen the doc so maybe ill search it out tomorrow as ive nothing much to do this weekend. i have read many a many book about song writing credits and session musicians most of it pretty sad. ive the same issue sometimes with graphic novels like ex machina where the artist should get the credit that the author did. especially on that book but a lot of time only the author gets paid the real money with his name first.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Although this is a much more straightforward process than the one I described above - i.e. two guys in a room working together, as opposed to (what was the norm) Marr giving Morrissey a cassette of music for him to mull over for a few days before going into studio to record his vocal - you've actually nevertheless cited an example which, to my mind, underlines my argument. What we have here, as the basis for claims to credit for writing the song 'There Is A Light That Never Goes Out' is, on the one hand, Morrissey conjuring up a lyric and a vocal melody, and on the other hand, Marr sitting playing a chord progression on guitar (and one which even I could play, at that). As the post above points out, there's no way it can be argues that this chord progression defined what the melody was going to be, as you seem to suggest, and in fact the chord progression could have given rise to a different melody/lyric for every different melodist/lyricist who attempted to set a tune to it. Think of 'Out of My League' on Electronic's second album. To me, it sounds very much like an attempt to do their own 'There is a Light..'. Sumner has set a vocal melody/lyric to a not dissimilar piece of Marr's music. Is the song in the same league as 'There Is a Light...'? No. Why not? Some would say "cos it's a different co-writer". I would argue it's because it's a different songwriter. Let's assume that Marr had decided to sit in a room with Sumner and play the chord progression for 'There is a Light...' back in 1985/6, instead of with Morrissey. We'd have gotten something very similar to 'Out of My League'. We certainly wouldn't have gotten 'There is a Light..'

Isolate the vocal melody from any Smiths record and, to the public at large, you'd still have the song - or, to put it more simply, get someone to sing the song, and see if it's recognisably the song. Unless they're an extremely bad singer, it will be. Take the vocal melody off a Smiths record, and you no longer have the song - you've got an instrumental.

Ergo, the songs are Morrissey's creation; the songs are Morrissey's, inspired by Marr's music.

S.F.

Reading that anyone would think that Morrissey was singing along to a busker, do you not hear the rhythms when Johnny "strums", do you not hear the riffs, how original they all are? It's not just about chord progressions. Why does one have to have a lesser imput than the other? Likewise do people not hear how unique Morrissey's lyrics and melodies are? Add how Rourke's bass mixes with Johnny's guitar and the magic is complete.

Take one out and it's never the same. That's all you need to know.

 

[butley]

Morrissey's musical input into The Smiths songs was crucial to their appeal. On youtube there are tutorials on how to play Smiths songs. As instrumentals a lot of them really go round and round and end up being rather dull. Johnny was an average songwriter but a brilliant guitar player. Morrissey was a brilliant singer and lyricist and a very good songwriter.Nobody is humming Johnny Marr's solo stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqJJH2Y5fc

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Morrissey's musical input into The Smiths songs was crucial to their appeal. On youtube there are tutorials on how to play Smiths songs. As instrumentals a lot of them really go round and round and end up being rather dull. Johnny was an average songwriter but a brilliant guitar player. Morrissey was a brilliant singer and lyricist and a very good songwriter.Nobody is humming Johnny Marr's solo stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqJJH2Y5fc

Do you post more than one thing?

 

[Anonymous]

Reading that anyone would think that Morrissey was singing along to a busker, do you not hear the rhythms when Johnny "strums", do you not hear the riffs, how original they all are? It's not just about chord progressions. Why does one have to have a lesser imput than the other? Likewise do people not hear how unique Morrissey's lyrics and melodies are? Add how Rourke's bass mixes with Johnny's guitar and the magic is complete.

Take one out and it's never the same. That's all you need to know.

With respect, you're still missing the point - but in fact, there's so much to reply to in this post, brief though it is.

Firstly, I was citing a relatively unusual (though not unique) working method for Morrissey and Marr - Marr strumming a chord progression while Morrissey sung along. In this instance, Marr was effectively busking, yes - he wasn't doing something that couldn't have been played by another guitarist. But that's a red herring, it's irrelevant really to the point I'm making.

Do I not near the rhythms, the riffs? Yes, I do.

How original they all are?

Well, a couple of points here. Original rhythms? No, Marr's are fairly standard. Original riffs? I'd be the last to deny that Marr is a hugely gifted guitarist with a unique tone/'voice', so yes, original in that respect. Riff-wise, again I think Porter's contribution is crucially underrated here. I believe it was his input (based on what I've read in interviews with, amongst others, Marr himself) that made many of the riffs sound so definitive, which would explain why Marr has never come up with anything close to rivalling them since the Smiths split. not saying he couldn't make great music without Porter, but I'd argue he never made anything as idiosyncratic - i.e. anything that could be fairly described as 'original' - as 'This Charming Man', 'How Soon Is Now' or 'William, It Was Really Nothing' on his own. Nothing on 'Strangeways..', 'Queen is Dead' or 'Meat Is Murder' could be described as musically 'original' to me, albeit much of was great stuff. Okay, I'll give you 'The Headmaster Ritual' but that's about the only exception I can think of.

In terms of what is rhythmically original about the The Smiths, it's far more about Morrissey's lyrical phrasing than it is about the music - there are now many instances of those who have worked with Morrissey highlighting how unusual and unique his sense of phrasing was - including Marr - and how it confounded their conventional notions of songwriting and their conventional expectations. For example, rhythmically, what is unique about 'There is a Light...' is not Marr's music, which is a standard ballad-strum type rhythm, but Morrissey's lyrical phrasing, with the likes of "I don't care, I don't care, I don't care". And again, compare that to Sumner's lyric to 'Out of My League' for an example of what, on the on hand, is original (Morrissey) and on the other hand, isn't (Sumner).

Yes, the harmonies that Marr superimposed were fantastically original in terms of being uniquely his style, but you can say that about many, many musicians' contributions to records - you could say it about Andy Rourke: but Rourke's don't, to my mind, make him a songwriter (nor, it seems, to his mind), and nor do Marr's.

You say it's not just about chord progressions. I'd argue that for Morrissey, it basically is. He has proven many times in his solo career that he can craft great vocal melodies/lyrics - i.e. great songs - out of music far more rudimentary than that given to him Marr - as recently as this year he's had given us 'Istanbul' for example.

And this brings me to why I really feel impelled to push this argument - this year, Marr has given us another album's worth of his own claims to songwriting ability; and frankly, 'Playland' is as risible as 'The Messenger'. Nor do I feel for one moment when I listen to Marr singing the songs of the Smiths that they are in any way 'his' songs: it sounds like he's singing someone else's songs (badly). And why? Cos he is.

So credit where credit's due, and credit for the songs should go to Morrissey. Credit for the magic that was The Smiths? That goes to Morrissey, Marr, Joyce and Rourke. And to John Porter. And to Stephen Street. And to the music. And to the songs. Morrissey's songs.

Cos as long as people are maintain that it was 50/50, we're always gonna be waiting for Marr to come up with brilliant songs in his own right, in the way that Morrissey has done. And it's increasingly obvious that that is never going to happen.

 

[Anonymous]

I like your thoughts on this but Morrissey's vocal melodies are quite something, plus the expression! He deserves extra credit for that alone. Couple those with Johnny's riffs and playing along with those brilliant bass lines.

There's no contradiction here. Morrissey has a special talent as a singer and his approach to singing was a very important part of The Smiths' recipe, no doubt about it. What I think is wrong, though, is the idea that writing a vocal part is somehow the essence of writing a song, so that This Charming Man or whatever is really a Morrissey composition that Johnny Marr just sort of helped out on a bit. That's patent nonsense.

The point of what I was saying above is that there are a relatively limited number of ways you could sing "Take me out tonight" over that particular backing track. You could say that Morrissey didn't so much write the vocal line as finish it off. Even if you might add that there some sort of magic in the way he did it. Because he wasn't starting from scratch.

The thing here, at the end of the day is the "but for" test. If it had been Morrissey and Bloggs or Bloogs and Marr, the songs are likely to have been not just inferior but considerably so. That's how you measure the contribution of each.

 

[Anonymous]

If I knew who this anonymous was who posted this thread then I'd bother to call him a witless c#%t.

Pity you're ignorant in that respect then, isn't it?

But feel free to contribute some articulate debate. If you can.

Quite ironic that someone who apparently literally can't string two sentences together is contributing to a thread on (amongst other things) the relative importance of Morrissey's lyricism. Makes you sound like a witless c***.

 

[Anonymous]

How Soon is Now. This Charming Man. What Difference Does It Make.

Three Smiths songs off the top of my head where the dominant musical motif that drives the song, and remains the key 'hook' that makes it popular is the guitar riff - NOT Morrissey's vocal melody line.

Whoever came up with this thread is a complete nincompoop. There's plenty of genuine scope to discuss whether Rourke and possibly even Joyce should have got co-writing credits on at least some tracks for the arrangements, but arguing that the guy who came up with the music for Morrissey to even sing against deserves a co-writing credit is sheer insanity.

Do you really think anyone could have strummed whatever random chords they felt like, and Morrissey would have still come up with the same vocal melody/lyrics? Are you really that thick?

 

[2-J]

I have to give credit to the thread starter for arguing his/her case well and really making me think. I would have thought it was impossible to argue Marr shouldn't be credited for the songs, but I can appreciate this angle.

That said, I don't have a huge knowledge of the music industry but from what little I know, I think legally speaking Marr surely did enough to get the half credit.

 

[Anonymous]

How Soon is Now. This Charming Man. What Difference Does It Make.

