If Marr took that music and kept it as instrumental it can still be called a song.
Marr can also keep the music he wrote as an instrumental give it a title and Marr then could rightly be considered the the songwriter of that song.
And again ....
If Morrissey considered himself to be a songwriter(as you define it), then he surely wouldn’t bother collaborating with other artists to help him create songs.
No, I'll try to explain to you again, as you tend not to follow the arguments that you respond to.
I'm trying to think if there's a way I can put it even more simply, so you can understand.
The argument I am making is that an instrumental shouldn't be called a song, because it's simply music, whereas a song, as the word itself implies, is words and vocal melody. Thus, it's helpful to call different things by different names - calling an instrumental piece of music an 'instrumental' and a vocal melody with words a 'song' for example, or as another example, calling a horse a 'horse' and a dog a 'dog' because they're not the same thing. Do you see what I mean now?
So of course Marr can call an instrumental a 'song' if he wants to. He can call his pet cat a 'song' if he wants to. The fact that he can do does not mean therefore that an instrumental is the same thing as a song on any rational basis.
As regards Morrissey, I've explained this point to you several times, but I'll try again and maybe you'll be able to understand this time.
Morrissey needs inspiration to create his vocal melodies. He needs the music. That doesn't make the music the same thing as what he creates. He creates the songs.
I appreciate that some people might not agree with this point of view, but there is a difference between not agreeing with a point of view and simply (as in your case) not understanding what you are reading, and thereby not being able to respond to points with a rational counterpoint, whether that be because of a lack of intelligence or some problem with literacy or perhaps autism, I can only speculate.
Really? What do the song credits say?
That’s a false analogy. Anyone who knows about the Beatles or the Smiths can tell you that the songwriting partnerships did not work in the same way.The song credits say 'Morrissey/Marr'. What you are reading is the tail end of a debate as to what a 'song;' actually is and whether or not the 'Morrissey/Marr' credit is therefore an accurate and fair reflection of who created the songs of The Smiths. There are some of course whose circular logic is that the songs can't have been Morrissey's alone because, well, the credits say 'Morrissey/Marr'. I guess they will swear to their dying days that Lennon co-wrote 'Yesterday'.
That’s a false analogy. Anyone who knows about the Beatles or the Smiths can tell you that the songwriting partnerships did not work in the same way.
If you think Morrissey would give Marr credit for something he didn't do, you still don't know the Smiths or understand Morrissey.No, you're missing the point I was making, which is that a songwriting credit isn't necessarily an accurate indication of who created the song.
If you think Morrissey would give Marr credit for something he didn't do, you still don't know the Smiths or understand Morrissey.
True, but it’s usually given to people
that wrote the song together, such as Morrissey/Marr.
They very rarely worked together.
Generally Marr recorded music on to a tape and posted it or handed it to Morrissey, or the backing music was recorded in the studio. Morrissey would then create the song (the vocal melody and words), using the music as inspiration.
However, like Lennon & McCartney, a form of songwriting credit was agreed on in the early days of the band, and that's what stuck, even though - again as was frequently the case with the Lennon & McCartney credit- it didn't truly represent who created the songs.
Yeah, that’s called working together to create/write a song.
And no, Morrissey does not write the song on his own. He only creates part of it only being complete with the help of Marr.
Yep, and The Beatles are not The Smiths. Different song writing partnership.
Are you the most insufferable human being that has ever lived?No, Marr worked with the rest of the band or on his own to create the music. Morrissey then created the song - a song being something which, essentially, consists of a vocal melody and words.
Occasionally Morrissey might be with Marr as he was coming up with a musical idea on guitar. But the principle's the same - Marr was still making music, Morrissey was still creating the song as he added his vocal melody and words.
You've done well to notice that The Beatles are not The Smiths though, I'll grant you that - albeit you've missed the point as usual, which is, as I said, that songwriting credits are not always an accurate indication of who created the song. Therefore your observation that The Beatles are not The Smiths - whilst observant - was not in any sense relevant to the point being made.
What strikes me about you is that you apparently just cannot produce any rationale for why you believe what you believe - that Marr's music is part of the song - other than 'because lots of other people call instrumentals songs... oh, and because the songwriting credit says so, and songwriting credits are never wrong".
I would be genuinely interested if you could intelligently articulate an argument in defence of your claim that instrumentals can be songs, or why the fact that the instrumentals inspired Morrissey's vocal melodies means that they are part of the songs rather than simply inspiration for the songs. But you never seem to be able to put forward any rational argument, you simply seem to be content to let others do your thinking for you. And since you don't have any actual logical argument to support your point of view, it comes across as a sort of bizarre insistence for the sake of insistence. Maybe you think he'll share the royalties with you if you defend him zealously enough, but I gotta warn you, his track record on cutting people in is not great...