"Johnny Marr says The Smiths had a “blind spot” of being obsessed with media and notoriety" - NME (July 5, 2021)

shoplifterromo sends the link:

Johnny Marr says The Smiths had a "blind spot" of being obsessed with media and notoriety

Johnny Marr has reflected on his time in The Smiths, admitting the seminal band had a "blind spot" of being obsessed with media and notoriety

www.nme.com

"Particularly one certain member of the group"

Excerpt:

Speaking to Poet Laureate Simon Armitage for the new BBC Radio 4 series The Poet Laureate Has Gone to His Shed, Marr said that the band could have done with “less” coverage at the height of their 1980s fame.

Discussing how it became their blind spot, Marr said: “I was in a very very big ‘music press’ band, which now I’m older I think we could’ve done with less of that.

“I wouldn’t say it was our downfall but I think it was a blind spot of The Smiths, being so occupied with the media and notoriety – particularly one certain member of the group. I think that could’ve been dialled down a bit and would’ve helped the group out.”

---

Related item:

• Radio 4: Johnny Marr to guest on 'The Poet Laureate Has Gone to His Shed' (episode airs July 3, 2021)

 

[Deleted member 28251]

Interesting. My thoughts as a young fan seeing them survive the initial furore over the 'child abuse' accusations, how it was whipped up by The Sun et al, the knock on affect with The BBC... - happening relatively early on in their history left me thinking they could survive anything thrown at them by the press and any stressors that come with that level of accusation / scrutiny.
Although it is consigned to a couple of sentences in books now, that "paedophile" band was about as bad as anything Morrissey may have been accused of subsequently towards the split's build-up. The fact his efforts to cobble Al Jolson together with Delaney in a song or Handsome Devil being evidence of something sinister & abusive is laughable now, but it could have ended the band had Morrissey not been how he was with the media perhaps?
Seeing it develop at the time, I never felt that Johnny was expressly going simply because of anything ascribed solely to Morrissey's behaviour. I won't deny it may have played a part, but his desire to try other music, The The (his relationship with Matt Johnson being important here), Ferry, his 'break' Stateside, Angie's influence and his own stubbornness / ego etc. were all probably going to damage longevity too?
Regards,
FWD.

Fair points.

It was a long goodbye, but I personally feel The Smiths began to split up as soon as Rourke and Joyce were gagged and instructed not to speak to the media (a decision that preceded arguments about money). Morrissey and Marr would’ve been prioritised anyway, so why set out by establishing two tiers in an outfit that explicitly referred to the cohesion of a family? The project was a time bomb.

And yes, Marr’s hindsight seems to have him as strangely represented as at once passive and yet also the key actor: he starts the band, he ends the band and yet he’s apparently at the mercy of Morrissey in between.

 

[Anonymous]

Although it is consigned to a couple of sentences in books now, that "paedophile" band was about as bad as anything Morrissey may have been accused of subsequently towards the split's build-up. The fact his efforts to cobble Al Jolson together with Delaney in a song or Handsome Devil being evidence of something sinister & abusive is laughable now

Why?

 

[Vegan Cro Spirit .777]

Why on earth would Marr say this ... and why now? Well the likely answer is that this is another attempt to distance himself from Morrissey. Morrissey's world view is not in keeping with the opinions held by Johnny's chums in the mainstream media. Marr wants to be in the celeb' club with Noel and Bono, smug elitist pricks to a man. Morrissey doesn't give a f*** about being accepted and fawned over by these people. And that is another reason they hate him. Morrissey created the aesthetics for The Smiths and gave good copy. This good copy enchanted the Oxbridge crowd at the music press who could nod along in agreement with Morrissey over the brilliance of Oscar Wilde and Karel Reisz. Morrissey's wit and intelligence elevated The Smiths and gave them media coverage, which contributed to their success. Maybe Marr should have knocked on Robin Utracik's door instead - that would have saved him from the indignity of being a press darling. With each passing year, Marr becomes more of a sad muso, forever wheeled out to show us how he came up with those signature riffs, what an ingrate you are Johnny.

wants to join the celeb club with Bono and Noel
he cant even fill a 12x12 in the states

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

The problem is that between M and the press, during The Smiths period, wanted, rightly or wrongly, to stand out from other artists. And his relationship with this press shifted to something that had nothing to do with The Smiths, but more between M and the press, The Smiths took a back seat.

Reread all of M's interviews from 1983 to 1987 and you would see the difference in the content of the words as you go. And weren't here to say it's the press's fault, if a reporter asks a question that has nothing to do with The Smiths, M might not have answered the question, but he did it anyway and this on almost any subject.

After concerning Rought Trade, if M was not satisfied with their trade policy, he could also leave Rough Trade, but to sign with whom and above all no longer have the freedom that they (M and The Smiths) had with RT (as well musical with respect to the press).

.




Yes, this makes much more sense in what Marr may have seen as a problem, and that was as you say, the interviews
becoming more about Morrissey and less about The Smiths.

I could also imagine that Marr felt
that the music presses interest in Morrissey rather than The Smiths
may have been going to Morrissey’s
head, which might of had some part
in the strange power shift towards the very end of The Smiths that Marr noted in his book.

Of course this is all conjecture, but a view that could be taken into consideration.

 

[Anonymous]

.Yes, this makes much more sense in what Marr may have seen as a problem, and that was as you say, the interviews
becoming more about Morrissey and less about The Smiths.

I could also imagine that Marr felt
that the music presses interest in Morrissey rather than The Smiths
may have been going to Morrissey’s
head, which might of had some part
in the strange power shift towards the very end of The Smiths that Marr noted in his book.

I think that's pretty much what happened, but what Marr couldn't see or wouldn't accept was that Morrissey/The Smiths were the same thing. There was a power struggle over who called the shots and would determine the creative future of the band and it had shifted in Morrissey's favour. The Smiths would have been nothing without Morrissey - it would have been ludicrous for them to continue with a different lead singer, even if that had been a legal option, because the fans just wouldn't have accepted it. Whereas, despite the Ivor whatsisname fiasco, The Smiths could have continued without Marr - theoretically, again provided there had been no legal obstacle to using the name (which, granted, there probably was), if Stephen Street had stepped into the breach earlier. 'Viva Hate' could easily have been marketed as a Smiths album and would likely still have given them their biggest hits to date in 'Suedehead' and 'Everyday Is Like Sunday', whilst 'Playboys' and 'Interesting Drug' of course were top ten hits for The Smiths-minus-Marr.

 

[No 27]

But that's what Johnny always does - says lots of nice things, but gets in his little dig. I'm not saying he shouldn't criticise Morrissey - fine, if he wants to. But I get tired of the media swallowing or pandering to Marr's 'Mr. Nice Guy' when in fact he's a pretty ruthless, egotistical guy. And it was his ego, as much as it was Morrissey's, that ended The Smiths.

I was watching footage of their 1986 concerts and Marr is pretty embarrassing. Aside from the flashy suits he was sporting on that tour, it's the attention-seeking way he jerks around - he so obviously resents Morrissey being the focus of attention, and so obviously didn't appreciate what an asset the group had in their lead singer's charisma onstage. And in the studio he just couldn't come to terms with the fact that he was 'just' the guitar player, and in the background. I mean, Christ, he was Johnny Marr! The best pop guitar player/composer in the country, for my money. But you can see from the way his career has panned out that that wasn't enough for him.

If you look at footage of one of the early Smiths gigs (I think maybe the second gig) he's got a microphone and he's doing backing vocals. Then by probably the third gig, that's gone. But Marr, however inappropriately or for whatever reason, wanted to be a singer and a front man. He was frequently dropping little asides in interviews in the late 80s/90s about how he'd done backing vocals on this record and that record. Then he was 'persuaded' by Chrissie Hynde to sing 'Meat is Murder' live. The 'The Healers' then his 'solo' records.

My point being that his career as a singer/songwriter has been a non-event, but he has pursued it doggedly because he is surrounded by yes-men telling his he's great, who pander to his ego. And that's what he always wanted. He portrayed himself as a 'journeyman guitarist for hire' in the late 80s/early 90s, and that is what he would have excelled at, but he wanted to be a pop star, and so we got the underwhelming 'Electronic' project and his duff solo records.

I don't think Marr was wrong to quit The Smiths - if that's what he wanted, fine. But I do think he under-appreciated, and perhaps still under-appreciates Morrissey's talent. And I certainly think he underestimated Morrissey's capacity to make it as a solo artist, and probably 'quitting' The Smiths was just a political manoeuvre on his part, figuring that after a couple of years in the pop wilderness, a chastened and humbled Morrissey would be coming to him cap in hand, and Marr would have re-established his primacy in a re-formed Smiths. But he miscalculated big time.

The quote from Marr in this interview about Morrissey being too outspoken, and the way he slips it in amidst all the niceties, just typifies his attitude. He just doesn't get, and will never accept, that as big as his role was in The Smiths, and as big as his contribution was to their success, it was Morrissey who was the front man and the soul of 'The Smiths' - vocal melodies, lyrics, artwork, look, press interviews.... it was Morrissey who made them 'The Smiths'. And I think Marr still doesn't get that, or still resents it. Because if that wasn't the case, he wouldn't be saying daft things like this in interviews - basically expressing the desire that Morrissey (and by implication therefore 'The Smiths') had been a bit less Morrissey.

Johnny Marr was 50% of The Smiths' songwriting partnership.

 

[Anonymous]

Johnny Marr was 50% of The Smiths' songwriting partnership.

Legally, yes. In actuality, the songs weren't written as such. The lyrics were written, but the music was composed without (as far as I know) ever being written, and the vocal melodies were simply breathed into life. So I would talk about 'song creation' rather than 'songwriting'.

As to the music, once you factor in the contributions of Rourke and occasionally Porter (or Street, or even - as he claimed - Gannon) then I'd say Marr's contribution to the composition of the music was less than 100%, which means in turn that if you wanted to regard the music as being 50% of the songs (which I don't) then Marr shouldn't be laying claim to that 50% for himself.

But legally, yes. Which again, to my mind, is a pointer to Marr's egotism and ruthlessness in refusing to accord credit where it's due, and in overplaying his role.

 

[Sammy Denny]

But that's what Johnny always does - says lots of nice things, but gets in his little dig. I'm not saying he shouldn't criticise Morrissey - fine, if he wants to. But I get tired of the media swallowing or pandering to Marr's 'Mr. Nice Guy' when in fact he's a pretty ruthless, egotistical guy. And it was his ego, as much as it was Morrissey's, that ended The Smiths.

I was watching footage of their 1986 concerts and Marr is pretty embarrassing. Aside from the flashy suits he was sporting on that tour, it's the attention-seeking way he jerks around - he so obviously resents Morrissey being the focus of attention, and so obviously didn't appreciate what an asset the group had in their lead singer's charisma onstage. And in the studio he just couldn't come to terms with the fact that he was 'just' the guitar player, and in the background. I mean, Christ, he was Johnny Marr! The best pop guitar player/composer in the country, for my money. But you can see from the way his career has panned out that that wasn't enough for him.

If you look at footage of one of the early Smiths gigs (I think maybe the second gig) he's got a microphone and he's doing backing vocals. Then by probably the third gig, that's gone. But Marr, however inappropriately or for whatever reason, wanted to be a singer and a front man. He was frequently dropping little asides in interviews in the late 80s/90s about how he'd done backing vocals on this record and that record. Then he was 'persuaded' by Chrissie Hynde to sing 'Meat is Murder' live. The 'The Healers' then his 'solo' records.

