"To die by his side: How far is too far for Morrissey’s devout fanbase?" - FACT Magazine

To die by his side: How far is too far for Morrissey’s devout fanbase? - FACT Magazine
by April Clare Welsh

A rather interesting article allowing both sides of the argument. Includes contribution from the man who still runs this website for better or worse...

The audiences he has been attracting in Mexico are phenomenal for someone without a record deal but the glory days are long gone for me.


Related items:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comments

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
Thank you for this Evil Edna ;),
"... how do his followers reconcile the former Smiths frontman’s increasingly reprehensible behavior with their enduring admiration for his art?"
I just looked through my entire music collection of 40 years and found I could substitute the term 'former Smith's frontman's' with many, many other artists.
It matters not one jot: a tour t-shirt or an inflammatory comment will never negate my emotional response to the music - simple as that.
David's words probably ring true for a lot of us here: 'I do try and separate the artist from the person.'
I truly believe the use of aspects of his behaviour to attempt to sour his entire body of work is just poor thinking on behalf of the recent writers of these types of article - people do not stop enjoying music because a singer is a bit of a handful offstage.
This article manages to delve in to the usual racist/NAZI/Pope of Mope clichés with no real attempt to answer the question or summate an answer.
To answer the question directly: How far?
Well, most people here have gone as far as they ever will by typing a comment and then promptly gone off and listened to a Moz & or Smith's song and life goes on...
Regards,
FWD.
 
Last edited:
M

Musician

Guest
It matters not one jot: a tour t-shirt or an inflammatory comment will never negate my emotional response to the music - simple as that.
David's words probably ring true for a lot of us here: 'I do try and separate the artist from the person.'
I truly believe the use of aspects of his behaviour to attempt to sour his entire body of work is just poor thinking on behalf of the recent writers of these types of article - people do not stop enjoying music because a singer is a bit of a handful offstage.
I got disillusioned by Morrissey many times over the years so much I didn't even go to his last gig when he played in my town. But I truly don't understand this Baldwin-T-shirt business.

I was looking forward to this article but then got disappointed, because it dwelled into this T-shirt nonsense non-scandal scandal, but ignored that indeed: how far do you go defending a favourite singer? An inflammatory comment won't negate the emotional response to music - but what if your favourite popstar turns out to be a paedophile? A pervert? Someone involved in a murder? Would you still sing the lines to a song as if they are just phrases to a melody? I am NOT implying anything specifically for Morrissey, just trying to start a thread the article missed to do so.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Being a pedo is the only thing I've seen really break a fansbase abruptly like that completely. Lost prophets comes to mind. Murder just doesn't do it as people romanticize that stuff and some bands only become more popular as a result. Sometimes domestic violence can get close but people still overlook it a lot. Screeching weasels Ben weasel punched a woman onstage in the face and got a lot of crap for it, and he was seen as an asshole long before this, and people still defend him. Probably also has something to do with the type of music and what the public figure stands for. In the case of mayhem, a black metal band, the murder and such only increased there popularity but in screeching weasels case, a punk band from a scene where violence against women is a topic often brought up, his incident hurt him but didn't kill the band completely. In morrisseys case it'd probably take a photo of him eating a steak or him becoming fast foods new commercial spokesman.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
We know him as an artist, but we can't know him as a person. We are not his friend or family, so it's stupid when we feel entitled to speak of Morrissey in a personal level as if we had enough material to do so.
It's unfair and essentially wrong to judge someone's personality by a phrase extracted out of context from an interview or by the acts or sayings of people who worked for him. I had people working for me who did exactly the opposite I ordered, sometimes with the best and other times with the worst intentions.

A misunderstanding is followed by another misunderstanding. That's how people distance from others who care about.
Setting aside the possibility of other intentions that one or both of them coul have and we ignore, as someone said:


Peace and love
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><>
I still enjoy some Gary Glitter, catchy songs cool production. And Phil Spector still love his work, so it depends on what the listeners personal experience in their own life is in relation to the actions of any artist.

How close to home is it before it effects you in a way where your mind can not abstract the facts any longer.

It also may depend on how great the work is, I mean.. M did forgive Wilde for not being vegetarian.


We'll Let You Know rated your post
Troll in this thread :laughing:


WE'LL LET YOU TROLL :thumb:
 
Last edited:

Famous when dead

Vulgarian
Moderator
I think the kind of question posed can only be answered within the realms of what has actually transpired not what may happen in the future. It makes for a nice talking point, but is a distraction from the main point.
Until Morrissey is shown to be X, Y, or Z - then the point about enjoying the music despite a bit of controversy is valid for probably most listeners.
In the great scheme of things, he's done nothing particularly outrageous when compared to other 'stars'. There are more unpleasant, vile comments or statements to be found here or in a YouTube video comments section than he has ever espoused himself.
Provocative t-shirts - well, the world isn't going to end is it?
The current climate of virtue signalling and blowing small things up out of all proportion for 'outrage' purposes explains far more about the writers of these articles than Morrissey.
Now this 'bot' needs to go recharge his batteries.
Regards,
FWD.
 

AztecCamera

Well-Known Member
Reckon Steve has been a member of the mile high club for years. You know he hit that flight waitress in the restroom. Me reckon all the nasty shit they made her do for that cap. I like this true story Uncle Steve stuff. Reckon do you see how his name really is Steve home in LA and not "Steven"? Steve does not fly first class anywhere.
 

SeniorLife

Those who don't know, don't know, they don't know.
Thanks for the article feed. I instantly stopped at 'Pope of Mope' but later in the piece, the hypocrisy of some of the written piece caught my eye and made me want to vomit.

To be ashamed of oneself, couldn't be enough.
 

123xyz

Well-Known Member
Subscriber
More or less lost interest when I go to the quote about Panic being the " ... most explicit denunciation yet of black pop ...". Did the author actually listen to the song ? How does one journalist's baseless slur 30 years ago constitute anything of significance ?

More happily , I enjoyed DavidT's remarks and have to agree with him that the Baldwin shirt was handled clumsily .
 

Qvist

Active Member
Frankly, I think the argument the article makes is ridiculous, as is the Baldwin t-shirt controversy in general. It offends people who are determined to treat Language as a form of value branding, where there is no room for ambiguity. Such People will inevitably find Morrissey, whose mode of expression revolves around exactly ambiguity, offensive.

"I wear black on the outside, cause black is how I feel on the inside". Depicted, Baldwin wearing black. So, that's an icon of depression wearing black. Also, it's an icon of black empowerment wearing black. It would be fairly reasonable to claim that Baldwin probably felt black in both senses of the word, and it is bleeding obvious that the t-shirt pays tribute to both. Nevertheless, the argument goes T-shirt says Baldwin=black, black=depressed, depressed=inferior. As if Morrissey, of all People, equated depression with something inferior.
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
Frankly, I think the argument the article makes is ridiculous, as is the Baldwin t-shirt controversy in general. It offends people who are determined to treat Language as a form of value branding, where there is no room for ambiguity. Such People will inevitably find Morrissey, whose mode of expression revolves around exactly ambiguity, offensive.

"I wear black on the outside, cause black is how I feel on the inside". Depicted, Baldwin wearing black. So, that's an icon of depression wearing black. Also, it's an icon of black empowerment wearing black. It would be fairly reasonable to claim that Baldwin probably felt black in both senses of the word, and it is bleeding obvious that the t-shirt pays tribute to both. Nevertheless, the argument goes T-shirt says Baldwin=black, black=depressed, depressed=inferior. As if Morrissey, of all People, equated depression with something inferior.
^^ This ^^
Thank you for explaining so much better than I ever could. :thumb:
 

Qvist

Active Member
Thank you for this Evil Edna ;),
"... how do his followers reconcile the former Smiths frontman’s increasingly reprehensible behavior with their enduring admiration for his art?"
I just looked through my entire music collection of 40 years and found I could substitute the term 'former Smith's frontman's' with many, many other artists.
It matters not one jot: a tour t-shirt or an inflammatory comment will never negate my emotional response to the music - simple as that.
David's words probably ring true for a lot of us here: 'I do try and separate the artist from the person.'
I truly believe the use of aspects of his behaviour to attempt to sour his entire body of work is just poor thinking on behalf of the recent writers of these types of article - people do not stop enjoying music because a singer is a bit of a handful offstage.
This article manages to delve in to the usual racist/NAZI/Pope of Mope clichés with no real attempt to answer the question or summate an answer.
To answer the question directly: How far?
Well, most people here have gone as far as they ever will by typing a comment and then promptly gone off and listened to a Moz & or Smith's song and life goes on...
Regards,
FWD.
Indeed. But most of all, I don't think the issue is even that pertinent to Morrissey.

He thinks and says stupid and outrageous things, yes, but let's face it, he always has. His political commentary in the 1980s weren't really much less embarassing than his latest efforts, it's just we didn't notice as much because it was mainly Thatcher on the receiving end of it. He's always been at his best talking about himself and People in general, and at his worst when trying to get at the larger complexities of social and political reality, where he has generally always been clueless, steering as he does by the same instincts of defiant and combative subjectivity that make him a great observer of the human condition, but an abysmal loudmouth when it comes to politics. Although the few occasions where the two intersect and he just Pierces it with one of his observations nearly makes it Worth it. Anyway, I find I get put off when there's too much of that nonsense (such as the title track of "world Peace is none of your business"). But I don't think he can possibly be fundamentally a bad person. Which is much more than can be said for quite a lot of great writers and artists, whose work we nevertheless have few problems enjoying.
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
I always took the lyrical line Worldpeace Is None Of Your Business literally. Cause there seems not much I or anyone else as an individual could do about it and voting doesn't help either. Mind you, I don't agree cause I think it's better to vote and use the right you have to do so. The same argument as with making a decision.
It could turn out right or bad but no decision is always bad.

There is an ambiguity in that song, as always with Moz cause he also says things impersonating the mighty, the powerful rulers of this world they would never say out loud but are thinking.
I agree with you Moz politics are not his forte.
But he isn't a politician and the song expresses more a kind of desperation and sadness.
Cheers Qvist :thumb:
 

rifke

team bougatsa
the only time moz did anything that really left a lasting bad taste for me was when he called pamela andersen beautiful, cause i just cant understand or get on board with that. to me that's not even a question of "well you have your taste..", but a question of "no, you're WRONG and let me tell you WHY". other than that.... eh. im an amoralist so im not generally fussed about reprehensible behaviour. a lot of the time i even enjoy it. i have really poor behaviour myself at times. like, really poor.
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
the only time moz did anything that really left a lasting bad taste for me was when he called pamela andersen beautiful, cause i just cant understand or get on board with that. to me that's not even a question of "well you have your taste..", but a question of "no, you're WRONG and let me tell you WHY". other than that.... eh. im an amoralist so im not generally fussed about reprehensible behaviour. a lot of the time i even enjoy it. i have really poor behaviour myself at times. like, really poor.
He meant beautiful on the inside. :p
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
but she's a trashy ho-bag...?
But when it comes to animals and as she voiced such strong emotional love for them and as she is still a big name he wanted to support her.
He doesn't mind any other flaws when it comes to animals.
 
A

Angela Davis Jr

Guest
Indeed. But most of all, I don't think the issue is even that pertinent to Morrissey.

He thinks and says stupid and outrageous things, yes, but let's face it, he always has. His political commentary in the 1980s weren't really much less embarassing than his latest efforts, it's just we didn't notice as much because it was mainly Thatcher on the receiving end of it. He's always been at his best talking about himself and People in general, and at his worst when trying to get at the larger complexities of social and political reality, where he has generally always been clueless, steering as he does by the same instincts of defiant and combative subjectivity that make him a great observer of the human condition, but an abysmal loudmouth when it comes to politics. Although the few occasions where the two intersect and he just Pierces it with one of his observations nearly makes it Worth it. Anyway, I find I get put off when there's too much of that nonsense (such as the title track of "world Peace is none of your business"). But I don't think he can possibly be fundamentally a bad person. Which is much more than can be said for quite a lot of great writers and artists, whose work we nevertheless have few problems enjoying.
This is refreshing. "He's always been clueless. Leave him alone." But you're right because while this shirt might be one of the more embarrassing and clueless things he's done it's only the latest, and I don't think it's the worst. Morrissey seems like a perpetual first year student trying to identify and brand himself with things he has recently discovered. His Italian phase on Ringleader of the Tormentors, for example. Now it's James Baldwin and Morrissey is going around saying that Obama is white inside while he, Morrissey, apparently feels black. So, back to your point, this author has overlooked an awful lot and it's hard to understand how this is the final straw. And I don't even want to suggest that it's because the author is black and the latest gaffe involves a black man. It seems pretty obvious but it doesn't matter and I won't pretend to know the author's true feelings.
"a great observer of the human condition, but an abysmal loudmouth when it comes to politics."
Yes. "THIS!"
 

12" on the slack

team baklava
Frankly, I think the argument the article makes is ridiculous, as is the Baldwin t-shirt controversy in general. It offends people who are determined to treat Language as a form of value branding, where there is no room for ambiguity. Such People will inevitably find Morrissey, whose mode of expression revolves around exactly ambiguity, offensive.

"I wear black on the outside, cause black is how I feel on the inside". Depicted, Baldwin wearing black. So, that's an icon of depression wearing black. Also, it's an icon of black empowerment wearing black. It would be fairly reasonable to claim that Baldwin probably felt black in both senses of the word, and it is bleeding obvious that the t-shirt pays tribute to both. Nevertheless, the argument goes T-shirt says. As if Morrissey, of all People, equated depression with something inferior.
These are some interesting points, but the argument (of the controversy in general) didn’t go t-shirt says Baldwin=black, black=depressed, depressed=inferior. If anything, as you say, Morrissey glamourises “depression”. (I put depression in quotation marks because there’s a distinction that I’ve been missing throughout this whole debate: the subject in the song feels black on the inside because he feels he doesn’t belong, he’s an outsider, and there is some unrequited love - but that’s a far cry from suffering from depression (the illness) / clinical depression.)

The argument of the controversy in general goes t-shirt says Baldwin=black, black=state of mind, black=skin colour. Which is not necessarily racist, but it’s certainly not clever, it's so lacking in nuance, and the main problem people have with it is that he did this in spite of his many past racial insensitivities. He must have known how this would be received and he didn’t care.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom