Fiona Dodwell: "Morrissey: Capitol, Censorship And The Silencing Of Art" (June 15, 2023)

Morrissey: Capitol, Censorship And The Silencing Of Art.

Excerpt:
"With the situation being as it currently stands, it appears to many that Capitol Records signed Morrissey’s album to sink it, leaving many wondering why such an act would be of benefit to anyone. It hasn’t escaped Morrissey’s notice – nor his legion of fans worldwide who have been watching the unfolding drama with keen interest – that Capitol subsidiary Harvest Records were also the ones responsible for pulling Morrissey’s 2014 album, World Peace Is None Of Your Business from circulation, essentially abandoning the project and cutting it short."

Morrissey: Capitol, Censorship And The Silencing Of Art

Opinion by Fiona Dodwell On the singer’s website, Central, Morrissey recently posted a brief statement regarding his album, Bonfire Of Teenagers and the way that Capitol Records have left the album…

gabfest.co.uk

Didn't want to say it, but sure enough - there's of course a new FiDo article

 

[Dirk Blaggard]

View attachment 91986

Morrissey: Capitol, Censorship And The Silencing Of Art.

Excerpt:
"With the situation being as it currently stands, it appears to many that Capitol Records signed Morrissey’s album to sink it, leaving many wondering why such an act would be of benefit to anyone. It hasn’t escaped Morrissey’s notice – nor his legion of fans worldwide who have been watching the unfolding drama with keen interest – that Capitol subsidiary Harvest Records were also the ones responsible for pulling Morrissey’s 2014 album, World Peace Is None Of Your Business from circulation, essentially abandoning the project and cutting it short."

Morrissey: Capitol, Censorship And The Silencing Of Art

Opinion by Fiona Dodwell On the singer’s website, Central, Morrissey recently posted a brief statement regarding his album, Bonfire Of Teenagers and the way that Capitol Records have left the album…

gabfest.co.uk

Didn't want to say it, but sure enough - there's of course a new FiDo article

Just out with the kids got fecking bored ordered a whiskey and started to read FDs article.
I do not agree that her writing has got better . Unless you mean at a technical level That doesn't have much to do with writing in a real sense. That's for the fecking editors . She is lying and it shows in the writing that is why it's no good It's all total BS . I do not fecking think she believes what shes writing . She is doing her masters bidding .
But let's pretend she does mean it . She sounds crazy like a QAnon person . Jesus Mary wept .
Where is the proof M is being silenced or censored for what he has to say ?
The record is not being released, sure enough . That can be because they don't think it's any good , they realized they made a mistake buying it , it could be because they thought they could work with M and decided they couldn't . It could be because they only signed M for the MC connection and when she wasn't on it they wanted nothing to do with it .The least possible reason is M is saying dangerous things and they want to silence him . As they would have heard the fecking LP before signing. Also there is nothing too edgy and dangerous on the whole LP. I do think the media have turned against M and some have had it out for him for sometime , I think some people do dislike what he has to say ,and want to silence him . In that sense there is a campaign. That has nothing to do with why these LPs are not coming out though. Not in any real way.
The music business is a dirty business and the bottom line is always money. If M made them money his records would be released . M was lucky his career got new life breathed into it , partly due to 80s being back in fashion.
It seems M wants to hid behind this conspiracy pose , so he doesn't have to take accountability for the lack of interest .

 

[Les Tameside]

I'm not really sure it's "paranoid nonsense."

Capitol knew that "BOT" wasn't going to sell 100,000 copies. They knew that Miley was on the album and that might be a problem with her label. They knew the name of the album was going to be controversial. They knew working with Morrissey could be "difficult." After knowing all of these things, higher-ups at Capitol heard the album and still signed him.

