Dennis Herring (producer) / Twitter - Extraordinary story about the Smiths' songwriting and recording

This is something I've never heard before. The story is told on Twitter by Dennis Herring, who produced Modest Mouse.

IMG_0638.jpg
IMG_0639.jpg
IMG_0640.jpg
IMG_0641.jpg
 
Clearly some records become hits because of the music, not what I would call 'the song' (vocal melody and words). But if records were credited as I feel they should be - with separate credits for the 'song' (vocal melody/words) and for the music, then publishing royalties would be separately accorded. So if somebody had written a great hook, their creative role in the creation of the record would be acknowledged (beyond what they earnt as musicians).

So, for example, 'This Charming Man'.

Royalties would be split between the songwriter (Morrissey) and the musical composers (Marr/Rourke/Porter in this instance I would reckon).


Song credit, in this case, is lyrics/music, meaning
Morrissey’s words and Marr’s initial
music, music that will be altered ( more or less) by Morrissey, other band members, producer and even the engineers on the recording session. With all that work and contributions from a team effort it
becomes a Smiths song.

Also, what happens between Marr’s tape and Morrissey is also a song, a Smiths song to them and a Smiths song to be.

The song writers, words/music = Morrissey/Marr is the foundation
on which things are usually added by other band members, and producer.

Andy should get more credit, but a writers credit? He added to Marr’s initial music, but it’s not like Andy came in with music that he gave a tape for Morrissey to put words to
and for Marr to put guitar to.


Morrissey being the songwriter because he created the vocal melody and words. If you sing the song a cappella that's all it is.
o_O !
Marr, Rourke and Porter would all have had a financial share of royalties for the music. I add Porter in this case because I have a memory of an interview with him - or it may even have been Marr - talking about how he stitched together bits of riffs and music that Johnny had. Rourke would get a credit for his incredibly distinctive and melodic bass part, which really holds the music together.

Some producers are very hands on. And if they have that kind of trust from the artists that they’re working with, then it’s not surprising that on some occasions if the producer thinks something will work, then they will manipulate the arrangement either in preproduction or later with editing.

But, like a bass player playing to the
song( regardless of talent) the producer is still ‘playing’ with the music or song brought in initially
by the artist. But they, the producer and bass player are adding to, not starting from nothing, they are contributing to it.

In the case of a song like 'Ticket to Ride', as another example, Lennon would have been credited with the song, but Harrison would have gotten royalties and a musical composer credit for the arpeggio riff.

Again, as great as that riff is, it’s John and Paul that came in with the
initial words and music to be added to. George needed John to come up with that riff ....

“According to Harrison, however, the Rickenbacker riff was his own idea, based on the way Lennon strummed the chord when introducing the song to the band.”


Yes it was an important contribution, but it’s not writing by starting with nothing.




I appreciate all this - that instrumentals are regarded as songs by some people, I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying they shouldn't be.
Unfortunately for you, they are.
And not just for the sake of it, for a reason. The reason being that it is blatantly obvious after the course of some 35 years that Morrissey can create decent songs and Marr can't. Sure, I don't dispute that Marr is now a songwriter, because he adds vocal melodies and lyrics to his instrumentals, so therefore he now creates his own songs. They're generally rubbish, but I don't dispute that they're songs. But the part of the creative process that made them songs was the addition of his vocal melodies and lyrics. Before that they were just instrumentals.

Sure, people can - and do - refer to instrumentals as 'songs' - but why do so? Why not just refer to them as 'instrumentals'?

The clue is in the word. 'Song' fairly evidently has the same etymological roots as the verb 'to sing'. It relates to the voice, and to words.
o_O
The tapes that Marr gave to Morrissey were instrumentals. Morrissey used these to create his songs.

So they are ‘his songs’, not Smiths songs?


To say that Marr co-created these songs because he composed the music is, I feel, a misconception. Marr created the music.
:lbf: doh:
Morrissey created the song, using the music.

No. Morrissey helped create a song together with Marr/ band.


When he went solo, Morrissey continued to create songs, using other people's music: the generally wasn't as good as Marr's music for The Smiths, but the songs have often been as good as the songs of The Smiths.

Morrissey has demonstrated that he doesn't actually need great music to produce great songs

subjective.

. And that the songs are great (e.g. 'First of the Gang to Die') despite the music being... not rubbish at all (not in that instance anyway) but not on a par with what Marr created for The Smiths,
shows that the songs are independent of the music: they can be evaluated and appraised independently of the music.
o_O
You feel, I think, that I'm denying Marr a role in the creative process of The Smiths. I'm not. He co-created the music. It was beautiful, remarkable, great music.

But that still doesn't entitle him to say that he 'co-wrote', say, 'Bigmouth Strikes Again'.

o_O!


The Smiths' songs are great songs. If Marr had co-written the songs it would logically suggest he's a great songwriter. So why has he never written any great songs? Because songs aren't music - they're vocal melodies and words set to music. And Marr can't create great vocal melodies and words. These days, he's a songwriter - but a poor one.

Back in the days of The Smiths, he didn't 'co-write' songs, he just composed music.

So when people say Smiths songs by Morrissey/Marr,
you would correct them and say ... Smiths songs written
by Morrissey with music by Marr?
 
So when people say Smiths songs by Morrissey/Marr,
you would correct them and say ... Smiths songs written
by Morrissey with music by Marr?

Yes, I would, and my reasons why are clearly enough laid out in previous posts; however, you're not really addressing my argument: quoting my posts and adding lots of emojis isn't a counterargument; emojis are simply what the name suggests, expressions of your emotions. You've demonstrated that you're very emotional, but you've yet to demonstrate that you can think and argue rationally.

Such replies as you've provided indicate that you're fixated on the idea that the existing Morrissey/Marr credit must be accurate and that therefore Marr's contribution (the music) must therefore be part of the song, and that therefore 'music' and 'song' are the same thing, and interchangeable terms.

Every response you have given me is rooted in this a priori assumption, without rationalising why you maintain that assumption. You've yet to explain why you think that an 'instrumental' and a 'song' are the same thing in your mind - other than because other people have told you they're the same thing (I've explained why I think they're not).

Clearly, nothing is going to dissuade you of that notion, so there's nothing more for you and I to discuss.
 
Yes, I would, and my reasons why are clearly enough laid out in previous posts; however, you're not really addressing my argument: quoting my posts and adding lots of emojis isn't a counterargument; emojis are simply what the name suggests, expressions of your emotions. You've demonstrated that you're very emotional, but you've yet to demonstrate that you can think and argue rationally.

Such replies as you've provided indicate that you're fixated on the idea that the existing Morrissey/Marr credit must be accurate and that therefore Marr's contribution (the music) must therefore be part of the song, and that therefore 'music' and 'song' are the same thing, and interchangeable terms.

Every response you have given me is rooted in this a priori assumption, without rationalising why you maintain that assumption. You've yet to explain why you think that an 'instrumental' and a 'song' are the same thing in your mind - other than because other people have told you they're the same thing (I've explained why I think they're not).

Clearly, nothing is going to dissuade you of that notion, so there's nothing more for you and I to discuss.

Clearly some records become hits because of the music, not what I would call 'the song' (vocal melody and words). But if records were credited as I feel they should be - with separate credits for the 'song' (vocal melody/words) and for the music, then publishing royalties would be separately accorded. So if somebody had written a great hook, their creative role in the creation of the record would be acknowledged (beyond what they earnt as musicians).

So, for example, 'This Charming Man'.

Royalties would be split between the songwriter (Morrissey) and the musical composers (Marr/Rourke/Porter in this instance I would reckon).

Morrissey being the songwriter because he created the vocal melody and words. If you sing the song a cappella that's all it is.

Marr, Rourke and Porter would all have had a financial share of royalties for the music. I add Porter in this case because I have a memory of an interview with him - or it may even have been Marr - talking about how he stitched together bits of riffs and music that Johnny had. Rourke would get a credit for his incredibly distinctive and melodic bass part, which really holds the music together.

In the case of a song like 'Ticket to Ride', as another example, Lennon would have been credited with the song, but Harrison would have gotten royalties and a musical composer credit for the arpeggio riff.
I agree with this. Morrissey should be considered the song writer. Ive made a similar points before.
 
Clearly some records become hits because of the music, not what I would call 'the song' (vocal melody and words). But if records were credited as I feel they should be - with separate credits for the 'song' (vocal melody/words) and for the music, then publishing royalties would be separately accorded. So if somebody had written a great hook, their creative role in the creation of the record would be acknowledged (beyond what they earnt as musicians).

So, for example, 'This Charming Man'.

Royalties would be split between the songwriter (Morrissey) and the musical composers (Marr/Rourke/Porter in this instance I would reckon).

Morrissey being the songwriter because he created the vocal melody and words. If you sing the song a cappella that's all it is.

Marr, Rourke and Porter would all have had a financial share of royalties for the music. I add Porter in this case because I have a memory of an interview with him - or it may even have been Marr - talking about how he stitched together bits of riffs and music that Johnny had. Rourke would get a credit for his incredibly distinctive and melodic bass part, which really holds the music together.

In the case of a song like 'Ticket to Ride', as another example, Lennon would have been credited with the song, but Harrison would have gotten royalties and a musical composer credit for the arpeggio riff.
You can't just sing any melody over a given piece of music. He doesn't come up with singing melodies and then just apply them to whatever music he's given. The musicians compose a piece of music and he then sings over the top of it.
If someone gives you an amazing piece of music e.g. Some Girls Are Bigger, it's very easy to sing over the top of it and end up with a great song. If someone gives you a rubbish piece of music e.g. People Are The Same Everywhere, you can't magically turn that into a great song.
If Morrissey composed singing melodies and then attached them to whatever composition he's provided with then, yes, he could be considered a songwriter. But he doesn't - he sings over the top of a completed musical composition.
 
You can't just sing any melody over a given piece of music. He doesn't come up with singing melodies and then just apply them to whatever music he's given. The musicians compose a piece of music and he then sings over the top of it.
If someone gives you an amazing piece of music e.g. Some Girls Are Bigger, it's very easy to sing over the top of it and end up with a great song. If someone gives you a rubbish piece of music e.g. People Are The Same Everywhere, you can't magically turn that into a great song.
If Morrissey composed singing melodies and then attached them to whatever composition he's provided with then, yes, he could be considered a songwriter. But he doesn't - he sings over the top of a completed musical composition.

No, this a false argument. I'm not disputing that Morrissey's vocal melodies were created by listening to the music. I'm not claiming that he created them in a vacuum. Clearly, he didn't. That doesn't detract from the fact that what Morrissey created was the song, and what Marr created was music. The song arose from the music.

"If someone gives you an amazing piece of music... it's very easy to sing over the top of it"...

true ...

"and end up with a great song"... not true. Or else Marr's collaborations for the past 30 years would have produced great songs. Which they demonstrably haven't.

"If someone gives you a rubbish piece of music... you can't magically turn that into a great song". I'd argue that's precisely what Morrissey has done time and time again throughout his solo career. Perhaps 'rubbish' might be too strong a word, but 'bland', 'indifferent', 'average'... sure. 'Sing Your Life', just off the top of my head. Great song. Is it a great piece of music? No.

"If Morrissey composed singing melodies and then attached them to whatever [musical] composition he's provided with then, yes, he could be considered a songwriter"

Again, false logic. You're assuming that because Morrissey doesn't work in a creative vacuum, because he doesn't create the melodies out of thin air, then he shouldn't be credited as sole creator of the songs. But this depends on what your definition of a 'song' is.

A 'song' is what the term implies (again, as I noted in an earlier post, look at the etymological origin of the word, springing from the same source as 'to sing') - vocal melody/words, which are the only elements needed to perform a song, the reason being that they are what constitute the song. That's why a cappella can exist.

So what Morrissey creates is the song. Does he needs music to do that? Yes. Does the music equate to the song? No.

Look at the example I provided earlier 'Irish Blood, English Heart' and 'Not Bitter But Bored'. Two completely different songs employing exactly the same (or virtually the same ) backing track.
 
Yes, I would, and my reasons why are clearly enough laid out in previous posts; however, you're not really addressing my argument:
Why are you arguing? it’s not that serious. Chill.
quoting my posts and adding lots of emojis isn't a counterargument;
I’m not arguing. I find you amusing.
emojis are simply what the name suggests, expressions of your emotions. You've demonstrated that you're very emotional, but you've yet to demonstrate that you can think and argue rationally.
emotional? rational? Lol. You’re the one throwing a tantrum because some people call instrumentals songs.
Such replies as you've provided indicate that you're fixated on the idea that the existing Morrissey/Marr credit must be accurate
No not ‘must be’ but the credit to both lyricist and writer of the initial
music usual is the way writers of songs have been credited through the ages.
and that therefore Marr's contribution (the music) must therefore be part of the song, and that therefore 'music' and 'song' are the same thing, and interchangeable terms.
Nah. Words and music together can and usually is called a song. The ‘instrumental’ even before Marr gives it to Morrissey, can be a song to Marr, and a Smiths song to be.
Every response you have given me is rooted in this a priori assumption, without rationalising why you maintain that assumption. You've yet to explain why you think that an 'instrumental' and a 'song' are the same thing in your mind - other than because other people have told you they're the same thing (I've explained why I think they're not).

I never said that an instrumental and a vocal song is the same thing,
I’m simply pointing out to you that an instrumental is and can by some
be called a song.
Clearly, nothing is going to dissuade you of that notion, so there's nothing more for you and I to discuss.

And there’s nothing to dissuade you
from the strange belief that Marr was not a songwriter with Morrissey while in The Smiths.

It’s not like Morrissey came in first with an a cappella sung lyric/melody and Marr and band played to it.

If Morrissey considered himself a songwriter(as you define it), then he surely wouldn’t bother collaborating with other artists to create songs.
 
Last edited:
Why are you arguing? it’s not that serious. Chill.

Words and music together can and usually is called a song.

'Arguing' doesn't have to imply being worked up about something. One can argue a case, as I was doing. I'm surprised you're engaging in a discussion on a forum without understanding that distinction, particularly as I employed the noun "my argument" rather than the verb, which ought to have made it all the clearer.

As regards the rest of your post, it basically boils down to the same a priori assumption you're making, to which I referred previously, and which you repeat above - the assertion that "Words and music together can and usually is called a song"[sic].

As I pointed out to you in my last post, whilst I don't dispute that words and music together are frequently referred to as a 'song', I've yet to hear your explanation for why you think that is the case, and for why you make no distinction between 'song' and 'instrumental music'.

As I've also pointed out to you a few times now, the word 'song' derives from the same root as the word 'sing' and refers to the voice and the art of singing. So there clearly is a semantic distinction between 'song' and 'music'.

That I recognise this distinction, is why I can readily understand and rationalise why Morrissey continued to create great songs after the The Smiths split, and Marr hasn't created any great songs, and you presumably can't (or if you think you can, I'd be interested to hear your explanation - unless, God forbid, you actually think Marr has created great songs since The Smiths split up).

But to get back to my point: why do you regard an instrumental piece of music and a song as the same thing? Other than 'because lots of other people do'. I mean, your responding to my posts suggests you want to debate the idea, but you're not actually offering any thoughts of you own by way of counter-argument, you're basically just telling me what other people think and do, and failing to explain even why you believe those other people think as they do.

To put it bluntly, do you have any thoughts of your own, such that you can actually explain your repeated assertion that "a piece of music can be a song" (as opposed to being... oh, don't know, say... just a piece of music)? Because as yet, you haven't provided any actual explanation as to why it should be thought of as a song, and not just as a piece of music.

"It’s not like Morrissey came in first with an a cappella sung lyric/melody and Marr and band played to it."

No. Nor does it have to be, as I've already explained to you. That the songs were inspired by Marr's music does not mean that they are therefore not a distinct creation in their own right. Marr made the music which inspired Morrissey to create the songs - a song being a combination of vocal melody and words, as the etymological root of the word implies.
 
No, this a false argument. I'm not disputing that Morrissey's vocal melodies were created by listening to the music. I'm not claiming that he created them in a vacuum. Clearly, he didn't. That doesn't detract from the fact that what Morrissey created was the song, and what Marr created was music. The song arose from the music.

"If someone gives you an amazing piece of music... it's very easy to sing over the top of it"...

true ...

"and end up with a great song"... not true. Or else Marr's collaborations for the past 30 years would have produced great songs. Which they demonstrably haven't.

"If someone gives you a rubbish piece of music... you can't magically turn that into a great song". I'd argue that's precisely what Morrissey has done time and time again throughout his solo career. Perhaps 'rubbish' might be too strong a word, but 'bland', 'indifferent', 'average'... sure. 'Sing Your Life', just off the top of my head. Great song. Is it a great piece of music? No.

"If Morrissey composed singing melodies and then attached them to whatever [musical] composition he's provided with then, yes, he could be considered a songwriter"

Again, false logic. You're assuming that because Morrissey doesn't work in a creative vacuum, because he doesn't create the melodies out of thin air, then he shouldn't be credited as sole creator of the songs. But this depends on what your definition of a 'song' is.

A 'song' is what the term implies (again, as I noted in an earlier post, look at the etymological origin of the word, springing from the same source as 'to sing') - vocal melody/words, which are the only elements needed to perform a song, the reason being that they are what constitute the song. That's why a cappella can exist.

So what Morrissey creates is the song. Does he needs music to do that? Yes. Does the music equate to the song? No.

Look at the example I provided earlier 'Irish Blood, English Heart' and 'Not Bitter But Bored'. Two completely different songs employing exactly the same (or virtually the same ) backing track.
Yes, he's got a knack for writing pretty good singing melodies but that certainly doesn't make him a songwriter. He's never written a song himself in his life. Not once in the 300+ songs that he's sung has the credit simply been 'Morrissey'.
Furthermore, traditionally songwriters develop songs together from the initial sketch all the way to the song's completion. Morrissey has never been able to do that. He requires a virtually complete composition and just sings over the top of it (see the recent tweet about Marr being annoyed at Morrissey singing over everything). One of the Bona Drag composers (Armstrong, possibly) mentioned this issue too. He said he wrote the entire song (or piece of music) 'like Johnny Marr used to' and then sent it to Morrissey. Mark Nevin made the mistake of not realising this. He sent Morrissey early sketches which he assumed they would work up together - not that M would simply sing over the top of it and the song would be finished.
Morrissey's singing melodies are often pretty flimsy. Heaven Knows I'm Miserable just has three notes all the way through. It's those beautiful guitar lines that really make the song.
Listen to the outro to There is a Light. The singing melody to the 'there is a light part' is effectively just two notes. The magic in that section is the beautiful flute part and the strings.
Morrissey did lots of amazing things in the Smiths - the words and the singing were just incredible. More than that, he also established their whole aesthetic which is why it's ridiculous when people claim that they love the Smiths but hate Morrissey. However, the incredible music in the Smiths songs must be largely attributed to Marr.
 
Yes, he's got a knack for writing pretty good singing melodies but that certainly doesn't make him a songwriter. He's never written a song himself in his life. Not once in the 300+ songs that he's sung has the credit simply been 'Morrissey'.
Furthermore, traditionally songwriters develop songs together from the initial sketch all the way to the song's completion. Morrissey has never been able to do that. He requires a virtually complete composition and just sings over the top of it (see the recent tweet about Marr being annoyed at Morrissey singing over everything). One of the Bona Drag composers (Armstrong, possibly) mentioned this issue too. He said he wrote the entire song (or piece of music) 'like Johnny Marr used to' and then sent it to Morrissey. Mark Nevin made the mistake of not realising this. He sent Morrissey early sketches which he assumed they would work up together - not that M would simply sing over the top of it and the song would be finished.
Morrissey's singing melodies are often pretty flimsy. Heaven Knows I'm Miserable just has three notes all the way through. It's those beautiful guitar lines that really make the song.
Listen to the outro to There is a Light. The singing melody to the 'there is a light part' is effectively just two notes. The magic in that section is the beautiful flute part and the strings.
Morrissey did lots of amazing things in the Smiths - the words and the singing were just incredible. More than that, he also established their whole aesthetic which is why it's ridiculous when people claim that they love the Smiths but hate Morrissey. However, the incredible music in the Smiths songs must be largely attributed to Marr.

All I really need to do here is copy a portion of my previous reply to you (see below), but basically you're labouring under two misconceptions:

firstly, that the songs credits as they stand (Morrissey/Marr) are necessarily a truthful indication of how the songs were created - but since what we're actually debating is whether or not this was so, it's a rather circular argument to say "the songs can't have been created by Morrissey alone, because he was never given sole credit";

secondly, that the fact that Morrissey's vocal melodies were created in response to the music is an indication that the music itself is part of the song. Not so. As I said previously:

"... false logic. You're assuming that because Morrissey doesn't work in a creative vacuum, because he doesn't create the melodies out of thin air, then he shouldn't be credited as sole creator of the songs. But this depends on what your definition of a 'song' is.

A 'song' is what the term implies (again, as I noted in an earlier post, look at the etymological origin of the word, springing from the same source as 'to sing') - vocal melody/words, which are the only elements needed to perform a song, the reason being that they are what constitute the song. That's why a cappella can exist.

So what Morrissey creates is the song. Does he needs music to do that? Yes. Does the music equate to the song? No."


You note that the incredible music of The Smiths must be largely attributed to Marr. I agree. You say that the backing music in the outro of 'There Is a Light...' is "the magic in that section". That's a matter of opinion, but for the sake of argument, so what? It doesn't detract from my argument as to what constitutes a song. The song is the vocal melody and the lyric. As nice as that outro is, you could play the song on an acoustic guitar without using that outro, or you could simply sing the song, unaccompanied. What you're really saying is that the outro to 'There is a Light...' is the magic in that section of the recording, not the song.

Likewise, here:

"Morrissey's singing melodies are often pretty flimsy. Heaven Knows I'm Miserable just has three notes all the way through. It's those beautiful guitar lines that really make the song."

Again, you're confusing the record with the song. I'd agree, it's Marr's guitars that really make that version of the song. But you could do a different version of the song with a completely different musical backing, yet with the same vocal melody and lyric. On the other hand, if you took the backing track and superimposed a completely different vocal melody and lyric, you'd have a completely different song. (As was the case when Morrissey took the backing track of Whyte's song 'Not Bitter But Bored' and put a new vocal melody and lyric over it to create a new song, 'Irish Blood, English Heart').

That is why the backing music is not an integral part of the song, even though it may be the inspiration for the song (or one of the inspirations).
 
I cannot believe this moron is still talking about this.

It always amuses me when someone's response to a reasoned argument is an attempted insult - they never seem to grasp that it says more about their lack of intellect than it does about the person whose argument they're responding to.
 
It always amuses me when someone's response to a reasoned argument is an attempted insult - they never seem to grasp that it says more about their lack of intellect than it does about the person whose argument they're responding to.
You’d be wrong about that.
 
'Arguing' doesn't have to imply being worked up about something.

You still seem ‘worked up’.
One can argue a case, as I was doing.
Yes I noticed you were arguing, I was just being amused.
I'm surprised you're engaging in a discussion on a forum without understanding that distinction,

Well yes I am trying to engage in a discussion, but you seem to want to argue instead.
particularly as I employed the noun "my argument" rather than the verb, which ought to have made it all the clearer.

As regards the rest of your post, it basically boils down to the same a priori assumption you're making, to which I referred previously, and which you repeat above - the assertion that "Words and music together can and usually is called a song"[sic].

As I pointed out to you in my last post, whilst

I don't dispute that words and music together are frequently referred to as a 'song', I've yet to hear your explanation for why you think that is the case,
no explanation needed.
and for why you make no distinction between 'song' and 'instrumental music'.
Lol, but I do and can make a distinction between what can be called a song (a vocal song) and an instrumental. And like many, even though I know that a composition is a instrumental ( music without words) I can still call it a song, as many do.
As I've also pointed out to you a few times now, the word 'song' derives from the same root as the word 'sing' and refers to the voice and the art of singing. So there clearly is a semantic distinction between 'song' and 'music'.


Well that’s because the human voice was the first instrument to make music. Humans use the instrument of the body to sing, and a guitarist will use their instrument to sing also.


That I recognise this distinction, is why I can readily understand and rationalise
:lbf:
why Morrissey continued to create great songs after the The Smiths split,
subjective
and Marr hasn't created any great songs,
subjective
and you presumably can't (or if you think you can, I'd be interested to hear your explanation - unless, God forbid, you actually think Marr has created great songs since The Smiths split up).
Doesn’t matter if they’re great or not. Marr’s compositions are songs
even if he wrote songs and didn’t sing on them ( technically a instrumental) they would still be considered by many as songs.

Remember, instruments other than the human voice sing also.
But to get back to my point: why do you regard an instrumental piece of music and a song as the same thing? Other than 'because lots of other people do'. I mean, your responding to my posts suggests you want to debate the idea, but you're not actually offering any thoughts of you own by way of counter-argument, you're basically just telling me what other people think and do, and failing to explain even why you believe those other people think as they do.

Because no one needs to be by definition correct to express their emotions by saying ‘I love that song!’ after hearing an instrumental.

And that’s all that matters.

If you and I were sitting around listening to music and after a instrumental I turned to you and said ‘What an amazing song!’ and then you corrected me by saying
‘That’s not a song, it’s an instrumental’ I’d tell you to ‘Fvck off!’ I mean, what a buzz kill.

To put it bluntly, do you have any thoughts of your own,
Yeah, you’re an ass.
"It’s not like Morrissey came in first with an a cappella sung lyric/melody and Marr and band played to it."

No. Nor does it have to be, as I've already explained to you. That the songs were inspired by Marr's music does not mean that they are therefore not a distinct creation in their own right.
Marr made the music which inspired Morrissey to create the songs - a song being a combination of vocal melody and words, as the etymological root of the word implies.

No, they created the songs together.

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.
 
An instrumental is a song. If you need to write a book to explain why an instrumental isn't a song then you are deluding yourself.

Is a silent picture a movie or a fillum?

Is Jackson Pollock's work a painting or a mess or 'art'?

English is an open lexicon, meaning new words arise and old words can get new meanings.
 
An instrumental is a song. If you need to write a book to explain why an instrumental isn't a song then you are deluding yourself.

Is a silent picture a movie or a fillum?

Is Jackson Pollock's work a painting or a mess or 'art'?

English is an open lexicon, meaning new words arise and old words can get new meanings.
Yes. Nobody could accurately call Morrissey "gay" in the old sense of the word.
 
Well yes I am trying to engage in a discussion, but you seem to want to argue instead.

no explanation needed.

like many, even though I know that a composition is a instrumental ( music without words) I can still call it a song, as many do.

And that’s all that matters.

If you and I were sitting around listening to music and after a instrumental I turned to you and said ‘What an amazing song!’ and then you corrected me by saying
‘That’s not a song, it’s an instrumental’ I’d tell you to ‘Fvck off!’ I mean, what a buzz kill.


Yeah, you’re an ass.

Still struggling, and failing, to comprehend what 'making an argument' signifies, I see.

As regards your own 'argument' and powers of reasoning, I'll let your above comments speak for themselves.
 
Tags
johnny marr

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom