Paint a Vulgar Picture

[Worm]

No. Just because he hasn't compromised himself in respect of all of his professed principles doesn't mean he hasn't compromised himself in respect of some. He isn't refusing to get involved in a reunion because of some noble belief in the integrity of "The Smiths". He refuses because it would suggest that he needed the other three (or even just Marr) and because, in his view, it would give them something they don't deserve and that he'd rather withhold from them.

I agree with you about his reasons for not reforming The Smiths, or "The Smiths". That doesn't change the fact that he would make a killing by rejoining Marr for a series of gigs, either as The Smiths or as Morrissey and Marr. Whatever his motivations may be, he has walked away from a giant payday again and again and again. Greatest Hits packages and the like are misdemeanors. He hasn't sold his soul for money, and that's what really counts here. Tossing around the word "hypocrite" seems unfair.

 

[Anonymous]

Whatever his motivations may be, he has walked away from a giant payday again and again and again. Greatest Hits packages and the like are misdemeanors. He hasn't sold his soul for money, and that's what really counts here.

That's exactly what he has done. Simply because "he has walked away from a giant payday" doesn't mean that he has refused to compromise on at least some of his principles because he thought it would be lucrative to do so. When you write a song criticising the repackaging and reissuing of records merely for profit, and then you proceed to repackage and reissue some of your own records for profit, it's difficult to think of it as anything other than hypocrisy.

Tossing around the word "hypocrite" seems unfair.

Perhaps - like crying about the consumption of meat while wearing leather shoes - it's just another of those little "inconsistencies" in his character.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

That's exactly what he has done. Simply because "he has walked away from a giant payday" doesn't mean that he has refused to compromise on at least some of his principles because he thought it would be lucrative to do so. When you write a song criticising the repackaging and reissuing of records merely for profit, and then you proceed to repackage and reissue some of your own records for profit, it's difficult to think of it as anything other than hypocrisy.



Perhaps - like crying about the consumption of meat while wearing leather shoes - it's just another of those little "inconsistencies" in his character.

Log in, Viva.

 

[Anonymous]

Log in, Viva.

Obsessed much, you f***ing freakshow? Wrong person.

 

[Worm]

That's exactly what he has done. Simply because "he has walked away from a giant payday" doesn't mean that he has refused to compromise on at least some of his principles because he thought it would be lucrative to do so. When you write a song criticising the repackaging and reissuing of records merely for profit, and then you proceed to repackage and reissue some of your own records for profit, it's difficult to think of it as anything other than hypocrisy.

In that case he must be the dumbest hypocrite ever to walk the earth. Morrissey seems to practice what you might call dyslexic capitalism: he attempts to reap profits from "Swords", which bought him, oh, one night at the Westin Excelsior in Rome and maybe a cup of coffee, and brushes aside 70-million dollar offers to play Coachella with Johnny Marr.

Or maybe he does have principles, but works in a field in which art and commerce collide and occasionally force one to make reasonable compromises.

Perhaps - like crying about the consumption of meat while wearing leather shoes - it's just another of those little "inconsistencies" in his character.

Fair point if you're making a zero-sum, all-or-nothing argument about principles. I tend to think it's just human nature not to be consistent all the time. I'm willing to let certain things go, provided they occur against a backdrop of general consistency.

 

[Anonymous]

In that case he must be the dumbest hypocrite ever to walk the earth. Morrissey seems to practice what you might call dyslexic capitalism: he attempts to reap profits from "Swords", which bought him, oh, one night at the Westin Excelsior in Rome and maybe a cup of coffee, and brushes aside 70-million dollar offers to play Coachella with Johnny Marr.

Yeah, we've already agreed that his reasons for not performing and working with other people from The Smiths have nothing to do with his so-called principles.

Or maybe he does have principles, but works in a field in which art and commerce collide and occasionally force one to make reasonable compromises.

Forced? Hardly.

Fair point if you're making a zero-sum, all-or-nothing argument about principles. I tend to think it's just human nature not to be consistent all the time. I'm willing to let certain things go, provided they occur against a backdrop of general consistency.

In general, I would agree with you, but if you're (literally) going to make a song and dance about a particular principle (e.g. repackaging records / animal slaughter), then it's probably best not to do precisely the opposite of what your public persona implies.

 

[Worm]

In general, I would agree with you, but if you're (literally) going to make a song and dance about a particular principle (e.g. repackaging records / animal slaughter), then it's probably best not to do precisely the opposite of what your public persona implies.

Unfortunately, it has never been clear how much control Morrissey has about repackaging and re-releases. Record labels have the right to re-issue product as they see fit. I admit, it's possible you're right and Morrissey was behind numerous repackaged records over the years. However, it's also possible he wasn't. We don't know what went on behind the scenes, when the bean-counters and the suits decided they could squeeze a few more pounds out of his back catalogue. Did Morrissey participate? Did he have a say in things? What were his contractual obligations?

In any case, the state of Morrissey's career at the moment suggests the opposite of a greedy hypocrite seeking to coast on his former glories. I don't know if he's a high-minded man of principle or merely a stubborn and foolish old diva, but one way or another he's kept his integrity intact in a business famous for shredding it.

 

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately, it has never been clear how much control Morrissey has about repackaging and re-releases. Record labels have the right to re-issue product as they see fit. I admit, it's possible you're right and Morrissey was behind numerous repackaged records over the years. However, it's also possible he wasn't. We don't know what went on behind the scenes, when the bean-counters and the suits decided they could squeeze a few more pounds out of his back catalogue. Did Morrissey participate? Did he have a say in things? What were his contractual obligations?

Even if he had no control over whether his products would be repackaged and reissued and if he disapproved, he's always had the option of publicly discouraging people from buying them. I seem to remember he did that in relation to some Smiths re-release or other, in order to prevent Mike Joyce from profiting. If his contractual obligations included clauses that allowed the record companies to repackage and reissue his music, that's because he consented to it when he entered into said contracts.

In any case, the state of Morrissey's career at the moment suggests the opposite of a greedy hypocrite seeking to coast on his former glories. I don't know if he's a high-minded man of principle or merely a stubborn and foolish old diva, but one way or another he's kept his integrity intact in a business famous for shredding it.

I'm not saying he's "seeking to coast on his former glories"; I'm saying he's a hypocrite. At best, he's chosen to acquiesce with business practices that he previously satirised. Not sure how that leaves his integrity intact.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Obsessed much, you f***ing freakshow? Wrong person.

Freakshow? Or Show faker?

 

[BrummieBoy]

Unfortunately, it has never been clear how much control Morrissey has about repackaging and re-releases. Record labels have the right to re-issue product as they see fit. I admit, it's possible you're right and Morrissey was behind numerous repackaged records over the years. However, it's also possible he wasn't. We don't know what went on behind the scenes, when the bean-counters and the suits decided they could squeeze a few more pounds out of his back catalogue. Did Morrissey participate? Did he have a say in things? What were his contractual obligations?

In any case, the state of Morrissey's career at the moment suggests the opposite of a greedy hypocrite seeking to coast on his former glories. I don't know if he's a high-minded man of principle or merely a stubborn and foolish old diva, but one way or another he's kept his integrity intact in a business famous for shredding it.

looolz!!!!!!!

to-bo..... to the max!!!!!!

regards...

 

[JJKelsall]

So, let me see... when a record company reissues records in order to squeeze some more profit out of them after the death of the pop star, it's bad, but when the record company does precisely the same thing, with the still-living pop star's blessing, it's good?

Yes because it is the artists work and they have the right to reissue it if they wish to do so. It is hardly going to get them extra money, because if fans weren't so deluded and stupid, they would check the track-listing to see if there were any differences in the songs to see if it was actually worth buying. I won't buy any reissues if I already have the album unless there is worth while material on it, such as on the reissues of Bona Drag, Maladjusted and Southpaw Grammar. The only bad Morrissey reissue I would say is Viva Hate, because he cut Mauldin Street in half, removed Ordinary Boys and replaced it with another track, so I won't buy that. Equally though, I have no gripes if Morrissey wants to reissue his work so long as he has made some changes that he feels has made his work stronger, because that makes for a better record; the motive is a good one.

However, record companies aren't interested in improving records, they just want money and they use deaths as an excuse to boost sales. That is an immoral motive, and for me the motive is what is important. If the motive is because the artist or even record company, wants to improve the work for their audience, that is fine. If they are just interested in squeezing money then it isn't; simple as that.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes because it is the artists work and they have the right to reissue it if they wish to do so. It is hardly going to get them extra money, because if fans weren't so deluded and stupid, they would check the track-listing to see if there were any differences in the songs to see if it was actually worth buying. I won't buy any reissues if I already have the album unless there is worth while material on it, such as on the reissues of Bona Drag, Maladjusted and Southpaw Grammar. The only bad Morrissey reissue I would say is Viva Hate, because he cut Mauldin Street in half, removed Ordinary Boys and replaced it with another track, so I won't buy that. Equally though, I have no gripes if Morrissey wants to reissue his work so long as he has made some changes that he feels has made his work stronger, because that makes for a better record; the motive is a good one.

However, record companies aren't interested in improving records, they just want money and they use deaths as an excuse to boost sales. That is an immoral motive, and for me the motive is what is important. If the motive is because the artist or even record company, wants to improve the work for their audience, that is fine. If they are just interested in squeezing money then it isn't; simple as that.

Either you're incredibly naïve or you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for an excuse to try to defend him. You actually think that Morrissey believes he's doing his audience a favour by repackaging records and shamefully tacking on a few songs that weren't good enough for public consumption at the time they were recorded? Tell me you're joking.

 

[JJKelsall]

Well I think that the reissues of Maladjusted and Southpaw were both improvements on the origionals, but I am not speaking about Morrissey in particular. I am saying that is is fine for any artist to repackage their own work as it belongs to them. It's not yours to decide and moan about. It is only wrong when record companies exploit and use it. Its hardly Morrissey's fault if his fans allow themselves to be exploited and tricked into buying pointless reissues like the reissue of Viva Hate, which was awful and I'm glad I didn't buy it.

 

[Anonymous]

Well I think that the reissues of Maladjusted and Southpaw were both improvements on the origionals

They weren't.

I am saying that is is fine for any artist to repackage their own work as it belongs to them.

It's bad enough when the average pop star repackages their records, but since Morrissey, to all intents and purposes, forswore himself from doing likewise, he showed himself to be a hypocrite and a whore with every pointless re-release.

It's not yours to decide and moan about.

Jesus. How old are you?

It is only wrong when record companies exploit and use it.

That's convenient!

Its hardly Morrissey's fault if his fans allow themselves to be exploited and tricked into buying pointless reissues like the reissue of Viva Hate, which was awful and I'm glad I didn't buy it.

It's "Morrissey's fault" if it's Morrissey who's doing the exploiting (which, incidentally, it is).

 

[JJKelsall]

They weren't.

That's your opinion.

It's bad enough when the average pop star repackages their records, but since Morrissey, to all intents and purposes, forswore himself from doing likewise, he showed himself to be a hypocrite and a whore with every pointless re-release.

Not really, the records that Morrissey has reissued are the ones he wasn't completely happy with when they were initially released.

Jesus. How old are you?


What is childish about telling you that Morrissey's work is not your own to complain about? If you don't like Morrissey or the things he does, don't listen to his music or waste your time on a fan site relating to his music.

That's convenient!

It's not convienient at all. If something belongs to you ie you created it, then it is yours to do with as you wish. Record companies don't own it and shouldn't be allowed to touch and taint it.

It's "Morrissey's fault" if it's Morrissey who's doing the exploiting (which, incidentally, it is).

It isn't Morrissey's fault if his fans allow themselves to be exploited; they do that themselves. If people didn't allow themselves to be exploited, then there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Anonymous]

It isn't Morrissey's fault if his fans allow themselves to be exploited; they do that themselves. If people didn't allow themselves to be exploited, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Okay, you're just repeating yourself now.

Admittedly, though, you're right: if somebody already owns Maladjusted, for example, and then buys it again because Morrissey wants them to, and because they're gullible, that is tantamount to idiocy, but in the exploiter/exploitee relationship you've outlined, Morrissey hardly comes out looking good.

 

[JJKelsall]

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.

 

[nothappynotsad]

Obsessed much, you f***ing freakshow? Wrong person.

This. I know for a fact he's been too busy with real life to even check the boards lately.

Signed,
NHNS (secretary to VH)

 

[CrystalGeezer]

This. I know for a fact he's been too busy with real life to even check the boards lately.

Signed,
NHNS (secretary to VH)

Mmmm, yes. Keeping up with naughty Sailor Moon can be rather time consuming.

 

[Skylarker]

Mmmm, yes. Keeping up with naughty Sailor Moon can be rather time consuming.

You have no life. At all. THEY ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP....you are not. THEY HAVE JOBS AND GO TO SCHOOL. You do not. You watch houses and live off of your mother.

Did I embellish the lesbian crush story? Yeah. Does that mean that the entire thing was fabricated? No.