Morrissey is a very underrated musician

[g23]

I'm actually a Dylan and Leonard Cohen fan too so I am a fan of the non-conventional voice. The problem with Johnny's voice is it just isn't very good in any terms... and then there are his lyrics. He's still a brilliant guitarist, of course, and he should stick to that.

Eh, it's all subjective, innit? Some people even like Low in High School.

 

[Anonymous]

If we're talking about melodies it doesn't really matter if it's voice or any instrument. The question I think would be how many of the songs he has written arrived with melodies intact.
I looked for Smiths demos on youtube. Most have Morrissey or are unreleased. Here's "Vicar In A Tutu," and it sounds good but it's pretty standard. Morrissey does add another dimension to it.

The version here is fast blues rock that could have turned into a ZZ Top song. By the time it's on the record the music has evolved, too, so maybe the words, melody and feeling of Morrissey's contribution inspired that. Maybe they were sort of collaborating back and forth. I have never read any of those books about The Smiths so I don't know if Marr would sometimes rework his parts after hearing what Morrissey did but it makes sense he might. And then he recorded so many parts so the mixing, what was chosen to be louder, and what parts might have been woven around the vocal parts could all change the overall sound and perception of the song a lot.
It's too bad that Morrissey has never as far as I know had a writing partner that he collaborated with at the same time instead of taking a tape away and writing his parts. And maybe it's happened but I've never heard of him coming up with a vocal melody and then having someone write around that.
I think there is a list on this site somewhere of stolen melodies. My first thought was The Cookies, "Only To Other People" where he takes the melody and inspiration from the concept for "The Girl Least Likely To."

In The Cookies song good things only happen to other people, and in Morrissey's song the girl hasn't yet realized that she's not a very exceptional writer and will probably never get recognition.
That's clever, though, to take a theme and look at it another way. The way he is known to have taken lines from books and inspiration from films suggests that he has probably done a lot of this. If he were ever to tell how he wrote some of the songs instead of the other things he seems bent on talking about it would be very interesting.
He is very talented and using your influences is a natural thing for any creative person. If he really spent that much time alone than films, books, and records would be a large part of his life. It makes sense these things would appear in his work.
And there are examples where we can hear the material he worked with. "Irish Blood, English Heart" is one of his biggest hits and the structure and chords are already there when it is called "Not Bitter But Bored." But Morrissey does change the melody and improves it greatly.


But whose fault is it that this is not discussed that much?

True it is a different thing to write side by side with someone but there have been instances where it was shown that he doesn’t just write and conform to the music on the initial tape and that he’ll come back and ask for changes to he music

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

I'm actually a Dylan and Leonard Cohen fan too so I am a fan of the non-conventional voice. The problem with Johnny's voice is it just isn't very good in any terms... and then there are his lyrics. He's still a brilliant guitarist, of course, and he should stick to that.

well I wouldn't tell anyone not to sing if they feel they need to. But it makes me think of the R Stones songs when Keith sings... sorry Keef, it doesn't work, you better let the accountant sing.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Eh, it's all subjective, innit? Some people even dislike Low in High School, until they hear it.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

vicar ? sounds closer to being an instrumental of ....



the bass line and aggressiveness of it.

 

[Oh my]

well I wouldn't tell anyone not to sing if they feel they need to. But it makes me think of the R Stones songs when Keith sings... sorry Keef, it doesn't work, you better let the accountant sing.

One of the few exceptions that come to my mind is the New York Dolls... Johansen was the singer, but Sylvain and Thunders could sing too and they did a fantastic job (Chatterbox is fantastic... of course, the solo albums by Johnny Thunders are amazing too). They had 3 persons who could sing!

 

[Truth]

True it is a different thing to write side by side with someone but there have been instances where it was shown that he doesn’t just write and conform to the music on the initial tape and that he’ll come back and ask for changes to he music

That makes sense. I think I remember something like that myself from an interview with one of his collaborators. If you have a link post it, please.

 

[Truth]

well I wouldn't tell anyone not to sing if they feel they need to. But it makes me think of the R Stones songs when Keith sings... sorry Keef, it doesn't work, you better let the accountant sing.

I'm sorry but some of those Keith songs are in there with their best songs if you ask me. "All About You" is so overlooked. "Happy" is a classic and I think they still play it all the time. The vocal on "Before They Make Me Run" almost abuses the privilege but it fits the song, and "Little T&A" is like a throwaway classic or a classic throwaway if such a thing exists. "You Got The Silver" is, like "Before They Make Me Run" kind of like a Dylan impersonation but it works! How dare you!
And Keith's background vocals are pretty important, too. That version of "The Last Time" on "Got Live If You Want It!" wouldn't be the same without Keith.

 

[Famous when dead]

That makes sense. I think I remember something like that myself from an interview with one of his collaborators. If you have a link post it, please.

I believe this was how it started:
(From Mozipedia).
"Though Morrissey and Marr began writing ‘eyeball to eyeball’, and would continue to do so infrequently throughout The Smiths, they quickly established a method which cast the die for Morrissey’s whole career. Marr would put his music on a cassette and give to Morrissey, who would then lock himself away ‘and start humming’. As he once explained their chemistry, ‘it all happens at the drop of a cassette’.
‘I just take the basics of a backing track and shout along to it for a few days,’ Morrissey explained. ‘Seeing where the syllables land, and seeing how the words balance out. Suddenly the lyrics form, and a configuration presents itself. I never “jam”, and almost never rehearse. I’m just very lucky that whatever it is that I do eventually becomes music.’
One of the consequential tics of the cassette-in-solitude method is Morrissey’s peculiar disregard for following conventional strong structure. Co-writers such as Stephen STREET and Mark NEVIN were often surprised, if confused, that tunes they’d written with what they considered very obvious verse/chorus changes would be ignored as Morrissey turned their original chorus melody into the bridge, or their verse section into his chorus, sometimes throwing out whole segments he deemed unnecessary. A good example is offered by Marr’s ‘HALF A PERSON’; if you follow Marr’s backing tune, you’ll notice that Morrissey continues singing a different chorus melody (the ‘I like it here’ part) even when Marr reverts back to his original verse section."

This certainly appears to have continued in to the solo era with very scant details as to whether he helps if aspects of the songs are changed or if he simply gets very creative over the top of finished tunes.

There is a good lengthy discussion by members here a while back that will help too:
https://www.morrissey-solo.com/thre...eys-musical-contribution-to-his-songs.120067/

I have physically watched something (possibly a dvd extra or similar) where the song on cassette / swapping verses with choruses / creating the vocal melody is discussed, but can't for the life of me remember the name (solo era).
Do have a look at the discussion thread though.
Regards,
FWD.

 

[g23]

"I made the mistake recently of posting on the same website as Der Ketamine Sun, and was grievously misquoted! Lies!
So unless you see the words tumbling from my mouth like narcoleptic acrobats, I NEVER SAID THEM!"

 

[Truth]

I believe this was how it started:
(From Mozipedia).
"Though Morrissey and Marr began writing ‘eyeball to eyeball’, and would continue to do so infrequently throughout The Smiths, they quickly established a method which cast the die for Morrissey’s whole career. Marr would put his music on a cassette and give to Morrissey, who would then lock himself away ‘and start humming’. As he once explained their chemistry, ‘it all happens at the drop of a cassette’.
‘I just take the basics of a backing track and shout along to it for a few days,’ Morrissey explained. ‘Seeing where the syllables land, and seeing how the words balance out. Suddenly the lyrics form, and a configuration presents itself. I never “jam”, and almost never rehearse. I’m just very lucky that whatever it is that I do eventually becomes music.’
One of the consequential tics of the cassette-in-solitude method is Morrissey’s peculiar disregard for following conventional strong structure. Co-writers such as Stephen STREET and Mark NEVIN were often surprised, if confused, that tunes they’d written with what they considered very obvious verse/chorus changes would be ignored as Morrissey turned their original chorus melody into the bridge, or their verse section into his chorus, sometimes throwing out whole segments he deemed unnecessary. A good example is offered by Marr’s ‘HALF A PERSON’; if you follow Marr’s backing tune, you’ll notice that Morrissey continues singing a different chorus melody (the ‘I like it here’ part) even when Marr reverts back to his original verse section."

This certainly appears to have continued in to the solo era with very scant details as to whether he helps if aspects of the songs are changed or if he simply gets very creative over the top of finished tunes.

There is a good lengthy discussion by members here a while back that will help too:
https://www.morrissey-solo.com/thre...eys-musical-contribution-to-his-songs.120067/

I have physically watched something (possibly a dvd extra or similar) where the song on cassette / swapping verses with choruses / creating the vocal melody is discussed, but can't for the life of me remember the name (solo era).
Do have a look at the discussion thread though.
Regards,
FWD.

Thank you. That's very interesting. I think maybe the interview with Vini Reilly by Julie Hamill might have had something on the subject or maybe it was Mark Nevin.

 

[Anonymous]

That makes sense. I think I remember something like that myself from an interview with one of his collaborators. If you have a link post it, please.

It’s mostly just things I vaguely remember over the years of being a fan but I think he asked for the instrumental part in we’ll let you know being extended which adds some emotional weight to the composition. Not exactly a great example but it does show that he’ll request changes to the instrumental to suit him. I also think that when Bernard her sent him a track he came back with a bunch of requests like a key change etc. my main point being that while he may not jam out a song side by side I think he does influence the music with these types of requests and helps shape the music into the songs we love today in other ways than just his vocal melody conforming to a finished composition

 

[Quando quando quando]

One of the few exceptions that come to my mind is the New York Dolls... Johansen was the singer, but Sylvain and Thunders could sing too and they did a fantastic job (Chatterbox is fantastic... of course, the solo albums by Johnny Thunders are amazing too). They had 3 persons who could sing!

I hope Moz will add in future to his very interesting list of cover songs (is there one on this site?) a coverversion of the epic song “Born To Lose” by Johnny Thunders And The Heartbreakers.

If there has been ever a case of stealing someone’s thunder (sic!), I believe that was The Sex Pistols doing that with The New York Dolls and Johnny Thunders And The Heartbreakers.

Was it ever released as a single?

They were all so much better musically, contentwise and I still cannot believe all praise going to the Sex Pistols and totally neglecting the Dolls and Johnny Thunders And His Heartbreakers!

Their first album I still have on vinyl and it is a treasure to me.

 

[Oh my]

I hope Moz will add in future to his very interesting list of cover songs (is there one on this site?) a coverversion of the epic song “Born To Lose” by Johnny Thunders And The Heartbreakers.

If there has been ever a case of stealing someone’s thunder (sic!), I believe that was The Sex Pistols doing that with The New York Dolls and Johnny Thunders And The Heartbreakers.

Was it ever released as a single?

They were all so much better musically, contentwise and I still cannot believe all praise going to the Sex Pistols and totally neglecting the Dolls and Johnny Thunders And His Heartbreakers!

Their first album I still have on vinyl and it is a treasure to me.

I do not like to think about it as something that I have to choose (i.e, Heartbreakers vs. Sex Pistols). I saw the reunion gigs of both bands and the Pistols were simply like a joke, whilst the Dolls were jaw dropping. So whilst they were musically better, I think the Sex Pistols brought something new to the stage and I get why so many artists were surprised when they saw them playing.

Then again, musical history is not always fair. I think Throbbing Gristle was more interesting than any punk band, but I also get why what they did became less influential than what both the Heartbreakers and the Pistols were doing.

Morrissey covered the Dolls twice (as far as I remember), though "Born to lose" would be a nice choice for him, I can agree with that. His version of "Trash" is simply fantastic.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

I hope Moz will add in future to his very interesting list of cover songs (is there one on this site?) a coverversion of the epic song “Born To Lose” by Johnny Thunders And The Heartbreakers.

If there has been ever a case of stealing someone’s thunder (sic!), I believe that was The Sex Pistols doing that with The New York Dolls and Johnny Thunders And The Heartbreakers.

Was it ever released as a single?

They were all so much better musically, contentwise and I still cannot believe all praise going to the Sex Pistols and totally neglecting the Dolls and Johnny Thunders And His Heartbreakers!

Their first album I still have on vinyl and it is a treasure to me.

It's difficult to deny the impact that songs like God Save the Queen had on the British psyche at the time all things considered. The Dolls had almost zero cultural impact here while the Pistols turned everything upside down. It's all about context and prospective.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

I do not like to think about it as something that I have to choose (i.e, Heartbreakers vs. Sex Pistols). I saw the reunion gigs of both bands and the Pistols were simply like a joke, whilst the Dolls were jaw dropping. So whilst they were musically better, I think the Sex Pistols brought something new to the stage and I get why so many artists were surprised when they saw them playing.

Then again, musical history is not always fair. I think Throbbing Gristle was more interesting than any punk band, but I also get why what they did became less influential than what both the Heartbreakers and the Pistols were doing.

Morrissey covered the Dolls twice (as far as I remember), though "Born to lose" would be a nice choice for him, I can agree with that. His version of "Trash" is simply fantastic.

'So whilst they were musically better, I think the Sex Pistols brought something new to the stage and I get why so many artists were surprised when they saw them playing.'




Well, they pinched the 'new' with the help of Malcolm from the Dolls.

Though the Dolls were inspired by the Kinks and Charles Ludlums Ridiculous theater. So if one looks, they'll find what has come before. Though unlike most punk, the Dolls really created something that could be at that time called new, yes it was 'glam' but a glam that went deeper with it's street smart wits and in your face and on a mission gang mentality that the Sweets and Glitters just didn't have. ( just my opinion)

punk? who pushed the punk button ? Reed, Dolls, Stooges, Suicide, T.G ?.....

TG was/is influential, but people felt safer with punk rock because it could be put into a box, recognizable as it's really just rock 'n' roll, and it could be packaged and sold easier, at that time.

Gen of TG read that all you need to be 'punk' is to learn three chords, and he said something along the lines of... well how about NO chords ! what's more punk than that?! Also, I think Gen always thought of TG as something closer to modern classical.

but you Oh my I'm sure already knew this.



Anyways, always thought it would be cool if M did a cover of this Thunder's song...












.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

I hope Moz will add in future to his very interesting list of cover songs (is there one on this site?) a coverversion of the epic song “Born To Lose” by Johnny Thunders And The Heartbreakers.

If there has been ever a case of stealing someone’s thunder (sic!), I believe that was The Sex Pistols doing that with The New York Dolls and Johnny Thunders And The Heartbreakers.

Was it ever released as a single?

They were all so much better musically, contentwise and I still cannot believe all praise going to the Sex Pistols and totally neglecting the Dolls and Johnny Thunders And His Heartbreakers!

Their first album I still have on vinyl and it is a treasure to me.

'If there has been ever a case of stealing someone’s thunder (sic!), I believe that was The Sex Pistols doing that with The New York Dolls and Johnny Thunders And The Heartbreakers.'

stealing thunder ! i mean inspired Thunders...




but I agree, NO DOLLS = NO PISTOLS, or it would have been a very different pistols, though the Dolls were not their only American influence.

 

[Oh my]

'So whilst they were musically better, I think the Sex Pistols brought something new to the stage and I get why so many artists were surprised when they saw them playing.'

Well, they pinched the 'new' with the help of Malcolm from the Dolls.

Though the Dolls were inspired by the Kinks and Charles Ludlums Ridiculous theater. So if one looks, they'll find what has come before. Though unlike most punk, the Dolls really created something that could be at that time called new, yes it was 'glam' but a glam that went deeper with it's street smart wits and in your face and on a mission gang mentality that the Sweets and Glitters just didn't have. ( just my opinion)

punk? who pushed the punk button ? Reed, Dolls, Stooges, Suicide, T.G ?.....

TG was/is influential, but people felt safer with punk rock because it could be put into a box, recognizable as it's really just rock 'n' roll, and it could be packaged and sold easier, at that time.

Gen of TG read that all you need to be 'punk' is to learn three chords, and he said something along the lines of... well how about NO chords ! what's more punk than that?! Also, I think Gen always thought of TG as something closer to modern classical.

but you Oh my I'm sure already knew this. .

WOW... there's a lot to say, but since the thread somehow became a thread about non-conventional singers and non-conventional bands, then I'd say that the Dolls were a non-conventional Glam band. Bowie and T-Rex shaped the style with very delicate voices and somehow surreal ideas (a planet queen, spiders from mars, a King Volcano, a Metal Guru, etc)... whilst singers like Glitter simply exploited the "super-macho" attitude. The Dolls had very little in common with any of them, they were like a group of drunk drag queens having a blast.

McLaren was extremely wise, but he got confused with the Dolls when he tried to use his most political irony with them and played with the idea of dressing them like transvestite Soviets. The Dolls were not a political band (except from the point of view that says that everything is political).

I think that with the Sex Pistols he had the chance of shaping the band from the very beginning... and they invented something "new", because a "God Save the Queen" is different to a "Beat on the brat"... and it's different to a "Bad Girl". And McLaren had learnt how to play with the infamous media. I have never been a huge Sex Pistols enthusiast, but I get why they became so influential.

Throbbing Gristle was different too. As you know, they started as a non-musical performance group (Coum Transmissions) and they began to incorporate music in their performances till they suddenly became a "band" with their own label (Industrial Records), but they had a more clear and defined ideology (their mix of influences that could embrace Burroughs, but also Viennese actionism, Fluxus and Situationism)... and certainly an intention to leave "rock music" aside. I don't know if they fit into "modern classical"... but I think it is relevant that they began as a non-musical performance group and the music came later.

As for Morrissey, he can pick any song by Thunders or the Dolls and make a great cover. He has already done it and the result was fantastic (though since we were talking about Glam rockers... I still can't believe the disaster that Bowie did with "I know it's gonna happen someday", I like Bowie, but that cover is terrible).