Guardian has been refused copy of "California Son" for review

@guardianmusic
Might be tricky to review the new Morrissey album. Been refused a copy because we wrote this piece about him. "Afraid management are not keen to provide advance music to the Guardian for this release".

 

[Anonymous]

No, not at all but this weekend is the Alderley Edge MayFair and I Reckon I can convince Peter to play here next year which will be f***ing ace.

Nah, he's busy this time next year getting his face and personality fixed. It's costing him a fortune - but it's a gift for his missus...he's hoping she will put out again after all this time.

 

[Anonymous]

I think we all know that the majority of the review isn't going to have anything to do with the quality of the actual album, but will be slagging off Morrissey's political views, and saying how 'problematic' an artist he is, so do they really need to actually listen to it? That said - I'm sure they will still cobble something together, and this will give them something extra to moan about, so Morrissey can't really win in this situation. At least they won't have a promo copy they can flog on ebay afterwards, I guess.

 

[snoddywilko]

What a petulant arsehole.

I didn’t want to insult you but seeing as you said it first, I agree, you are.

 

[Anonymous]

They seem to be under the impression we need them to tell us what to think. I paid for a copy and can judge it for myself thanks. The guardian s album review would be an impartial subjective opinion of just the music I'm sure.

Reviews remain handy things. Every month, an average of 65 new albums are released. I can't afford to buy them all - critical consensus from the reviews, and listening to the odd song on YouTube is the best way of working out which albums to buy or download. Of course, there are a small number of singers/groups whose stuff I will buy whatever, but for the rest I'm grateful to the reviewers.
That said I don't blame camp Morrissey for refusing to send the Guardian a copy. They've been unbelievably bitchy in the last 2 or 3 years towards him. and I say that as someone who won't buy his album in week 1 coz I don't want to contribute to his first week sales/chart position. His political views are idiotic and this is my tiny protest.

 

[countthree]

I think we all know that the majority of the review isn't going to have anything to do with the quality of the actual album, but will be slagging off Morrissey's political views, and saying how 'problematic' an artist he is, so do they really need to actually listen to it? That said - I'm sure they will still cobble something together, and this will give them something extra to moan about, so Morrissey can't really win in this situation. At least they won't have a promo copy they can flog on ebay afterwards, I guess.

I'm so glad he didn't stoop to lick the boots of these press mercenaries like everybody else does.

 

[ronald c]

quite the opposite. morrissey is still vital and effective. you have been misguided if you really believe the statement you have made. when you believe the opposite of what is true then it is a real problem.

You are observing that Morrissey looks great for his age? Are you serious about this? Please provide pics to back this up.

 

[ninetimesfined]

Which would also apply to any other outlet reviewing it, not just the Guardian.

Very true. However with the Guardian it would be a case of going to a garden centre and buying rocks in readiness for your public stoning ...

 

[Anonymous]

So I’m guessing they are banned from concerts like me and DavidT? Lol.

and you are?

 

[Anonymous]

You are observing that Morrissey looks great for his age? Are you serious about this? Please provide pics to back this up.

Marr looks GREAT for his age, Mozz looks fatty....

 

[Uncleskinny]

Very true. However with the Guardian it would be a case of going to a garden centre and buying rocks in readiness for your public stoning ...

Well you can choose your target as you wish. You could also have mentioned the Express or Mail and say it would be akin to going for a shoulder rub and getting a happy ending.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

and you are?

 

[BookishBoy]

This is a tricky one. Yes, of course it's petty and petulant. (Do those two words come from the same root? I can't be arsed to look it up.) But Morrissey has always been petulant - so why are any of us here surprised by this? And I'm sympathetic to much of the Guardian's work. (Although their treatment of Corbyn in the first couple of years of his leadership was appalling.) But the specific article to which Morrissey is objecting here was genuinely shitty. It's one thing to report the news, when Morrissey says something idiotic - that's fair enough. And it's also fine to have opinion pieces saying how awful it is that Morrissey no longer represents the Guardian's view of the world. But that article was neither news nor opinion: it was a pro-active attempt to scupper a piece of work several weeks before it was due to be released, by directly contacting artistic contributors and saying: Did you know that guy is an asshole (in our view) these days? That just feels, to me, like a pretty low way of operating: if you don't agree with our view of the world, then we're going to try to destroy your career. Hmmm.

 

[ninetimesfined]

Well you can choose your target as you wish. You could also have mentioned the Express or Mail and say it would be akin to going for a shoulder rub and getting a happy ending.

Probably. Or sending it to the Independent and feeling .... okay. Not good, not bad ...

 

[Girlmostlikely]

I like this. Morrissey didn't send a promo copy...even though the industry says you "have to". He thinks for himself and doesn't blindly do as he's told. Good! It's a protest. Can't blame him.

And remember it's the Guardian, not Morrissey, trying to get attention for this.

 

[reelfountain]

The Guardian are full of ex-Morrissey fans who still can't get enough of him (like many who supposedly hate him on this site). He's the icon they love to hate (but still secretly love). I think Moz's refusal to hand over the goods has hurt them deeply. Their predictable 'album review' of which would largely consist of sanctimonious condemnation of his politics and 'racism' with a few tacked-on words about the music, may now never happen.

 

[GodEmperorMorrissey]

Sure it is about trying to avoid a bad review... which is what probably ANY sane person who is an artist of any kind would try to do.
I think it was William Burroughs the one who wrote that the intention of a bad review is not inducing a reader to have a bad opinion about a book, but inducing a potential reader of the book to avoid reading it.
I don't think ANY artist of any kind would send an advanced copy of whatever he does to a journalist who would probably do his best to decrease the sales. So he is not even trying to be clever, he is simply doing what any person with some common sense would do.

No, it's about not giving hipster assclowns the privilege of hearing his new album after numerous articles talking shit on him. They want clicks based off Morrissey's name but show no respect bunch of no talent, hack writers

 

[marred]

But surely these days people find out about music for themselves. Reviews are a waste of time. Besides, who other than committed Moz fans are going to spend money on a covers album?

Exactly right> Music "journalism" is a non issue on the best of days and those days are over. They're even more redundant now and the guardian have proved they have an agenda and can't give an objective review. Even of a covers album they could manage to malign Morrissey I'd say. I think this move is great. No one is going to miss the guardian's review.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

This is why Moz looks so f***ing old. Bitterness eats the soul...and the body. Forgiveness would take years off him.

Guess the much beloved Robert Smith has MORE bitterness eating his soul and body....

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

You are observing that Morrissey looks great for his age? Are you serious about this? Please provide pics to back this up.

Yes for his age, look above at Robert Smith who is also 60.

 

[Oh my]

No, it's about not giving hipster assclowns the privilege of hearing his new album after numerous articles talking shit on him. They want clicks based off Morrissey's name but show no respect bunch of no talent, hack writers

Morrissey is not an independent artist, he has a contract with BMG. Surely he has artistic freedom and he is free to choose which songs he sings live, which pin he wants to wear, how he wants to get dressed... But I am sure that BMG would not avoid sending an album for review to the Guardian if they believed that it's a good idea financially: they are not a charity created to finance and satisfy Morrissey.

I would say that if an album was denied, it is because nobody thought that it was going to help to promote the album, but actually the opposite.

If he was a true independent artist (i.e, self-produced and self-promoted albums, then maybe I would consider your idea... But I really doubt that BMG would be OK about not sending albums to review if they believed that such thing would increase the sales).