Morrissey - has his light finally gone out? by Andrew Harrison (The Guardian / Shortcuts blog)

"foam-flecked fundamentalists"

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

What do you mean "brought down"? Brought down how, where? If we're talking about the cancellation of South America, that was illness and an (apparently) dodgy local management. I don't see any other evidence of anyone being "brought down" by hubris or anything else.

(Human verification code was "broken record" = ironic that this comes up when replying to a JB post)

hubris (ˈhjuːbrɪs)
n.
1. pride or arrogance
2. (in Greek tragedy) an excess of ambition, pride, etc, ultimately causing the transgressor's ruin

Seems pretty clear to me. I'm sorry, but not surprised, if your small mind cannot grasp even simple concepts.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

I'm not an "adorer", but equally I see no evidence for stating "a great talent and career on the decline". People said the same thing about Judy Garland for the last fifteen years of her life, but even to the very end, she was one of the most compelling live performers of recorded history. Go to any Moz gig and you'll see the same kind of magic in action.

Presumably you are the same person who was waffling on about Judy Garland the other week. There is no comparison, not least because Judy Garland was still playing the great venues such as the London Palladium and Carnegie Hall at the end, not one man and his f***ing llama at the arse end of the world. It's a ludicrous comparison which doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny.

 

[Anonymous]

hubris (ˈhjuːbrɪs)
n.
1. pride or arrogance
2. (in Greek tragedy) an excess of ambition, pride, etc, ultimately causing the transgressor's ruin

Seems pretty clear to me. I'm sorry, but not surprised, if your small mind cannot grasp even simple concepts.

it would appear the question this poster was asking was how you determined and defined " bought down", not hubris,
we can all cut and paste pompous dictionary diatribes.
barleycorn; barley corn- corn of the barley variety.
barleycorn- idle, pretentious, lifeless, psuedo-intellectual. often found sniping and sneering at the incomprehensible.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

After reading Johnny Barleycorn's usual rubbish, I was reminded of this:

“All internet debates, without exception, are entirely futile... There's no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky. The internet's perfect for all manner of things, but productive discussion ain't one of them. It provides scant room for debate and infinite opportunities for fruitless point-scoring: the heady combination of perceived anonymity, random heckling and a notional 'live audience' quickly conspire to create a perfect storm of perpetual bickering. Stumble in, take umbrage with someone, trade a few blows, and within about two or three exchanges, the subject itself goes out the window. Suddenly you're simply arguing about arguing. Eventually, one side gets bored, comes to its senses, or dies, and the row fizzles out: just another needless belch in the swirling online guffstorm. But not for long, because online quarrelling is also addictive, in precisely the same way Tetris is addictive. It appeals to the "lab rat" part of your brain; the annoying, irrepressible part that adores repetitive pointlessness and would gleefully make you pop bubblewrap till Doomsday if it ever got its way. An unfortunate few, hooked on the futile thrill of online debate, devote their lives to its cause. They roam the internet, actively seeking out viewpoints they disagree with, or squat on messageboards, whining, needling, sneering, over-analysing each new proclamation - joylessly fiddling, like unhappy gorillas doomed to pick lice from one another's fur for all eternity” - CHARLIE BROOKER.

Remind you of any website in particular...?

I feel rather vindicated by the attentions of my occasional anonymous stalker and his inability to make a counter argument. If only he had the courage to register.

I'm old enough to remember when Charlie Brooker was good, rather than a shaggy, podgy shadow of his former self. I hear he wants his Guardian comments turned off or he won't write his column anymore. There's edgy.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

it would appear the question this poster was asking was how you determined and defined " bought down", not hubris,
we can all cut and paste pompous dictionary diatribes.
barleycorn; barley corn- corn of the barley variety.
barleycorn- idle, pretentious, lifeless, psuedo-intellectual. often found sniping and sneering at the incomprehensible.

No record deal, no tour, no material, no promoter, no band and reduced to wandering into stores to get any coverage whatsoever.

Obviously my criteria for success and yours don't match, but that's probably because you've never experienced it yourself.

 

[Anonymous]

No record deal, no tour, no material, no promoter, no band and reduced to wandering into stores to get any coverage whatsoever.

Obviously my criteria for success and yours don't match, but that's probably because you've never experienced it yourself.

*No transport ! (the wheel fell off the covered wagon)

Benny-the-Butcher

 

[Anaesthesine]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

Presumably you are the same person who was waffling on about Judy Garland the other week. There is no comparison, not least because Judy Garland was still playing the great venues such as the London Palladium and Carnegie Hall at the end, not one man and his f***ing llama at the arse end of the world. It's a ludicrous comparison which doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny.

I have to agree with the Anonymous Judy Garland fan: as a live "performer" Morrissey is still utterly compelling (and in a rather Garlandesque way). I've compared him to Piaf in the past as well. There's an undeniable layer of pathos at this point, and it suits him. As for venues: he played the beautiful Gilman Opera House at BAM (in Brooklyn) earlier this year - a serious cultural venue in the heart of New York City. Not only was the place packed with hysterical fans, but the people who worked there were astonished: they had never seen anything like that night (and this place hosts major international acts). On a great night Morrissey and his audience can still put on an amazing show.

I've been in the music business for decades, I still go to plenty of shows, and I'm a harsh critic. I've seen Morrissey on nights when he appeared so painfully wasted that he was physically dragging himself through the set (and that was years ago). The last time I saw Morrissey he had the audience eating out of the palm of his hand. He was fantastic by any standard, and folks who had never seen him before left in awe.

Yes, the man is seriously screwing things up at the tail end of his career, but he's by no means done. He may not be writing up to his very high standards (if only he would give Alain a call), but the comparison to late-period Judy is perfectly appropriate: world-weary, faded glamour suits him (if only he could control the bitterness). The huge difference is that Judy Garland was entirely mainstream, and she remained so to the end. Morrissey is stubbornly (and bizarrely) indie; even if his music has ceased to challenge, his attitude ensures that he'll always remain widely unacceptable.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

I have to agree with the Anonymous Judy Garland fan: as a live "performer" Morrissey is still utterly compelling (and in a rather Garlandesque way). I've compared him to Piaf in the past as well. There's an undeniable layer of pathos at this point, and it suits him. As for venues: he played the beautiful Gilman Opera House at BAM (in Brooklyn) earlier this year - a serious cultural venue in the heart of New York City. Not only was the place packed with hysterical fans, but the people who worked there were astonished: they had never seen anything like that night (and this place hosts major international acts). On a great night Morrissey and his audience can still put on an amazing show.

I've been in the music business for decades, I still go to plenty of shows, and I'm a harsh critic. I've seen Morrissey on nights when he appeared so painfully wasted that he was physically dragging himself through the set (and that was years ago). The last time I saw Morrissey he had the audience eating out of the palm of his hand. He was fantastic by any standard, and folks who had never seen him before left in awe.

Yes, the man is seriously screwing things up at the tail end of his career, but he's by no means done. He may not be writing up to his very high standards (if only he would give Alain a call), but the comparison to late-period Judy is perfectly appropriate: world-weary, faded glamour suits him (if only he could control the bitterness). The huge difference is that Judy Garland was entirely mainstream, and she remained so to the end. Morrissey is stubbornly (and bizarrely) indie; even if his music has ceased to challenge, his attitude ensures that he'll always remain widely unacceptable.

Not normally a fan of your stuff on here, but this is great.

 

[realitybites]

I feel rather vindicated by the attentions of my occasional anonymous stalker and his inability to make a counter argument. If only he had the courage to register.

I'm old enough to remember when Charlie Brooker was good, rather than a shaggy, podgy shadow of his former self. I hear he wants his Guardian comments turned off or he won't write his column anymore. There's edgy.

Ya, why won't lynnda register? Hmm.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

I have to agree with the Anonymous Judy Garland fan: as a live "performer" Morrissey is still utterly compelling (and in a rather Garlandesque way). I've compared him to Piaf in the past as well. There's an undeniable layer of pathos at this point, and it suits him. As for venues: he played the beautiful Gilman Opera House at BAM (in Brooklyn) earlier this year - a serious cultural venue in the heart of New York City. Not only was the place packed with hysterical fans, but the people who worked there were astonished: they had never seen anything like that night (and this place hosts major international acts). On a great night Morrissey and his audience can still put on an amazing show.

I've been in the music business for decades, I still go to plenty of shows, and I'm a harsh critic. I've seen Morrissey on nights when he appeared so painfully wasted that he was physically dragging himself through the set (and that was years ago). The last time I saw Morrissey he had the audience eating out of the palm of his hand. He was fantastic by any standard, and folks who had never seen him before left in awe.

Yes, the man is seriously screwing things up at the tail end of his career, but he's by no means done. He may not be writing up to his very high standards (if only he would give Alain a call), but the comparison to late-period Judy is perfectly appropriate: world-weary, faded glamour suits him (if only he could control the bitterness). The huge difference is that Judy Garland was entirely mainstream, and she remained so to the end. Morrissey is stubbornly (and bizarrely) indie; even if his music has ceased to challenge, his attitude ensures that he'll always remain widely unacceptable.

Judy Garland was dead at forty-seven by her own hand, accidentally or not. Whatever demons she tussled with she was still functioning as a performer, and that really was all she was. I don't mean "all" in a pejorative sense. I mean she turned up and either went on herself or was shoved on with a long stick. She was not a writer of songs, she brilliantly, by most accounts, interpreted the works of others. Not my cup of tea, particularly, but she seemed good at what she did up until the day she died. Morrissey's reputation is of one who cancels commitments on occasion on a whim. The Johnny Marr interview somewhere here on the front page touches very briefly on this aspect of Morrissey too. Marr speaks of always backing up Morrissey, including, innocently I'm sure "When we cancelled gigs." It's about two minutes from the end.

Morrissey is known broadly as being a writer and performer of his own songs. When he does not do one or other or both of those things it is natural that he should be questioned, especially as he seemed, up until just a few days ago, to be in utter denial.

It's interesting that you mention both Garland and Piaf, both of whom achieved greatness only to see it fall about their ears in incredibly tragic circumstances. I think Morrissey, although at an all time low ebb, can produce something special again if he wishes to do so. I'm not convinced he thinks he still has it in him.

We might discover in the next few weeks and months exactly what is going on with Morrissey. If he drags himself away from the nauseating self-pity and self-parody of his last two statements and announces another tour I think it will point to issues of cash flow. If he announces new collaborators and/or an intention to return to the studio then he has enough money to disappear for a couple of years and see what develops, which is what he should have done after the last two commercial failures.

Let's not forget that Morrissey's woes really ramped up after his idiotic statements on a range of issues in the last couple of years backfired. He got applauded here by a few dimwits, but managed to alienate many more of what is, let's be honest, an already dwindling fanbase.

His silence on the birth of Prince Wotsit is both deafening and welcome. We all know if he had made it on stage in South America it would be very different. Perhaps it is dawning on him that what people expect from a singer songwriter is singng and songs.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

Judy Garland was dead at forty-seven by her own hand, accidentally or not. Whatever demons she tussled with she was still functioning as a performer, and that really was all she was. I don't mean "all" in a pejorative sense. I mean she turned up and either went on herself or was shoved on with a long stick. She was not a writer of songs, she brilliantly, by most accounts, interpreted the works of others. Not my cup of tea, particularly, but she seemed good at what she did up until the day she died. Morrissey's reputation is of one who cancels commitments on occasion on a whim. The Johnny Marr interview somewhere here on the front page touches very briefly on this aspect of Morrissey too. Marr speaks of always backing up Morrissey, including, innocently I'm sure "When we cancelled gigs." It's about two minutes from the end.

Yes, well, let's hope that Morrissey ends up more happily than Judy. Plenty of people are betting otherwise.

Morrissey is renowned for his unreliability - I suppose you could say that these days he's perfected his craft.

Morrissey is known broadly as being a writer and performer of his own songs. When he does not do one or other or both of those things it is natural that he should be questioned, especially as he seemed, up until just a few days ago, to be in utter denial.

I agree with you there. The most damning thing ever to be printed about him was by his own hand, and it was breathtakingly clueless. I often wonder whether he actually believes his own bluster.

It's interesting that you mention both Garland and Piaf, both of whom achieved greatness only to see it fall about their ears in incredibly tragic circumstances. I think Morrissey, although at an all time low ebb, can produce something special again if he wishes to do so. I'm not convinced he thinks he still has it in him.

Yes, they both died at age 47: I never noticed that before. Still, all three sing with great power and depth from the vantage point of middle-age. Morrissey seems to be doing quite well be the standards of tragic chanteuses.

I also wonder whether he knows if the well has run dry. If he truly believes that he has nothing left to give, then that would be tragic indeed. Perhaps his fans have more faith in him than he has in himself. I think he'd be more likely to triumph once again just to kick his critics in the teeth.

We might discover in the next few weeks and months exactly what is going on with Morrissey. If he drags himself away from the nauseating self-pity and self-parody of his last two statements and announces another tour I think it will point to issues of cash flow. If he announces new collaborators and/or an intention to return to the studio then he has enough money to disappear for a couple of years and see what develops, which is what he should have done after the last two commercial failures.

I agree: time off with fresh collaborators would be just the thing.

Let's not forget that Morrissey's woes really ramped up after his idiotic statements on a range of issues in the last couple of years backfired. He got applauded here by a few dimwits, but managed to alienate many more of what is, let's be honest, an already dwindling fanbase.

His silence on the birth of Prince Wotsit is both deafening and welcome. We all know if he had made it on stage in South America it would be very different. Perhaps it is dawning on him that what people expect from a singer songwriter is singng and songs.

Yes, it's Morrissey's public statements that have signaled a sad decline in general goodwill. Here in the US he doesn't get anywhere near the kind of press he gets in the UK, so most casual fans have no idea how many dirty feet he's stuck in his mouth. Most upsetting.

As for his refusal to make a statement on Little Georgie, I wonder: even Morrissey wouldn't insult a baby. Then again, think of the headlines...

 

[Peterb]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

I'm not an "adorer", but equally I see no evidence for stating "a great talent and career on the decline". People said the same thing about Judy Garland for the last fifteen years of her life, but even to the very end, she was one of the most compelling live performers of recorded history. Go to any Moz gig and you'll see the same kind of magic in action.

Oh dear, you havn't made the best choice to illustrate your position. Judy's decline wa very marked and very public.

 

[Anonymous]

Ya, why won't lynnda register? Hmm.

Save your carbon footprint in future, Linda is fine sounds just the same and is quicker to type I find.


Swampy

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

Oh dear, you havn't made the best choice to illustrate your position. Judy's decline wa very marked and very public.

When my mom worked at the Playboy Club in Hollywood she came in once and got so hammered she passed out and fell on the floor and my mom had to pick her up and put her back in her chair next to her boyfriend.

 

[BrummieBoy]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

"As for his refusal to make a statement on Little Georgie, I wonder: even Morrissey wouldn't insult a baby. Then again, think of the headlines..."

"I wouldn't be surprised if she [Madonna] made that African boy into a coat and wore him ... for 15 minutes, and then threw it away."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/07/12/morrissey-lashes-out-at-m_n_55904.html

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

Here in the US he doesn't get anywhere near the kind of press he gets in the UK, so most casual fans have no idea how many dirty feet he's stuck in his mouth. Most upsetting.

As for his refusal to make a statement on Little Georgie, I wonder: even Morrissey wouldn't insult a baby. Then again, think of the headlines...

I was struck by how little coverage his last statement got here in the UK, particularly as it was, in effect, a retirement note. There was a touch of the boy who cried wolf about it and any coverage there was came a couple of days later and was pretty muted.

Part of the reason he continued to get mainstream coverage was, I think, that some of those now in the middle and upper echelons of the media were fans, probably of the Smiths more than than his solo stuff. They liked him. Now, I wonder if they too are exasperated by his strange behaviour. Also, you can't keep writing about him when he is irrelevant, if not unknown, to many of your readers.

As for the baby, I'm sure he's itching to say something. He doesn't strike me as a man who would shrink from attacking someone just because they were four days old.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Re: gloomy/pessimistic article in the Guardian

Oh dear, you havn't made the best choice to illustrate your position. Judy's decline wa very marked and very public.

I was a bit surprised to see Judy Garland's career used as a positive comparison with Morrissey when it was first made last week. I suppose a poorer example could have been chosen. Donald Campbell? Mohammed Atta, perhaps?

 

[Anonymous]

Ya, why won't lynnda register? Hmm.

Why bring me into this; I'm working 7 days a week and hardly ever here anymore? Why do I need to register when I am signing my name to every comment that I post? I'm not hiding behind anonymity or some psuedo identity. Technically, aren't you all anonymous? I say what I feel and I stand behind it. I'm not sorry for the things I've said; there's a wild man in my head..., so I'm not embarrassed or ashamed to sign my actual name, and I don't understand why it pisses so many people off. I don't want to be forced to create some alter ego, why does it matter?

lynnda

 

[realitybites]

Why bring me into this; I'm working 7 days a week and hardly ever here anymore? Why do I need to register when I am signing my name to every comment that I post? I'm not hiding behind anonymity or some psuedo identity. Technically, aren't you all anonymous? I say what I feel and I stand behind it. I'm not sorry for the things I've said; there's a wild man in my head..., so I'm not embarrassed or ashamed to sign my actual name, and I don't understand why it pisses so many people off. I don't want to be forced to create some alter ego, why does it matter?

lynnda

My apologies. I mistook you for someone else. If you sign all your posts, then you are indeed recognizable.