When did charming become cranky? Why a middle-aged Morrissey is so hard to love - The Guardian

Another Guardian clickbait article about Morrissey's middle-aged madness.

Yawn. Full of the usual types bemoaning the fact a man in his late 50s tends not to be the same as one in his 20s.

When did charming become cranky? Why a middle-aged Morrissey is so hard to love - The Guardian
by Dorian Lynskey
As a new biopic England is Mine charts the Smiths singer’s early life, fans speak of their disillusion at his increasingly outspoken views


UPDATE July 23:

Posted by Uncleskinny:

Here's the full page from today's Observer - notably, in the main 'News' section rather than the Review or Arts section.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
Did the same person write both stories?
No
Can you find similar stories in papers and magazines that are not The Guardian?
Yes

Therefore, maybe the reason this type of story seems familiar is because there is some validity to it. It's possible that people that have been following Morrissey a while, as well as people who never heard of him before but do a little research, might come to the conclusion that a typical Morrissey statement nowadays reads like something from the comments section of The Daily Mail.
Or do you find it more likely that newspaper editors have determined that their needs are best served by being hostile to Morrissey for no reason at all?
When you have a person who repeatedly trolls the press and his audience with statements using words like "subspecies" or comparing the deaths of young people to a typical lunch hour at McDonald's I think it is more likely that it's his fault that these sorts of articles are so easy to write.
I'm not saying they are great journalism but given that he won't actually sit down with anyone, most likely because he might start ranting about the floodgates having been opened and the country being destroyed by immigrants, and given that he manages to keep his name in the news, rarely for music, always for some insane provocation, why should they write some fawning article that an ever decreasing number of people would want to read? The fans won't like any story about Morrissey posted anywhere. Julie from "15 Minutes With You" writes these interesting, informative pieces and people here want to lynch her. But most of the public do not own a Morrissey record but know him as this comical sort of crackpot who pops up every once in a while to make some new outrageous statement and make them all clutch the pearls. Those people don't care to ever hear his music but he entertains them in a different way.
Do you know the real purpose of these articles? They are the space in between the advertisements. Hardly any newspaper makes a profit from sales and subscriptions. They make the money from advertising. Most are going broke anyway so they need to be increasingly troll-like, and Morrissey fits that purpose perfectly.
Now you're not going to read about him in the papers in the US unless he is on tour but in England where he is still famous, and where people have an even greater need to feign outrage, he's perfect. Say something about the Queen and people can read about it while they're having breakfast. It works for him because his real priority, no matter how many tantrums he throws about it, is not to sell more records. It is to have people talking about him. And it's just as rewarding to have the "wrong" people despise you as it is to have the right people love you. I think in his mind he's the Sex Pistols saying "f***" on television when he offends some old granny who still reads the paper.
So don't blame the journalists. What else are they supposed to say about him?

I detect from your post the Guardian and all other papers and magazines write stories to fill up the space between the advertorials. :squiffy:
But they are not very honest about it. In fact not honest at all.
Nothing wrong with the commercial aspect, but you can't at the same time hold on to your status as cultural important, influential and be a guide, a non-biased guide to all things cultural.

Two of the journalists from the same paper write 2 articles in a very short timespan about Morrissey and they both are the same.
I would have taken the Guardian more serious if those two articles had a completely different view and content.
And let the reader decide and form his own opinions.
Is that kind of weird now, to think like that? I guess so but I don't care.

The thing is, they can't touch or hurt him anymore. That is what bothers them apparently.
I agree Moz made a very stupid comment right after Breivik.
And there are more, but this one was the worst and very insensitive to the family and friends of the victims.
But in this case you can't say he was inconsequent. Insensitive yes,
Animals come first, wow what a surprise. :rolleyes:

As I said before, all the fuss about his statements is secondary to the music. For me. And it would not surprise me if he holds on to the opinion, bad publicity is good publicity.

He doesn't care anymore what anybody, anywhere thinks about him.
His personality, and attitude is nonconformist and he can afford it apparently. Not a bad thing if you want to sing and write lyrics and do life-shows. He doesn't sing about what the public wants to hear.
He sings about things they don't want to hear. He challenges his audience..
And he has created more or less his own niche in the market of pop music.
If it was and always has been about money and money alone he would have sold his soul to the devil and reformed The Smiths.

I do blame the journalists. I want to know interesting stuff about Moz. Not the same old, same old. He laughs at them.
Lack of quality, interest, easily sidetracked and lazy. No wonder Moz does interviews by email. The last printed interviewer that challenged him was Paul Morley.

The last time I read something insightful of Moz, in this case young Moz was in the autobiography Autofellatio by James Maker.
But he is a writer. Not a journalist.
And the interest and almost obsessive love for his friend inspired him to make some great and insightful observations.
But he is an artist, just like Moz is.
But of course nobody from that movie had the idea, hey let's talk with James Maker. A great mistake. An omission.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Two of the journalists from the same paper write 2 articles in a very short timespan about Morrissey and they both are the same.

Just on a minor point of fact, it's actually in two papers, one in the Guardian and one in the Observer. They are separate papers with separate editors and separate staff, but they share one website. Might seem a bit weird if you're not from the UK, but that's how it is.
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
Just on a minor point of fact, it's actually in two papers, one in the Guardian and one in the Observer. They are separate papers with separate editors and separate staff, but they share one website. Might seem a bit weird if you're not from the UK, but that's how it is.

Thanks for that! :thumb:
I understand now.
Still think one of them should offer a completely different angle and view!
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
Well, if they want to feel closer to him, they should try ignoring him. I don't know what does Morrissey feel about the way this news site/paper is treating him, maybe he enjoys press attention or maybe he feels they are harassing him. Who knows? Personally, I don't like it, but I already am resigned to be part of the minority of everything.
.


yeah, who knows how he feels. He probably has to deal with lawsuits and things like that a lot, with strangers trying to find someway to get money out of him, or in this case, a cop trying to acquire 'fame' by harassing a famous person. But I'll bet we don't know the half of it, I'd guess he doesn't enjoy at all, but takes it as just a part of being famous, the crappy end of the deal.



As far as the people who come on this site to criticize him? Yes it's strange and a bit:crazy:. It just shows how much they really need MORRISSEY. M is the only person in their lives that give them a love that not even their wife or husband or even their children could ever give them. M has a real power over their lives, and they could never let go, they try, but they fail.



.
 

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
Thanks for that! :thumb:
I understand now.
Still think one of them should offer a completely different angle and view!
Why? Should one say "We agree. The massacre of children is the same as fried chicken," in order to be fair? You're smarter than that. Maybe. Maybe not. My other point of view is that you're not. I will let the reader decide.
 
Last edited:

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
Can't argue so just mark it dislike

Why? Should one say "We agree. The massacre of children is the same as fried chicken," in order to be fair? You're smarter than that. Maybe. Maybe not. My other point of view is that you're not. I will let the reader decide.

I am the reader. :)
It's not the same. You must have noticed I wrote it is insensitive and hurtful to the people it concerned.
Uhm, did I rate your post dislike?
Checking. No. Not me.
 
U

URBANUS

Guest
Please get the f*** off this site and live your lives. I just visited and can't believe how f***ed up you all are.

We can't believe it either. This is our analysts couch, you know. Imagine if we didn't have this then perhaps we would visit you for a coffee.

Thank David now!
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
Thanks for that! :thumb:
I understand now.
Still think one of them should offer a completely different angle and view!
:thumb:


What? you want a different view?! that's really an impossible request dear reader! you can't handle the truth! :lbf:;)

Well, CL is entitled to his opinion... a typical example of Hatebot 'logic'...
'Why? Should one say "We agree. The massacre of children is the same as fried chicken," in order to be fair?'

But one could be fair by going into great depth to try and explain the importance of animal rights (and of course planet earth, because it is one and the same) the importance of that subject to M, and therefor shed a little light on why a person would say such things. But, no!, that would be asking too much!.. that would be too fair, to present an intelligent angle that's open to seeing other peoples points of view.


:cool:
 

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
:thumb:


What? you want a different view?! that's really an impossible request dear reader! you can't handle the truth! :lbf:;)

Well, CL is entitled to his opinion... a typical example of Hatebot 'logic'...
'Why? Should one say "We agree. The massacre of children is the same as fried chicken," in order to be fair?'

But one could be fair by going into great depth to try and explain the importance of animal rights (and of course planet earth, because it is one and the same) the importance of that subject to M, and therefor shed a little light on why a person would say such things. But, no!, that would be asking too much!.. that would be too fair, to present an intelligent angle that's open to seeing other peoples points of view.


:cool:

It isn't their job to explain Morrissey. That would be his responsibility. He knew exactly what he was doing when he made that comment. He only made the comparison to draw attention. There is no connection between McDonald's and the Norway massacre.
He could have talked about how many children die in gun violence in general and it would have still been very poor timing but at least you could say he had a point.
It isn't a journalist's job to make every troll comment Morrissey makes appear logical and reasonable. That is the job on the Mozbots and he does keep them busy.
 

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
yeah, who knows how he feels. He probably has to deal with lawsuits and things like that a lot, with strangers trying to find someway to get money out of him, or in this case, a cop trying to acquire 'fame' by harassing a famous person. But I'll bet we don't know the half of it, I'd guess he doesn't enjoy at all, but takes it as just a part of being famous, the crappy end of the deal.
As far as the people who come on this site to criticize him? Yes it's strange and a bit:crazy:. It just shows how much they really need MORRISSEY. M is the only person in their lives that give them a love that not even their wife or husband or even their children could ever give them. M has a real power over their lives, and they could never let go, they try, but they fail.
.

So when the police officer asked for Morrissey's ID he somehow knew that he would get "fame" by having his photo placed on Facebook for a few days ?
That's hot. He isn't the one that publicized this event. Morrissey got his name in the papers for a few days, so it seems like he is the one seeking fame from this incident, but as soon as he was accused of lying about it he quit talking about it. Then the post disappeared.
And yet you think the cop masterminded the whole thing so he could be famous?
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
'It isn't their job to explain Morrissey.'

But it's their job to unjustly criticize a persons view? by only giving their one-sided angle on views like these?:crazy: In your world?,maybe. BUT wouldn't it be fair to present other views?, just to show that this world is full of many who have differing and intelligent views, just for balance? I think it would.

'That would be his responsibility.'

why is it that? by what law?, written or not.

'He only made the comparison to draw attention.'

Well, firstly, he feels strongly about the subject, but YES! of course ! why not? where in media, in family, in education, in society? does the subject of pointless animal death and destruction of our planet because of the insane and ignorant who continue to consume animals come up? where?, who else is bringing up this subject? WHO? WHERE? Thank god!, someone's brave enough to say what others may consider 'insensitive', or 'ridiculous', simply because they don't have a clue WHY a person would say such things. And even if they don't agree after they have been informed, at least at least, the information is there for everyone, side by side with the criticisms in order to give everyone the opportunity to see the fair and balanced picture, the truthful bigger picture of the dire consequences that our world is really facing.



NEXT !
.



It isn't their job to explain Morrissey. That would be his responsibility. He knew exactly what he was doing when he made that comment. He only made the comparison to draw attention. There is no connection between McDonald's and the Norway massacre.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>


More hatebot hogwash.


Anyhoo...

'He isn't the one that publicized this event.'

Yes, but after it was confirmed that Morrissey was famous, he must have known by harassing a celebrity that in turn his name would be known, would be publicized, even if only for... just fifteen minutes of fame.

'but as soon as he was accused of lying about it he quit talking about it.'

that's mere opinion, for we don't know what actions are taking place that are not being made public. Anyone can speculate in favor or against why the FB posts were taken down. As for 'lying'? that's just more opinion not based on proof of fact, so opinions expressed until then are not the truth.


NEXT ! :thumb:




So when the police officer asked for Morrissey's ID he somehow knew that he would get "fame" by having his photo placed on Facebook for a few days ?
That's hot. He isn't the one that publicized this event. Morrissey got his name in the papers for a few days, so it seems like he is the one seeking fame from this incident, but as soon as he was accused of lying about it he quit talking about it. Then the post disappeared.
And yet you think the cop masterminded the whole thing so he could be famous?
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member

More hatebot hogwash.


Anyhoo...

'He isn't the one that publicized this event.'

Yes, but after it was confirmed that Morrissey was famous, he must have known by harassing a celebrity that in turn his name would be known, would be publicized, even if only for... just fifteen minutes of fame.

'but as soon as he was accused of lying about it he quit talking about it.'

that's mere opinion, for we don't know what actions are taking place that are not being made public. Anyone can speculate in favor or against why the FB posts were taken down. As for 'lying'? that's just more opinion not based on proof of fact, so opinions expressed until then are not the truth.


NEXT ! :thumb:

"More hatebot hogwash".
Can I borrow that from you KS?
And whenever necessary use it?
I wiil add (quote KS) :)
 

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member
'It isn't their job to explain Morrissey.'

But it's their job to unjustly criticize a persons view? by only giving their one-sided angle on views like these?:crazy: In your world?,maybe. BUT wouldn't it be fair to present other views?, just to show that this world is full of many who have differing and intelligent views, just for balance? I think it would.


'That would be his responsibility.'


why is it that? by what law?, written or not.

'He only made the comparison to draw attention.'

Well, firstly, he feels strongly about the subject, but YES! of course ! why not? where in media, in family, in education, in society? does the subject of pointless animal death and destruction of our planet because of the insane and ignorant who continue to consume animals come up? where?, who else is bringing up this subject? WHO? WHERE? Thank god!, someone's brave enough to say what others may consider 'insensitive', or 'ridiculous', simply because they don't have a clue WHY a person would say such things. And even if they don't agree after they have been informed, at least at least, the information is there for everyone, side by side with the criticisms in order to give everyone the opportunity to see the fair and balanced picture, the truthful bigger picture of the dire consequences that our world is really facing.



NEXT !
.
Morrissey presented his view and people reacted to it. I think other people have the right to present their views as well. Each article is only part of the total picture. If you want every article to be "fair and balanced" you're actually asking for a strange kind of censorship where we have to pretend his comment wasn't insensitive, poorly timed, counterproductive, and self-serving.
Notice that later on with the Paris attacks suddenly shooting innocent people is a tragedy, and "by the way why aren't you promoting my record? It's a guaranteed number one since the word "Paris" is in the title!"
Still later, at the Manchester concert bombing, this is also a tragedy. No mention of fried chicken.
Each time he tried to capitalize on the attacks either monetarily or politically. I'm not going to go so far as to say it's based on who is behind the attacks and who is dying, but it's an unfortunate coincidence that when someone who hates Muslims is doing the shooting it's the same as KFC. When Muslims are behind the attacks it's a horrible tragedy.

No one anywhere has said that. I think either it doesn't occur to them or they give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that's his reasoning myself. With the first one, Norway, he used it to push the PETA agenda. With the second one he wanted a number one record. With the third one it was "we all say things privately" and a shot at the Muslim Mayor of London.

I don't think he's exactly an idiot but if not he's a professional troll. No journalist owes it to him to say "Well, what he really meant..." and when you start explaining animal rights to people fresh on the heels of a statement saying a massacre doesn't mean anything you're not going to win anyone over.

You can understand why a person would say certain things and still find them ridiculous. I can understand Charles Manson or Donald Trump but that doesn't mean I agree and it doesn't mean I have to think all opinions are valid and equal.
 

Calamine Lotion

Well-Known Member

More hatebot hogwash.


Anyhoo...

'He isn't the one that publicized this event.'

Yes, but after it was confirmed that Morrissey was famous, he must have known by harassing a celebrity that in turn his name would be known, would be publicized, even if only for... just fifteen minutes of fame.

'but as soon as he was accused of lying about it he quit talking about it.'

that's mere opinion, for we don't know what actions are taking place that are not being made public. Anyone can speculate in favor or against why the FB posts were taken down. As for 'lying'? that's just more opinion not based on proof of fact, so opinions expressed until then are not the truth.


NEXT ! :thumb:

If Morrissey wasn't lying it doesn't make sense that he would not respond and that the post would disappear.
He makes a statement.
Statement is refuted.
Police say he is lying.
Police threaten lawsuit.
Statement disappears.

and we are all supposed to have no opinion on this. We just don't know!
That's okay. You can believe what you want but I would be interested in a theory where Morrissey was not lying.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>

'Morrissey presented his view and people reacted to it. I think other people have the right to present their views as well.'


I agree, though it would be fair if in some form of media the criticism/view was not so one-sided and narrow in intellectual and emotional scope.

'where we have to pretend his comment wasn't insensitive, poorly timed, counterproductive, and self-serving.'

We? or you or anyone can react and form an opinion in anyway or on anything you want. It just would be exciting and insightful if someone out there gave an interesting view or at least gave the total picture so then readers would be able to make an informed opinion on a subject rather than trying to form an opinion on a subject where no information is given that would form the whole picture in order to understand the subject better.

'Notice that later on with the Paris attacks suddenly shooting innocent people is a tragedy, and "by the way why aren't you promoting my record? It's a guaranteed number one since the word "Paris" is in the title!"

:lbf:
I'm sorry, but again I have to remind you that it is you that is reading what you want to read and see in the information given(regarding the Paris attacks and M pleading with the record label), it is only an opinion. All that we have is information from which only speculation and assumptions can be drawn and therefor only help us to form our different and varying opinions.

'With the first one, Norway, he used it to push the PETA agenda. With the second one he wanted a number one record. With the third one it was "we all say things privately" and a shot at the Muslim Mayor of London.'

Again one can read into and see what they want with any information given. I don't agree with your above statements, they are not 'true' or 'entirely true' depending on how you want to define or breakdown and analyze each of the three above comments. What is true though, is that people will have different opinions.

'No journalist owes it to him to say "Well, what he really meant..."

I agree, and that's not what I meant or wrote at all. But people should at least have the chance to make an informed opinion based on information that presents the whole picture. Otherwise we are just lost in the dark of half information and one sided views.

'You can understand why a person would say certain things and still find them ridiculous.'

Yes, I agree. Because I already said in my last post.. 'And even if they don't agree after they have been informed, at least at least, the information is there for everyone, side by side with the criticisms in order to give everyone the opportunity to see the fair and balanced picture, the truthful bigger picture of the dire consequences that our world is really facing.'



:thumb:


.



Morrissey presented his view and people reacted to it. I think other people have the right to present their views as well. Each article is only part of the total picture. If you want every article to be "fair and balanced" you're actually asking for a strange kind of censorship where we have to pretend his comment wasn't insensitive, poorly timed, counterproductive, and self-serving.
Notice that later on with the Paris attacks suddenly shooting innocent people is a tragedy, and "by the way why aren't you promoting my record? It's a guaranteed number one since the word "Paris" is in the title!"
Still later, at the Manchester concert bombing, this is also a tragedy. No mention of fried chicken.
Each time he tried to capitalize on the attacks either monetarily or politically. I'm not going to go so far as to say it's based on who is behind the attacks and who is dying, but it's an unfortunate coincidence that when someone who hates Muslims is doing the shooting it's the same as KFC. When Muslims are behind the attacks it's a horrible tragedy.

No one anywhere has said that. I think either it doesn't occur to them or they give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that's his reasoning myself. With the first one, Norway, he used it to push the PETA agenda. With the second one he wanted a number one record. With the third one it was "we all say things privately" and a shot at the Muslim Mayor of London.

I don't think he's exactly an idiot but if not he's a professional troll. No journalist owes it to him to say "Well, what he really meant..." and when you start explaining animal rights to people fresh on the heels of a statement saying a massacre doesn't mean anything you're not going to win anyone over.

You can understand why a person would say certain things and still find them ridiculous. I can understand Charles Manson or Donald Trump but that doesn't mean I agree and it doesn't mean I have to think all opinions are valid and equal.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
If Morrissey wasn't lying it doesn't make sense that he would not respond and that the post would disappear.
He makes a statement.
Statement is refuted.
Police say he is lying.
Police threaten lawsuit.
Statement disappears.

and we are all supposed to have no opinion on this. We just don't know!
That's okay. You can believe what you want but I would be interested in a theory where Morrissey was not lying.

:lbf: like your try at a 'M is 'lying' theory'. Though if you tried to call it 'fact' it would never hold up in consensus reality.

I guess, as always... we'll have to agree that we disagree with each others opinions, for...

We just don't know!


:thumb:
 
N

Nathalie

Guest
[QUOTE = "Calamine Lotion, poste: 1987014808, membre: 26621"] Pourquoi? Devrait-on dire "Nous sommes d'accord. Le massacre des enfants est le même que le poulet frit", pour être juste? [/ QUOTE]

Words from an antispeciesist pushed to the paroxysms of the antispeciesism ? Yes ? No ? Nyes ?
... Et donc, what for ? ...

I made link with your observation, I will have been able to take several other comments in reference quite some time ago. This kind of statement is far from being an isolated thought (he's not the only one who has made such remarks)... Big debate, too big to be conducted here.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oh, f*** the Guardian. Totalitarian toffs. Mozz is only turning Mozzer in his old age.
 
Tags
england is mine movie

Trending Threads

Top Bottom