NME: Owner of 'cannibalistic' Icelandic venue says Morrissey never asked them to go meat-free

Is he losing his mind?

 

[Jamie]

It's sad that Morrissey cannot afford a proof-reader. Or a dictionary! He claims that the venue is guilty of " cannibalistic flesh-eating bloodlust" but it's a venue, not a person. He also seems to think that eating other species is "cannibalistic". I wonder how the Chinese fit into his bizarre world-view as he has designated them a "sub-species". Can someone get Morrissey to clarify by answering the following question. If someone in Iceland eats a Chinese tourist, are they a cannibal? *confused*

Or maybe Morrissey is just stupid.

best
BB

Exactly, as I pointed out quite early in the going. For someone whose words and sleeve designs were once immaculately exact, this is an egregious detail. His "pronouncements" have been on the skid since the comment about the Chinese; this one is in sight of lunacy purely because of awful and wholly WRONG word choice. A writer of this caliber should not get a free pass or a "you KNOW what he meant" in this case.

No matter where you fall on the meat vs veg vs vegan spectrum, this should be regarded as an idiotic word choice. Such mistakes undercut his agenda and make him come off poorly in the process.

 

[Anaesthesine]

That's for sure. Someone said that "music exists to free us from the tyranny of conscious thought." With Morrissey's music you get that and he makes you feel the beauty and the sadness of it all at the same time. It's a paradox. It's life. Let's rock.

 

[Anonymous]

I declare today that meat is publicity for Steven McMorrissey and he has NOTHING else to offer.
Thankyou for reading.

Benny-the-British-Butcher

Load your pockets with cheese for the upcoming gigs in the UK.

Dubliner is his favourite brand

 

[Anonymous]

His "pronouncements" have been on the skid since the comment about the Chinese

Except that in context, he was talking about Chinese CIRCUS MANAGERS as most people with brains understood. This is yet another instance of wilful misquoting passing into accepted "fact" due to the anti-Morrissey agenda of this site. Funny how the usual suspects pretend to examine every detail of his vocabulary, grammar and syntax for "evidence" that will discredit him, yet they don't apply the same rigorous analysis to context. And that's leaving aside the whole issue of hyperbole and rhetoric which is frequently ignored (it's also leaving aside the fact that those doing the expert linguistic analysis on behalf of So_Low often write the most tedious verbiage themselves - but then hypocrisy is one of the defining characteristics of this site). You could look at writings by any number of artists, journalists or politicians and make the same ludicrous assertions about their imprecise use of language, but nobody does so because everyone, apart from the sad twats on here, knows it's an utterly futile exercise.

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you. I really think he's so detached from everyday reality and surrounded by flunkies who daren't question him, that he's managed to reduce himself to a painful cartoon. He's even largely retreated from face to face interviews, it's like he's in a bunker spewing out messages that seem increasingly bizarre.

I think Morrissey his heading for a major life crisis. It's only a matter of time until the mainstream media ignore him for wilding out with these odd stories. What will he do then? Walk up and down Oxford Street handing out leaflets denouncing the conspiracies to silence him?

best
BB

Sadly, I'm beginning to agree with you. This intolerant cartoon called Moz bears little resemblance to the hero of my youth

 

[Anonymous]

For someone whose words and sleeve designs were once immaculately exact, this is an egregious detail.

Absolutely idiotic comparison = record sleeve details were calmly ruminated over for months, whereas TTY statements are usually off the cuff expressions of anger (or other emotions). Which of us is worrying about how scientifically precise our vocabulary is in the heat of the moment? Get f***ing real. Oh no, wait - you're criticising Morrissey, so you MUST be right. My mistake. Sorry.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

That's for sure. Someone said that "music exists to free us from the tyranny of conscious thought." With Morrissey's music you get that and he makes you feel the beauty and the sadness of it all at the same time. It's a paradox. It's life. Let's rock.

 

[evennow]

Folks very much in the know say this: that the man is a damaged, dysfunctional, self-defeating, utterly compelling, ridiculously talented enigma. A sinner for sure, a saint by a certain metric, a comedian, a walking disaster. You can't fault him on complexity.

All this and extremely charismatic. He is completely captivating and I believe still has the power and musical chops to have another great resurgence. It is possible with his many less than reasonable comments made over the past years that he has painted himself into too small a corner to wish to come out and face the media straight on. Not being able to see him on television is a real disappointment. One thing for sure is...he has his reasons

 

[realitybites]

Except that in context, he was talking about Chinese CIRCUS MANAGERS as most people with brains understood. This is yet another instance of wilful misquoting passing into accepted "fact" due to the anti-Morrissey agenda of this site. Funny how the usual suspects pretend to examine every detail of his vocabulary, grammar and syntax for "evidence" that will discredit him, yet they don't apply the same rigorous analysis to context. And that's leaving aside the whole issue of hyperbole and rhetoric which is frequently ignored (it's also leaving aside the fact that those doing the expert linguistic analysis on behalf of So_Low often write the most tedious verbiage themselves - but then hypocrisy is one of the defining characteristics of this site). You could look at writings by any number of artists, journalists or politicians and make the same ludicrous assertions about their imprecise use of language, but nobody does so because everyone, apart from the sad twats on here, knows it's an utterly futile exercise.

I don't know of any other closeted cheese consumer who calls meat eaters cannibalistic, murdering pedophiles with a straight face. He's begging to be lampooned and harpooned.

 

[Detritus]

Except that in context, he was talking about Chinese CIRCUS MANAGERS as most people with brains understood. This is yet another instance of wilful misquoting passing into accepted "fact" due to the anti-Morrissey agenda of this site.

Let's take a look at the context for the "Chinese" comment, shall we? From the Guardian's 2010 Bigmouth Strikes Again profile piece:

It's quickly apparent that Morrissey's wit, articulacy and all-round smartness is always going to mark him out as an oddity in the music business. It's also clear that the sharpness of his tongue will make him more enemies than friends, and his list of dislikes is long. Morrissey on other singers: "They have two or three melodies and they repeat them ad nauseam over the course of 28 albums." Morrissey on people: "They are problems." And on the charts: "Nothing any more to do with talent or gift or cleverness or originality. Every new artist flies in at number one, but in terms of live music they couldn't fill a telephone box." And shockingly, on the Chinese: "Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies."

This blurb is the only time Morrissey makes any sort of remark about the Chinese. There is absolutely no indication that he was referring to circus managers. None. It's not even remotely implied. Perhaps you have powers of divination, but for the rest of us, that conclusion could not be drawn based on his statement alone. He did later clarify his remarks with the following statement: "If anyone has seen the horrific and unwatchable footage of the Chinese cat and dog trade - animals skinned alive - then they could not possibly argue in favour of China as a caring nation. There are no animal protection laws in China and this results in the worst animal abuse and cruelty on the planet. It is indefensible."

Still no indication he was referring to circus managers. It seems like he was in fact referring to the meat and fur industry, although "animal protection laws" could extend to treatment of animals in circuses. Either way, you seem to have misremembered Morrissey's statement.

As for the rest of your claims, I won't deny that many people here are harshly critical of Morrissey, but as long as he keeps making absurdly hyperbolic and erroneous statements, then it is fair game to criticize. That doesn't mean we can't still enjoy what he's currently doing musically. And if you think that other public personalities are not met with the same level of scrutiny, you're kidding yourself.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Absolutely idiotic comparison = record sleeve details were calmly ruminated over for months, whereas TTY statements are usually off the cuff expressions of anger (or other emotions). Which of us is worrying about how scientifically precise our vocabulary is in the heat of the moment? Get f***ing real. Oh no, wait - you're criticising Morrissey, so you MUST be right. My mistake. Sorry.

Laughable. Absolutely LAUGHABLE. See directly above this post for a thorough deconstruction of your ridiculous claims on the Chinese comment. You have, time and time and time again spouted utter bullshit on here in your quest to defend EVERYTHING Morrissey says and does. And time and time and time again, you're proven to be a lying goon. Give it up, you desperate sad sack.

P.

 

[Anonymous]

So, the reality is he doesn't mind performing in a meat-infested venue so long as the publicity for his career is valuable enough, hence Oslo and the Nobel prize concert. If he had a genuine moral objection to performing in a venue that served meat he'd have refused to play the Nobel show. He didn't because he made a clinical cash calculation about publicity for his upcoming flop WPINOYB.

What we're dealing with here is a petty tyrant who dictates to his captive fan-base and parades that tyranny as an ethical stance, but it's no such thing as he has no problem playing a venue that serves meat if he calculates it's worth it for his future earnings. I call that gross hypocrisy.

best
BB

What "we" are dealing with here....is integrity. Having the courage of your convictions.
Never having had a conviction in your ......existence, you wouldn't be able to get your addled little brain around that.
It's quite simple. For His own concerts, which he has some control over, he does everything he possibly can to ensure they are meat free. Ok so far? Having slightly less control over any other aspect of public life he has little option, other than becoming a hermit, than to let it pass. Now what are you struggling with? Would you expect him to get every hotel he stays in free of meat? Every cafe he walks past? Every airport he passes through? Nice ideas but illogical and impossible in the real world. A world "we" live in. So he contents himself with doing what he can. Doing something. Doing a lot more than most do.
What do you do f***wit? What do you stand for? What lengths do you go to? Well??
Your existence permits only negative whining and finger pointing.

 

[Jamie]

Absolutely idiotic comparison = record sleeve details were calmly ruminated over for months, whereas TTY statements are usually off the cuff expressions of anger (or other emotions). Which of us is worrying about how scientifically precise our vocabulary is in the heat of the moment? Get f***ing real. Oh no, wait - you're criticising Morrissey, so you MUST be right. My mistake. Sorry.

I am absolutely right in the sense that "cannibalistic" implies the eating of HUMAN BEINGS, which makes his hyperbole in this case ludicrous, execrable, and absolutely worth criticizing. I also said his WORDS, not just the sleeve art. Point is: the devil is in the details - and associating CANNIBALISM with meat-eating is a pretty important detail.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

All this and extremely charismatic. He is completely captivating and I believe still has the power and musical chops to have another great resurgence. It is possible with his many less than reasonable comments made over the past years that he has painted himself into too small a corner to wish to come out and face the media straight on. Not being able to see him on television is a real disappointment. One thing for sure is...he has his reasons

I don't think he's ever been one for making "reasonable" comments. I think the only difference between 'now' and 'then' is how people are perceived at a certain age. When you're young and you say outrageous things you're seen as a trailblazer, a genius, fearless. When you possess the same traits when you're older perceptions change to crank, eccentric, horrible.

Whether I agree with him or not I like that he speaks from the heart. Are people cannibalistic if they eat animals? Of course not. But If he feels that way then why not say it? If we're all honest, there's a few on here who's lives would fall to pieces if they didn't have an outlandish statement from Moz once in a while. Despite the mock outrage they live for it.

Like you say though, when you've spent years sidelining yourself through attacking almost everyone it's going to be hard to get your face seen. Still, there's always Radio 2, the NME and the occasional Ross and Holland appearance. I imagine he gets even less coverage over there?

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder what morrissey has feed his previous cats and dogs?? How could he put up with smell of opening the tin and dishing it out? Just sayin

 

[Detritus]

I don't think he's ever been one for making "reasonable" comments. I think the only difference between 'now' and 'then' is how people are perceived at a certain age. When you're young and you say outrageous things you're seen as a trailblazer, a genius, fearless. When you possess the same traits when you're older perceptions change to crank, eccentric, horrible.

I think there's at least one other significant difference between his past comments and his more recent outbursts. In the past, when push came to shove, he had tactful, carefully considered arguments to back his statements up. Now his outrageous and bewildering outbursts are rarely followed with any elaboration or qualification. They're provocative without nuance. He even recently stated that he believes he doesn't need to explain or defend his views, a ridiculous notion he didn't seem to subscribe to years ago. He may have been just as opinionated and unwavering in his beliefs as he is now, but he was also more coherent and articulate. Maybe age has had an effect on the way he expresses himself, but people aren't more critical of him now simply because he's old.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

I think there's at least one other significant difference between his past comments and his more recent outbursts. In the past, when push came to shove, he had tactful, carefully considered arguments to back his statements up. Now his outrageous and bewildering outbursts are rarely followed with any elaboration or qualification. They're provocative without nuance. He even recently stated that he believes he doesn't need to explain or defend his views, a ridiculous notion he didn't seem to subscribe to years ago. He may have been just as opinionated and unwavering in his beliefs as he is now, but he was also more coherent and articulate. Maybe age has had an effect on the way he expresses himself, but people aren't more critical of him now simply because he's old.

I honestly can't remember him being any less controversial in the past, or backing up anything he said. I remember he did some explaining over Suffer Little Children which is fair enough considering the subject matter, not much else. The Royals have had it from both barrels from the off, meat is murder is pretty much equal to cannibalism, celebrity slatings - never changed, sacking band members without being able to do it to their face - check, you name it, Nothing has changed.

The TTY rants are new, he just never had the outlet for those before.

 

[Uncleskinny]

I honestly can't remember him being any less controversial in the past, or backing up anything he said. I remember he did some explaining over Suffer Little Children which is fair enough considering the subject matter, not much else. The Royals have had it from both barrels from the off, meat is murder is pretty much equal to cannibalism, celebrity slatings - never changed, sacking band members without being able to do it to their face - check, you name it, Nothing has changed.

The TTY rants are new, he just never had the outlet for those before.

What about the stuff he said about Utoya, blaming Kate Middleton for the death of a nurse, comparing the olympics to nazi Germany; that's just some of the public stuff, we know little of what he says in private, except perhaps the Spencer faxes. He does it for one reason, and one reason only - to be in the news, to be still in the public eye, and his attempts to do so have become increasing quorn-fisted, as he seeks to link the short list of things he professes to care about to current news stories. We know he does this. He said it himself in the leaked letter complaining about Sanctuary's pluggers. It's sad. It's all very sad. He has to become more outre with each edict to get noticed, in one of the recent ones expressing delight at the suffering of a creature, a human.

P.

 

[evennow]

I don't think he's ever been one for making "reasonable" comments. I think the only difference between 'now' and 'then' is how people are perceived at a certain age. When you're young and you say outrageous things you're seen as a trailblazer, a genius, fearless. When you possess the same traits when you're older perceptions change to crank, eccentric, horrible.

Whether I agree with him or not I like that he speaks from the heart. Are people cannibalistic if they eat animals? Of course not. But If he feels that way then why not say it? If we're all honest, there's a few on here who's lives would fall to pieces if they didn't have an outlandish statement from Moz once in a while. Despite the mock outrage they live for it.

Like you say though, when you've spent years sidelining yourself through attacking almost everyone it's going to be hard to get your face seen. Still, there's always Radio 2, the NME and the occasional Ross and Holland appearance. I imagine he gets even less coverage over there?

Well said. Yes, he gets absolutely no television coverage in the US. Not for many years now. I have a hard time stomaching the idea that "no one wants him on their shows." He has been on almost all the nightly entertainment shows here in America over the years and I can't imagine if his people reached out that many of them wouldn't welcome a chance to speak with him on the many aspects of his life. He has to be one of the most interesting individuals currently living.

I think the problem is that he prefers not to be questioned directly about a number of issues like his sexuality and his world views for example. He much prefers to be given questions first and then take the time to craft a response that suits him. He lashes out then retreats...hard to do on live television without looking the fool.

 

[Detritus]

I honestly can't remember him being any less controversial in the past, or backing up anything he said. I remember he did some explaining over Suffer Little Children which is fair enough considering the subject matter, not much else. The Royals have had it from both barrels from the off, meat is murder is pretty much equal to cannibalism, celebrity slatings - never changed, sacking band members without being able to do it to their face - check, you name it, Nothing has changed.

I never claimed that he used to be less controversial, or that he didn't used to slate celebrities, the royals, government, meat eaters, etc. etc. I wrote that when he made controversial statements they were followed up with articulate explanations as to why he felt the way he did about all of these things much more frequently than we see these days. He certainly did attempt to explain, for example, why he found Thatcher so repugnant that he wished she'd die in a bombing, or why he felt sympathetic toward right-wing groups for the way they were treated by the media. Maybe not every controversial statement was elaborated upon, but he was more willing to expand his views beyond hyperbole. Maybe you're onto something with the TTY observation, though. He seems to use that as a mouthpiece much more than the press these days, and perhaps consequently he feels less of a need to justify himself when he's operating on his own terms. He's not always on the defensive anymore.