Three Smiths songs off the top of my head where the dominant musical motif that drives the song, and remains the key 'hook' that makes it popular is the guitar riff - NOT Morrissey's vocal melody line.

Whoever came up with this thread is a complete nincompoop. There's plenty of genuine scope to discuss whether Rourke and possibly even Joyce should have got co-writing credits on at least some tracks for the arrangements, but arguing that the guy who came up with the music for Morrissey to even sing against deserves a co-writing credit is sheer insanity.

Do you really think anyone could have strummed whatever random chords they felt like, and Morrissey would have still come up with the same vocal melody/lyrics? Are you really that thick?

Sorry, but you don't seem to be following the points that are being made in this thread.

How Soon Is Now. This Charming Man. What Difference Does It Make?

Ironically, two of those are songs I cited as being examples where the musical input of John Porter to the finished product seems much underrated by the Morrissey/Marr credit, to judge by Marr's own description, in interviews, of how the music on those records was created. So why not a Morrissey/Marr/Porter credit? Why not a Morrissey/Marr/Porter/Rourke credit? Like many others, you seem to be under the impression that Marr simply recorded the finalised backing track, that we can all hear on the record, on his multi-track at home and then handed it over to Morrissey, for him to do his vocal, before the song ever reached the studio. Not the case.

As to your point about popularity, you're illustrating what (debatably) makes the recordings so popular, not what defines the songs. You could do a cover version of any one of those songs that didn't feature the guitar riff. You might not like it as much, but the new recording would still be the song.

I realise you mean "arguing that Marr shouldn't have gotten a co-writing credit. If you read back over what I wrote, and try to understand it, you'll see that I'm arguing that the music is not the same as the song - so credit Morrissey with the song, Marr (and others) with the music.

Regarding your random proposal that I might think anyone could have strummed whatever random chords they felt like, and Morrissey would have still come up with the same vocal melody/lyrics, well no I don't think that (not sure why you're assuming I would)? So no, I guess I'm not really that thick. I probably won't reply to any other random questions you might have, as it would get tedious. But hope that helps you.

Were anyone to strum a completely random chord sequence, I daresay Morrissey would struggle to do anything with it. Were they to strum a non-random chord sequence, he would most likely do something interesting/good with it, as his solo career has often illustrated. Occasionally, he would do something brilliant with it. Would he perchance simply conjure up the melody and lyric to 'There Is a Light That Never Goes Out'? Well, I doubt it. Perhaps he does, all the time, but if so he clearly has a second listen and then comes up with something new.

Hope you can follow what I'm saying here - but don't worry, if you can't, others will be on hand to help you out with some of the bigger words.

By the way, sarcasm aside, I really appreciate those who are taking the time to give considered, articulate responses to my post, whether they agree with me or not. Your posts make for interesting reading.

 

[Anonymous]

very well said fellow anon and i appreciate the maturity of your response even if not to me specifically. i kinda agree about marrs comments here if not in other instances. if he finds the argument so stupid it should be easy for the artist he is to explain his point instead of just saying a person is stupid for posing a question however loaded but they dont. they do the childish name calling and offer nothing to discussion. i dont think it hard to explain a point you claim to know so well without being a rude childish person. maybe its because hes six four. its not hard to see who i am even as anonymous so i doubt im to confused with others here. i dont capitalize, there equals there theyre their to me, and i hate grammar. i doubt ill ever register as ive just had a bad experience with it and its seems to bear not and matter not on the points i try to raise. who i am should have anything to do with what im saying. they should stand on there own so thats why ill probably never register an account.

 

[Anonymous]

This debate has been running on another thread; thought it deserved one of its own. So - that's it, in a nutshell? Did he deserve a co-credit, or they effectually Morrissey's songs, inspired by Marr's music? Or should others (e.g. Andy Rourke/John Porter) also have received co-credits?

S.F.

Have you purposely ignored Mike Joyce's contribution?
Read the book ''Songs That Saved Your Life'' on songs like 'The Headmaster Ritual' where Johnny admits to coming in with the riff and the Mike coming u with the drum line. Should have been 25% split between the 4 of them all the way.....

 

[Anonymous]

I have to give credit to the thread starter for arguing his/her case well and really making me think. I would have thought it was impossible to argue Marr shouldn't be credited for the songs, but I can appreciate this angle.

That said, I don't have a huge knowledge of the music industry but from what little I know, I think legally speaking Marr surely did enough to get the half credit.

hey 2-j. for sure he legally does have precedence to claim half and did i suppose successfully (at least they paid andy off). this is of course until the better argument is made in court. just on an aside i thought it really funny to see a judge ask, i think pharrel williams (some pop star of the like) to identify what key a piece of music was in and he couldnt even do that. i laughed. anyway theres a nice argument taking place these days over writing credit in a lot of places in pop culture today as a result of people just being more informed