My point being that his career as a singer/songwriter has been a non-event, but he has pursued it doggedly because he is surrounded by yes-men telling his he's great, who pander to his ego. And that's what he always wanted. He portrayed himself as a 'journeyman guitarist for hire' in the late 80s/early 90s, and that is what he would have excelled at, but he wanted to be a pop star, and so we got the underwhelming 'Electronic' project and his duff solo records.

I don't think Marr was wrong to quit The Smiths - if that's what he wanted, fine. But I do think he under-appreciated, and perhaps still under-appreciates Morrissey's talent. And I certainly think he underestimated Morrissey's capacity to make it as a solo artist, and probably 'quitting' The Smiths was just a political manoeuvre on his part, figuring that after a couple of years in the pop wilderness, a chastened and humbled Morrissey would be coming to him cap in hand, and Marr would have re-established his primacy in a re-formed Smiths. But he miscalculated big time.

The quote from Marr in this interview about Morrissey being too outspoken, and the way he slips it in amidst all the niceties, just typifies his attitude. He just doesn't get, and will never accept, that as big as his role was in The Smiths, and as big as his contribution was to their success, it was Morrissey who was the front man and the soul of 'The Smiths' - vocal melodies, lyrics, artwork, look, press interviews.... it was Morrissey who made them 'The Smiths'. And I think Marr still doesn't get that, or still resents it. Because if that wasn't the case, he wouldn't be saying daft things like this in interviews - basically expressing the desire that Morrissey (and by implication therefore 'The Smiths') had been a bit less Morrissey.

Thanks for this. I believe you have hit the nail on the head. The media love to paint Morrissey as the villain in The Smiths story, with Johnny as the hard pressed practical one. The brilliant musician hampered by Morrissey's monstrous ego, management duties and now - according to Marr - the er ... headache of being celebrated by an insatiable music press! FFS. But Marr has an ego too - and it was his ego that ended The Smiths, not Morrissey's. Sure Morrissey could no doubt be an insufferable whine, but Marr left because he thought he could do better than being a side man to Morrissey. It really is that simple. With all the praise heaped on his playing, the offers to work with 'whomever' turned his head. And he clearly thought he could parlay that into forming and fronting his own band. He eventually did that - after noodling with Billy Bragg, Bryan Ferry, Chrissie Hynde, Bernard Sumner et al we finally got The Healers monumentally underwhelming long player 'Boomslang'.

 

[Vegan. Cro. Spirit. 444]

the was 'composed' by T Rex et al, etc.
we have a guest who is ready to make an announcement:

: sorry but we have to cancel the USA 'dates'
due to visa issues, we hate to disappoint our fan
and will reschedule
( instant translation: we dont have a single fan in the
states no tix were sold. we are not re scheduling twat)

 

[Trans]

Legally, yes. In actuality, the songs weren't written as such. The lyrics were written, but the music was composed without (as far as I know) ever being written, and the vocal melodies were simply breathed into life. So I would talk about 'song creation' rather than 'songwriting'.

As to the music, once you factor in the contributions of Rourke and occasionally Porter (or Street, or even - as he claimed - Gannon) then I'd say Marr's contribution to the composition of the music was less than 100%, which means in turn that if you wanted to regard the music as being 50% of the songs (which I don't) then Marr shouldn't be laying claim to that 50% for himself.

But legally, yes. Which again, to my mind, is a pointer to Marr's egotism and ruthlessness in refusing to accord credit where it's due, and in overplaying his role.

This is the reality as I see it. I mean people make a lot out of morrissey and the court case because morrissey of course went on about it a lot but when I think about it marr kinda screwed his best childhood friend out of a bunch of money and credit in terms of rourke and he need him for the music

 

[Anonymous]

This is the reality as I see it. I mean people make a lot out of morrissey and the court case because morrissey of course went on about it a lot but when I think about it marr kinda screwed his best childhood friend out of a bunch of money and credit in terms of rourke and he need him for the music

Johnny has said he told Andy the deal when he joined and Andy took it. Andy also settled the case and they remain friends.

 

[Anonymous]

"Particularly one certain member of the group"

could be Johnny a little jealous that the music press wasn’t breaking down his door to
pick his brain and heart ?



“I wouldn’t say it was our downfall but I think it was a blind spot of The Smiths, being so occupied with the media and notoriety – particularly one certain member of the group.

I think that could’ve been dialled down a bit and would’ve helped the group out.”

Does Johnny elaborate on how he thinks it would have helped?

If Melvis’ greed and overinflated sense of self-importance hadn’t hi-jacked the Strangeways sessions, the follow-up album would have been something to talk about.

 

[Anonymous]

This is the reality as I see it. I mean people make a lot out of morrissey and the court case because morrissey of course went on about it a lot but when I think about it marr kinda screwed his best childhood friend out of a bunch of money and credit in terms of rourke and he need him for the music

Exactly. And he didn't just do it once. After Freak Party folded (because Marr quit) he broke contact with Rourke for about a year until he decided he needed him on bass for The Smiths. Then during The Smiths he sided with Morrissey over having Rourke fired from the group. And, for whatever reason, he has opted never to use Rourke on bass for any post-Smiths ventures, and they've only in fact played together once, to my knowledge.

 

[Anonymous]

Marr left because he thought he could do better than being a side man to Morrissey. It really is that simple.

Totally agree. That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Anonymous]

the media is hounding
who gives snoozefest interviews to every mediocre blog in existence

>

…nothing like the illiterate, emoji-laden, snooze-fest drivel you constantly post on here though.

 

[Anonymous]

Johnny has said he told Andy the deal when he joined and Andy took it. Andy also settled the case and they remain friends.

I think that says more about Andy than it does about Johnny.

 

[Surface]

Exactly. And he didn't just do it once. After Freak Party folded (because Marr quit) he broke contact with Rourke for about a year until he decided he needed him on bass for The Smiths. Then during The Smiths he sided with Morrissey over having Rourke fired from the group. And, for whatever reason, he has opted never to use Rourke on bass for any post-Smiths ventures, and they've only in fact played together once, to my knowledge.

Andy's joined Marr on stage a few times to play a Smiths song.

 

[Anonymous]

Why on earth would Marr say this ... and why now? Well the likely answer is that this is another attempt to distance himself from Morrissey. Morrissey's world view is not in keeping with the opinions held by Johnny's chums in the mainstream media. Marr wants to be in the celeb' club with Noel and Bono, smug elitist pricks to a man. Morrissey doesn't give a f*** about being accepted and fawned over by these people. And that is another reason they hate him. Morrissey created the aesthetics for The Smiths and gave good copy. This good copy enchanted the Oxbridge crowd at the music press who could nod along in agreement with Morrissey over the brilliance of Oscar Wilde and Karel Reisz. Morrissey's wit and intelligence elevated The Smiths and gave them media coverage, which contributed to their success. Maybe Marr should have knocked on Robin Utracik's door instead - that would have saved him from the indignity of being a press darling. With each passing year, Marr becomes more of a sad muso, forever wheeled out to show us how he came up with those signature riffs, what an ingrate you are Johnny.

Riddle me this, Kiddo… If Melvis doesn’t care what other people think about him, why is he constantly whinging about chart positions and how hard-done-by he is?

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

If Melvis’ greed and overinflated sense of self-importance hadn’t hi-jacked the Strangeways sessions, the follow-up album would have been something to talk about.

So now you’re calling Marr ‘Melvis’ ?!

And Viva Hate is not something to talk about?!

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Andy's joined Marr on stage a few times to play a Smiths song.

was this before or after the court case? Curious as to how he feels about Andy after that, I’m pretty sure he hasn’t forgiven Mike for lying.