Paint a Vulgar Picture

I suppose that is true, but that does depend on who actually reissued the albums. Of course that does mean that Morrissey doesn't look good, but my origional point was that the song Paint a Vulgar Picture is about record companies using the deaths of singers to 'Paint A Vulgar Picture' of how great the artist was in order to make money, rather than the artist reissuing their own work. People often use Paint A Vulgar Picture to show Morrissey as a hypocrite in the face of his releases, but they obviously don't understand the song.

Exactly!
 
I have to agree with many of the sentiments expressed here. I can't think of another artist of Morrissey's standing who releases compilations or reissues. I'm pretty sure he's the only one who does so. I don't I've never seen a compilation album without the word Morrissey on it. And the record company don't even want to put these records out. Morrissey forces them to do it.
 
I think lots of people make the mistake that this song is about artists re-packaging their own work, when actually it is about how the record companies use the deaths of their artists to maximise profits and put out cheap compilations boasting unreleased material that is patchy at best, but it doesn't matter, because the masses swallow it up because the singer is now dead and when a singer dies they all of a sudden become so relevant and important to the music industry. There's loads of examples, like Amy Winehouse and Micheal Jackson. Barely anyone I knew liked or really listened to Winehouse save for her singles and then when she died, everyone was making out that she was such an inspiration and the labels released a compilation album which was swallowed up by the public. Then with Jackson, most people hated him because of the accusations that he was a child molester, then when he died everyone suddenly overlooked that and again he became this iconic figure far greater than I think his talents deserved.

watch this:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At the record company meeting
On their hands - a dead star
And oh, the plans they weave
And oh, the sickening greed

At the record company party
On their hands - a dead star
The sycophantic slags all say :
"I knew him first, and I knew him well"
 
I have to agree with many of the sentiments expressed here. I can't think of another artist of Morrissey's standing who releases compilations or reissues. I'm pretty sure he's the only one who does so. I don't I've never seen a compilation album without the word Morrissey on it. And the record company don't even want to put these records out. Morrissey forces them to do it.

Is that you, Geoff? You should have done better promoting "Shakespeare's Sister", it was sure-fire #1.
 
I suppose that is true, but that does depend on who actually reissued the albums. Of course that does mean that Morrissey doesn't look good, but my origional point was that the song Paint a Vulgar Picture is about record companies using the deaths of singers to 'Paint A Vulgar Picture' of how great the artist was in order to make money, rather than the artist reissuing their own work. People often use Paint A Vulgar Picture to show Morrissey as a hypocrite in the face of his releases, but they obviously don't understand the song.

In "Paint a Vulgar Picture", Morrissey is (among other things) criticising the practice of repackaging and reissuing music that is already openly available. Yes, he is criticising the record companies who do so, but there is no reason why the pop singer whose music is being repackaged should not be the target of the same criticism. Logically, a pop singer who condemns these practices and then engages in them, himself, deserves even greater criticism.
 
I really don't understand these accusations.

There aren't any "good" pop stars or rock and roll bands out there totally undeserving of criticism. They all do things for cash. They all "sell out". They all compromise their principles. They all besmirch art with commerce.

Instead of looking at the matter with stark severity, holding fast to an imaginary purity, why not gather up the various pieces to the puzzle and see what the picture looks like?

Okay, so Morrissey may have compromised on the principles implied in "Paint A Vulgar Picture". Over the years he's also proven himself fiercely independent and stubbornly unwilling to compromise himself to earn gobs of money. Clearly he has violated the letter of the 'law' in 'Picture', but not its spirit. He's the opposite of a "media whore". Doesn't that count for anything?

Incidentally, one point being missed here is that Morrissey perpetually feels neglected by the music industry and believes that if his records could just get out there and be heard, his audience would grow. He sees every new release, whether it's new material or old, as a chance to put himself in front of people. This goes back to 1987, when he insisted on releasing the final two Smiths singles without suitable B-sides because he thought it was one more chance for the public to hear The Smiths. I don't know what all of his motivations were behind the recent re-leases of "Viva Hate" and others, but I promise you that one of the main ones was a simple desire to be heard again. Even when it seems to be wholly about money, it may not be.
 
I really don't understand these accusations.

Of course you do.

There aren't any "good" pop stars or rock and roll bands out there totally undeserving of criticism. They all do things for cash. They all "sell out". They all compromise their principles. They all besmirch art with commerce.

They don't all say one thing and then do the opposite. Even if they do, I'd think the place to criticise them is on their own fan-sites, rather than Morrissey's.

Instead of looking at the matter with stark severity, holding fast to an imaginary purity, why not gather up the various pieces to the puzzle and see what the picture looks like?

Okay, so Morrissey may have compromised on the principles implied in "Paint A Vulgar Picture". Over the years he's also proven himself fiercely independent and stubbornly unwilling to compromise himself to earn gobs of money. Clearly he has violated the letter of the 'law' in 'Picture', but not its spirit. He's the opposite of a "media whore". Doesn't that count for anything?

Yes, those things count for something. That's why we're here and that's why we still listen to the music, still buy the records and still go to the gigs. (In fact, I don't still buy the records or attend concerts, but that's for separate reasons.)

Incidentally, one point being missed here is that Morrissey perpetually feels neglected by the music industry and believes that if his records could just get out there and be heard, his audience would grow. He sees every new release, whether it's new material or old, as a chance to put himself in front of people. This goes back to 1987, when he insisted on releasing the final two Smiths singles without suitable B-sides because he thought it was one more chance for the public to hear The Smiths. I don't know what all of his motivations were behind the recent re-leases of "Viva Hate" and others, but I promise you that one of the main ones was a simple desire to be heard again. Even when it seems to be wholly about money, it may not be.

So it's a quest for stardom and money? Okay, that's not really endearing him to me.
 
I think lots of people make the mistake that this song is about artists re-packaging their own work, when actually it is about how the record companies use the deaths of their artists to maximise profits and put out cheap compilations boasting unreleased material that is patchy at best, but it doesn't matter, because the masses swallow it up because the singer is now dead and when a singer dies they all of a sudden become so relevant and important to the music industry. There's loads of examples, like Amy Winehouse and Micheal Jackson. Barely anyone I knew liked or really listened to Winehouse save for her singles and then when she died, everyone was making out that she was such an inspiration and the labels released a compilation album which was swallowed up by the public. Then with Jackson, most people hated him because of the accusations that he was a child molester, then when he died everyone suddenly overlooked that and again he became this iconic figure far greater than I think his talents deserved.

This. But people like to only see that one line and then repeat ad nauseum.
 
Exploiting dead musicians? Please. That can't happen. Patently absurd.

"Techno whizzes are said to be creating a virtual Michael Jackson, while they have already made one of dead US rapper Tupac.

And Amy’s dad Mitch has said he would like to create one of his daughter, who died last year aged 27.

He said: 'The most important thing to Amy was the music and I’m sure a lot of people would like to hear her sing again.'"

:straightface:
 
I realize Morrissey himself wrote a song about record companies fleecing fans but there must be some difference between the Readers Digest version of Hank Williams 8 greatest hits and a genuine effort to re-release something like Viva Hate. I think Worm is correct that it's not about money because I don't think a whole lot of money is coming in. He wants the music to be heard.

All that aside the problem here is cultural. Unfortunately Rolling Stone magazine's influence, and the type of rock fan-band relationship that it describes is all based on the 1960's ideals where bands live together in the same house like The Monkees, and the promoters are the only ones that ever think about money. The rock stars are shown as being freaky but never flaunting wealth.

The truth is the record companies need someone to record so they find someone that the audience can relate to, but it's all a product. None of these concepts are new, by the way. RCA pressed a record of a man playing fiddle and sold it at a fiddle convention. The original recording was noisy but they sold 5,000 copies before Ralph Peer was embarrassed by the quality and arranged to have a new recording session of the same tune. This was in the early 1920's and is the same concept used today in "remastering" and of course each new format gets it's own new and improved release.
 
They don't all say one thing and then do the opposite.

As I said above, until I know that Morrissey was 100% behind the re-release of his albums, controlled every decision, and did so strictly to exploit past material for financial gain, I don't believe you can say he "said one thing and did the opposite".

Yes, those things count for something. That's why we're here and that's why we still listen to the music, still buy the records and still go to the gigs. (In fact, I don't still buy the records or attend concerts, but that's for separate reasons.)

Okay, and mainly what I'm arguing here is that we should give a lot of weight to those things. He's either a crap capitalist or he's a man with principles which he has upheld imperfectly. He's inconsistent; old news, tired news, let's move on. We all know this already.

So it's a quest for stardom and money? Okay, that's not really endearing him to me.

Heh. Come on, I didn't say that. I said he wanted his music to be heard. Every album is an assault on the charts, every single a valiant attempt to invade the public consciousness. That's how he seems to view things and always has done.

Is it pedantic to point out that Morrissey approved of selling "extra tracks" from day one in The Smiths? They put out a third, "extra track" on every one of their 12" singles. Morrissey, in charge of The Smiths' record sleeves, actually specified that the words "extra track" be printed on the promotional posters. Is it possible he has a different definition of cheap, money-grubbing exploitation than we do? Maybe it's worth looking at things from his point of view, which is easy to patch together from songs and interviews, before calling him a hypocrite.

P.S. I don't like the re-issues, and to date I've bought none of them (aside from The Smiths' remastered LPs, which are worth the expenditure). The fact that they're all first-class f***-ups really helps prove that Morrissey is not "playing the game" and has no idea how to even if he wanted to play it. Someone in another thread compared Blur's new package with Morrissey's feeble output, in an attempt (I assume) to shame Morrissey by pointing out how a band does right by its fans. It's unbelievable to me that some of his critics will spit at Morrissey for tampering with "Viva Hate" and affixing a dreadful font to the cover, and call him a vile sell-out, without realizing that if Morrissey were greedy he'd have done a Blur-style box-set and fleeced every one of us for hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros each. Again: you can assume a Morrissey re-release is a botched affair from the get-go, practically designed to drop like Kryptonite in the market. It's like calling North Korea a major military threat-- a bastion of Pure Evil-- moments after watching another one of their cruise missiles disintegrate ten seconds after launch and shower spare parts into the sea. The "Viva Hate", "Bona Drag", "Maladjusted" reissues...Jesus, that's what unfettered greed looks like?
 
Last edited:
As I said above, until I know that Morrissey was 100% behind the re-release of his albums, controlled every decision, and did so strictly to exploit past material for financial gain, I don't believe you can say he "said one thing and did the opposite".

Strikes me that you're imposing quite a heavy burden of proof in what is no more than an informal discussion about a celebrity on a message board. It's not a court of law and we're not testing a scientific hypothesis. The implications of any conclusions don't amount to very much. Each of us could proceed through our everyday lives steadfastly refusing to make judgements about anybody in the absence of irrefutable proof that they were one thing or another, but life would pretty much grind to a halt if that were a principle we tried, invariably, to apply. Would set the barrier quite so high if this wasn't a singer for whom you felt such affection?

Aside from that, I can only repeat what I wrote on the previous page: if he didn't support the re-releasing & repackaging of his music, he could actively discourage people from buying them again (as he did when he discouraged people from buying Smiths releases to deny Mike Joyce the proceeds). I don't recall him doing that.

Okay, and mainly what I'm arguing here is that we should give a lot of weight to those things. He's either a crap capitalist or he's a man with principles which he has upheld imperfectly. He's inconsistent; old news, tired news, let's move on. We all know this already.

I can only reiterate that parting with money for concert tickets, albums etc. is a sign that we do give weight to those things.

You see inconsistency, I see hypocrisy.

Heh. Come on, I didn't say that. I said he wanted his music to be heard. Every album is an assault on the charts, every single a valiant attempt to invade the public consciousness. That's how he seems to view things and always has done.

Is it pedantic to point out that Morrissey approved of selling "extra tracks" from day one in The Smiths? They put out a third, "extra track" on every one of their 12" singles. Morrissey, in charge of The Smiths' record sleeves, actually specified that the words "extra track" be printed on the promotional posters. Is it possible he has a different definition of cheap, money-grubbing exploitation than we do? Maybe it's worth looking at things from his point of view, which is easy to patch together from songs and interviews, before calling him a hypocrite.

He may well have "a different definition of cheap, money-grubbing exploitation than we do", and I'm sure that he does. If it helps him to retain a reputation as a man of principles, I think he'd need to. His definition, however, might seem conveniently self-serving.
 