Capitol could / should just give Morrissey the rights to the album so he could shop it around or, self-release and write-off their expenses. They are writing it off regardless of what they do. But, since Capitol is silent, all we have is Morrissey's version of events. It is also bad business for Capitol if they bin "BOT" because it sends a message to other bands who have the potential to sell a lot of albums. If you are, The 1975 or Interpol, do you think you would want to be associated with a label that could just bin your work without explanation?

I'm not attacking your comment, but I do think that Capitol knew very well of what they were getting and Morrissey deserves to release "BOT" on his terms....and at some point in the contract negotiations...Capitol agreed to his terms. What changed?

“Capitol agreed to his terms.”

I expect it was rather Morrissey who agreed to their terms. It is Capitol who would’ve drawn up the contracts—it’s their bread and butter.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

“Capitol agreed to his terms.”

I expect it was rather Morrissey who agreed to their terms. It is Capitol who would’ve drawn up the contracts—it’s their bread and butter.

he must have not read the fine print. Lol.


I’ve said this before, but I think Capitol never intended to release BoT (or would, with little promotion) But they thought it was worth signing him inorder to reissue some of his back catalog.

 

[Robert Phoenix]

“Capitol agreed to his terms.”

I expect it was rather Morrissey who agreed to their terms. It is Capitol who would’ve drawn up the contracts—it’s their bread and butter.

A contract is binding between 2 parties. So, at some point it was an agreement between everyone involved. But did Capitol's terms include..."we will bin the album at our discretion?" If it did, then shame on Morrissey and his attorneys. If it didn't, Morrissey should be made whole. Even if the contract included that stipulation, why would Capitol pursue someone and invest money when they knew there would be a good chance that they would bin it after knowing so much about Morrissey's history and the upcoming release.

I am a huge fan of Morrissey, but I will also admit when he messes up and since we only have one side to the story, I'm inclined to take his side here.

Again, all of this could go away if Capitol would give the rights of "BOT" back to Morrissey. Capitol have already written off their expenses and they know that any future revenue from "BOT" will be minimal for them at this point. Holding on to "BOT" is at least stupid and at worse vindictive.

 

[Anonymous]

Again, all of this could go away if Capitol would give the rights of "BOT" back to Morrissey.

No, unfortunately it wouldn't. No one else will sign Morrissey, and he refuses to self-release, so whoever holds the rights to 'Bonfire' it ain't coming out.

 

[Robert Phoenix]

No, unfortunately it wouldn't. No one else will sign Morrissey, and he refuses to self-release, so whoever holds the rights to 'Bonfire' it ain't coming out.

Good point.

 

[Famous when dead]

Just gathering information for a more detailed timeline.
The bit appearing most interesting is the assertion by several news outlets that Morrissey, by making his comments at the end of December, 2022 re:

"Morrissey has voluntarily parted company with Maverick/Quest management."
"Morrissey has also voluntarily withdrawn from any association with Capitol Records (Los Angeles.)"
- December 23.
"This comes at a time when Morrissey has disassociated himself with Capitol Records (Los Angeles)"
- December 24.

Lead to the current stalemate.
This was presented simply by the Daily Mail as:

"The singer intended to release LP Bonfire Of Teenagers in February, but Capitol shelved the project following his decision to leave the label"

Obviously not that simple, but are there many cases of record labels releasing music for people they don't work with anymore that people can remember?

 

[marred]

In some ways Morrissey has already discredited this argument. He says he is censored but then says Sam Smith went on Saturday Night Live and put on a Satan worshipping performance.

If censorship in the music industry was as real as he claims it is Sam Smith would have been canceled by noon on Sunday.

Even in the late 80's when 2 Live Crew was arrested in Florida for public indecency due to sexual content of their songs at an 18+ show in Broward County, the record label still let them release a new single called "Banned in the USA".

Censorship in the 80's was infinitely more enforced than it is in 2023. It was also in the 80's when Tipper Gore (a liberal) led the charge to ban adult language in songs and then had to settle for the "Explicit Content Warning" sticker which was a congressional matter in this country.

It wasn't until the nip slip by Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl halftime show in the early 2000's that radio stations started playing an alternate version of The Who's "Who Are You" to omit the line "Who the f*** are you?"

Morrissey (and FIDO) think Capitol Records is censoring an album that has a track that only infers its reference to a terrorist attack in Manchester, England, a place that 98% of Americans can't find on the map?

That's delusional.


EDIT: Wow, this website turned the f word into f***. Is that some setting in my account or is that for everyone?

Are you that naive? Sam Smith could take a shit live on stage and be celebrated for it because he's "Stunning and Brave!" ie; he's a protected class.

 

[Malarkey]

Are you that naive? Sam Smith could take a shit live on stage and be celebrated for it because he's "Stunning and Brave!" ie; he's a protected class.

Morrissey is on record as describing himself as a fourth gender & close to transsexual. There is support out there if he can get away from the leeches.

 

[Les Tameside]

A contract is binding between 2 parties. So, at some point it was an agreement between everyone involved. But did Capitol's terms include..."we will bin the album at our discretion?" If it did, then shame on Morrissey and his attorneys. If it didn't, Morrissey should be made whole. Even if the contract included that stipulation, why would Capitol pursue someone and invest money when they knew there would be a good chance that they would bin it after knowing so much about Morrissey's history and the upcoming release.

I am a huge fan of Morrissey, but I will also admit when he messes up and since we only have one side to the story, I'm inclined to take his side here.

Again, all of this could go away if Capitol would give the rights of "BOT" back to Morrissey. Capitol have already written off their expenses and they know that any future revenue from "BOT" will be minimal for them at this point. Holding on to "BOT" is at least stupid and at worse vindictive.

Because it’s binding for both parties doesn’t mean representatives from two sides draw up the contracts.

Generally, I think due diligence would’ve been for Morrissey to pay for an independent lawyer/legal outfit to go through the contract and advise him. It costs a bit of cash, but it pays in the long run. And if Morrissey was under the auspices of a good manager, he/she would’ve insisted on this care.

But Morrissey’s good managers/advisors are distant memories. And so, here we are with Ms Dodwell doing the next best thing—pointing a finger in hindsight.

 

[Crisstti]

Just out with the kids got fecking bored ordered a whiskey and started to read FDs article.
I do not agree that her writing has got better . Unless you mean at a technical level That doesn't have much to do with writing in a real sense. That's for the fecking editors . She is lying and it shows in the writing that is why it's no good It's all total BS . I do not fecking think she believes what shes writing . She is doing her masters bidding .
But let's pretend she does mean it . She sounds crazy like a QAnon person . Jesus Mary wept .
Where is the proof M is being silenced or censored for what he has to say ?
The record is not being released, sure enough . That can be because they don't think it's any good , they realized they made a mistake buying it , it could be because they thought they could work with M and decided they couldn't . It could be because they only signed M for the MC connection and when she wasn't on it they wanted nothing to do with it .The least possible reason is M is saying dangerous things and they want to silence him . As they would have heard the fecking LP before signing. Also there is nothing too edgy and dangerous on the whole LP. I do think the media have turned against M and some have had it out for him for sometime , I think some people do dislike what he has to say ,and want to silence him . In that sense there is a campaign. That has nothing to do with why these LPs are not coming out though. Not in any real way.
The music business is a dirty business and the bottom line is always money. If M made them money his records would be released . M was lucky his career got new life breathed into it , partly due to 80s being back in fashion.
It seems M wants to hid behind this conspiracy pose , so he doesn't have to take accountability for the lack of interest .

If that's the case, then why aren't they selling it back to Morrissey?

About how "dangerous" or "edgy" the title/title song are, well, we have posters right here on this Morrissey fan forum who seem outraged at him calling the "don't look back in anger" singalongs type reaction "moronic".

Morrissey has stated a reason for what's happening, and it's up to Capitol to say otherwise if they have a different version.

I do not agree that M wouldn't make them money. If Johnny Marr makes a label money, then sure as hell Moz does...

 

[Crisstti]

Are you that naive? Sam Smith could take a shit live on stage and be celebrated for it because he's "Stunning and Brave!" ie; he's a protected class.

And of course censorship isn't at all gone, it's only that the kind of things being censored have changed. We are in fact in a very oppressive moment in Western civilization, with little support for free speech.

 

[Redacted]

Morrissey trying to reverse Bonfire, away from Capitol Records.

This is one of my favorite posts ever

 

[Redacted]

everytime she writes something you come out with the same old claptrap so its pot kettle black on your part.

Gordy, you always defend Fi because you think she's sexy

 

[Redacted]

smart man.

Yeah, it's so smart that it's resulted in 2 unreleased albums, really very smart

 

[Pokey]

I love how whenever there is a new MozCentral post, like clockwork theres a Fiona article which is basically just the MozCentral post paraphrased.

Its so weird to be a "journalist" whose work encompasses 90% one artist.

 

[Was I ever any good]

I love how whenever there is a new MozCentral post, like clockwork theres a Fiona article which is basically just the MozCentral post paraphrased.

Its so weird to be a "journalist" whose work encompasses 90% one artist.

The penny has finally dropped then
I stopped reading her shit ages ago.
It was all very coincidental.

 

[Crisstti]

Every time this comes up I think back to the James saga of the late 80s when Sire wouldn't release their record. There's a long version, but wiki sums it up thus:

"Low on money and lacking coverage and promotion, the band recorded their second album, Strip-mine, attempting a more conventional song structure in an attempt to please Sire. The album almost went unreleased, but after a slight remix to sound more radio-friendly, Sire released it in September 1988, over a year after its initial completion. However the album only reached number 90.[8] After finding a clause for ending their contract, the band left Sire.[6]".

I remember reading an interview at the time (about 1989) that their contract had a clause allowing them to leave if their record went unreleased for a specified period. It did, so they did (to Rough Trade of all places). As a keen follower of pop lore, and at the time of James, surely Mr Morrissey would have been aware of this and inserted such a clause?

Interesting. One would think he'd be aware of this indeed. But then, didn't he say he's left the deal? The problem is, he can't take Bonfire with him.

Insane.

Censorship : the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, music, news, etc

The word censorship implies someone is stopping his music from being heard, full-stop. He's doing that himself. Boo-f***ing-who. Release your own album, you dinosaur. You want promotion? Go for it. Buy whatever marketing you like. Hell, press up some autographed records available at shows for a ton of money...you'll get it. No one is stopping Morrissey from placing all his music up for download on his site. No one is silencing him. It seems he wants a solid record deal with plenty of money, promotion and praise. Those days are gone. Grow up old man.

You have to be kidding. He CANNOT release Bonfire. Capitol own the rights.

 

[Wally The Baboon's Ghost]

A load of shite. Morrissey could buy the album back from UMG/Capitol for its recording costs and whatever was advanced in a heartbeat and put it out himself.

 

[Ryan]

Just gathering information for a more detailed timeline.
The bit appearing most interesting is the assertion by several news outlets that Morrissey, by making his comments at the end of December, 2022 re:

"Morrissey has voluntarily parted company with Maverick/Quest management."
"Morrissey has also voluntarily withdrawn from any association with Capitol Records (Los Angeles.)"
- December 23.
"This comes at a time when Morrissey has disassociated himself with Capitol Records (Los Angeles)"
- December 24.

Lead to the current stalemate.
This was presented simply by the Daily Mail as:

"The singer intended to release LP Bonfire Of Teenagers in February, but Capitol shelved the project following his decision to leave the label"

Obviously not that simple, but are there many cases of record labels releasing music for people they don't work with anymore that people can remember?

Is that why Rebels Without Applause was released? Because it came out before he voluntarily left the label, and he was technically still with them when it was released digitally?