Calling his address the state of the union is lame and clichéd.
His bitterness comes through with ‘as usual’ when chart position disappoints.
At the start he’s clearly addressing his customers or fans, but later says his 35 years of a following counts for nothing. Although he is grateful. He means ‘the haters’ discount this?
He claims the hateful press and print media try to shut down anything they hear that seems to reflect what ‘ the people’ think. But what has been shut down? Morrissey got his points across. They haven’t been censored or banned. All that’s happened is that other people expressed their opinions about his. He doesn’t like the fact others don’t agree?
It’s true that there is growing confusion about what is right-wing, and what is left-wing. Doesn't he personify this overlap? And debate about that can be strained and stifled, but it’s not shut down just because readers commented on Morrissey’s interpretations of reality and selective presentation of facts.
Those haters do not prioritise trying to get rid of Morrissey’s name as soon as they see it, although that very name has attracted some stereotypes over the years, largely due to his own actions and words. Many of the haters have belonged to his huge fandom for decades.
Is there not much he can do about it? He completely avoids addressing what happened; that he said controversial and sectarian things during the interview, then denied saying them, and then was proved to have said, and denied, them. Despite his forty years giving print interviews and fending off reactions, he treats those interested as fools.
Despite Ganglord and Who Will Protect Us ftp, the only very nice people he had a great chat with recently were the secret service. Amazing how a little bit of power and authority affects his views. The threat of not being let back into America where he lives and works so much, is very serious. That more than anything shows the state of the world. But again, with his previous similar run-ins, why should he be surprised this could be a consequence of his statements? Yet he blames the medium that offered him the opportunity to review the interview which he refused. Big baby. All this had so much promise. It could all have worked in his favour.
Verging on paranoid, he actually seems to believe there’s a planned conspiracy against him. How dare they accuse him of saying what he said?!! Does he think music journalists are really hell-bent on assassinating him? They want him to succeed, surely? They only reported on his very topical views. Nobody criticised that Rolling Stone interview, did they? Because it was sincere and reasoned. More like ‘a double bed and a stalwart lover for sure’ in contrast to those ‘sheets for which I paid’, a rather gloating phrase to my ears.
But he’s right about the news, according to Nasim Taleb, who reckons it’s misleading because it gives the impression that the changes that matter and last happen gradually, whereas major events are often unexpected, not provided for and hugely disruptive.
Glenn Greenwald dissects coverage of a news item that went viral in the main news organs from December 8th, but was false, yet none of the big names admitted it. Info made public grows a life of its own.
The Christmas address is a good idea, but it’s not really all about you, Morrissey! It nearly worked out. The innovative album was very well received in many places. It’s a matter of facing everything: (who I am, how I end up here…) Reflect, regroup and keep going!