P.S. I don't like the re-issues, and to date I've bought none of them (aside from The Smiths' remastered LPs, which are worth the expenditure). The fact that they're all first-class f***-ups really helps prove that Morrissey is not "playing the game" and has no idea how to even if he wanted to play it. Someone in another thread compared Blur's new package with Morrissey's feeble output, in an attempt (I assume) to shame Morrissey by pointing out how a band does right by its fans. It's unbelievable to me that some of his critics will spit at Morrissey for tampering with "Viva Hate" and affixing a dreadful font to the cover, and call him a vile sell-out, without realizing that if Morrissey were greedy he'd have done a Blur-style box-set and fleeced every one of us for hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros each. Again: you can assume a Morrissey re-release is a botched affair from the get-go, practically designed to drop like Kryptonite in the market. It's like calling North Korea a major military threat-- a bastion of Pure Evil-- moments after watching another one of their cruise missiles disintegrate ten seconds after launch and shower spare parts into the sea. The "Viva Hate", "Bona Drag", "Maladjusted" reissues...Jesus, that's what unfettered greed looks like?

Strawmen aside, are you now saying that each of Morrissey's re-releases were "a botched affair from the get-go" because he was responsible for them? I was under the impression, from what you'd already written, that you thought he had nothing at all to do with them. Are multinational giants in the entertainment industry like EMI really so bad at this stuff?
 
Strikes me that you're imposing quite a heavy burden of proof in what is no more than an informal discussion about a celebrity on a message board. It's not a court of law and we're not testing a scientific hypothesis. The implications of any conclusions don't amount to very much. Each of us could proceed through our everyday lives steadfastly refusing to make judgements about anybody in the absence of irrefutable proof that they were one thing or another, but life would pretty much grind to a halt if that were a principle we tried, invariably, to apply. Would set the barrier quite so high if this wasn't a singer for whom you felt such affection?

Sure, it's not a court case. Still, even as casual onlookers, we have to examine the evidence we have at hand. We have to interpret and make sense of a number of different factors, not just "Paint A Vulgar Picture". And as I said last week, don't miss the forest for the trees. He's not a hypocrite. Add up what you know. Weigh every obvious instance of Morrissey grasping for money and chart success against every instance of Morrissey refusing to sell out.

Aside from that, I can only repeat what I wrote on the previous page: if he didn't support the re-releasing & repackaging of his music, he could actively discourage people from buying them again (as he did when he discouraged people from buying Smiths releases to deny Mike Joyce the proceeds). I don't recall him doing that.

I'm sure he did support it, to an extent. The question is, what were his motives? Did he re-release "Viva Hate" to fleece his fans for cash and whore himself out to the demands of the industry? Or did he simply see an opportunity to have his music heard again, polished up by Stephen Street?

I mean, you have to clarify your argument here. I assume "Paint A Vulgar Picture" is a song excoriating record company executives who place profit above art and sales figures above basic decency. The sin in question here is greed. Greed, and contempt for the record-buying public. I don't see either in the mix. I don't see an artist whose hands are totally clean, but I certainly don't see anything like greed or contempt for his fans. Far from it.

You see inconsistency, I see hypocrisy.

Which is your right. For myself, I'm not coming to this debate trying to rationalize Morrissey's choices in an effort to reconcile his current self with some "pure" earlier incarnation. In all the years I've been a fan there was never a time, except maybe in the very beginning, when I saw The Smiths and Morrissey as carrying on without pointed and obvious contradictions. For example, for a band which was proudly independent and Northern, why in the world did Morrissey yell and scream all the time about getting into the charts? Why did he spurn major labels to sign with Rough Trade, and then pillory Geoff Travis for not fly-postering the Western hemisphere for each new Smiths release? Who was the Morrissey look-alike lip-syncing "The Boy With The Thorn In His Side" on MTV, after the real Morrissey told the NME The Smiths hated videos and would never do one? On and on. It's fair to say I loved The Smiths because of their contradictions.

You can be "a man of principles" and still make mistakes and miscues. You can be "a man of principles" and not always get it right. Above, you chided me for treating this like a court case, demanding total proof. Aren't you doing the same by demanding that Morrissey conduct himself with perfect, unblemished, uncompromising fidelity to his ideals?
 
Last edited:
Strawmen aside, are you now saying that each of Morrissey's re-releases were "a botched affair from the get-go" because he was responsible for them? I was under the impression, from what you'd already written, that you thought he had nothing at all to do with them. Are multinational giants in the entertainment industry like EMI really so bad at this stuff?

If I gave the impression that he wasn't involved, I certainly didn't mean to. What I was attempting to say was much more basic: we do not know exactly what went on behind the scenes to get those horrid re-releases into the shops. I have no doubt Morrissey was involved with many of the projects, some more than others. I've never denied it. What I do not know, and have never claimed to know, are the crucial details surrounding each release. I don't believe it's possible for you or me or any of us here to slap the label "hypocrite" on Morrissey for the "re-issue/re-package" efforts made on behalf of his back catalog. We don't know the motives or the circumstances surrounding their genesis or their eventual release into the world. Morrissey's involvement proves nothing either way because even if none of us is a music industry insider (as far as I know), we all have a pretty good general idea that record companies often insist on putting out product with or without the help of the artist. The artist can choose to walk away from the project, risking the mismanagement of his work, or attempt to midwife the thing in some way or another to help ensure that it meets a minimum standard of quality. That does not speak to the original motivations behind the release.

To your question about EMI, that's really the big mystery here-- maybe you should tell us why it is that an artist like Morrissey, with a back catalog and pop culture legacy as sterling as he's got, both as a solo artist and The Smiths, can't seem to get his act together and really put out top-quality product which maximizes sales of his older work. A marketing neophyte, right out of school, could have come up with 178 ways to market Morrissey's back catalog better than it's been done to date. When you look at other artists' re-issues, Morrissey's are mostly very pathetic. The best of them, The Smiths' remasters, came out as faithful reproductions of the originals rather than one of those treasure-trove box sets collectors love to fork over mountains of cash to buy. The worst of them-- for me, it's got to be "Viva Hate"-- are so embarrassing that even the hardcore fans sniff at them. Overall they're patchy and wildly varying in quality.

To return to the allegations here, Morrissey has supposedly gone against the "ideals" he implied in "Paint A Vulgar Picture". I submit to you that the character we might imagine to embody the shameless greed depicted in that song would have done a much, much better job squeezing every cent out of his own back catalog.
 
The fact that they're all first-class f***-ups really helps prove that Morrissey is not "playing the game" and has no idea how to even if he wanted to play it. Someone in another thread compared Blur's new package with Morrissey's feeble output, in an attempt (I assume) to shame Morrissey by pointing out how a band does right by its fans. It's unbelievable to me that some of his critics will spit at Morrissey for tampering with "Viva Hate" and affixing a dreadful font to the cover, and call him a vile sell-out, without realizing that if Morrissey were greedy he'd have done a Blur-style box-set and fleeced every one of us for hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros each.

That was me who compared Morrissey re-issues to the Blur offering. I've no problem with the number of re-issues & compilations Morrissey releases (you should see how many the Style Council have) but when you see Viva Hate on the shelf for £10 with it's one different track & for the same £10 you could get a remastered album AND a b-sides compilation, it just makes you realise how much of the barrel EMI have now scraped with Morrissey's full approval.

I'd actually like him to stop pissing about & release a remastered boxed set in the Blur style. For what they've actually put in there (seven double albums, four discs of bonus material, three DVDs, a book AND a code to allow you to download the whole thing on MP3) £140 could very well be a bargain. Although in a Morrissey esque way, the boxed set is frustratingly not quite complete. Ten tracks out of 300, so annoying!
 
Last edited:
That was me who compared Morrissey re-issues to the Blur offering. I've no problem with the number of re-issues & compilations Morrissey releases (you should see how many the Style Council have) but when you see Viva Hate on the shelf for £10 with it's one different track & for the same £10 you could get a remastered album AND a b-sides compilation, it just makes you realise how much of the barrel EMI have now scraped with Morrissey's full approval.

Assuming you're right, and EMI and Morrissey colluded to put out a £10 version of "Viva Hate" with 1 extra track and remastering, why do you suppose the project came out so badly? You don't mind re-releases, and yet you were turned off by it. Whatever your reasons, why do you think EMI and Morrissey couldn't figure out the problems ahead of time and solve them?
 
Assuming you're right, and EMI and Morrissey colluded to put out a £10 version of "Viva Hate" with 1 extra track and remastering, why do you suppose the project came out so badly? You don't mind re-releases, and yet you were turned off by it. Whatever your reasons, why do you think EMI and Morrissey couldn't figure out the problems ahead of time and solve them?

I don't mind re-releases if they have something to offer. The new Viva Hate has nothing to offer. I've absolutely no idea what any party was thinking when they thought that pissed out load of nothing would be good enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom