Did Marr Deserve a Songwriting Co-Credit For The Songs of the Smiths?

most of the over dub choices on this charming man for example (theres about a dozen glistening bar chords on that song). he didnt say what chords as it probably wouldnt work for the doc but thats what makes it so contentious. he asserted that they would make selections together. see the industry standard is what im challenging and it vague term of "music". how is a bass part not music. if my fav song was missing the bass part it wouldnt be my fav song itd be part of it

You don't get a writing credit for "overdub choices", silly. Heck, if someone were to record a cover version of This Charming Man consisting almost entirely of bar chords they would be entitled to claim they co-wrote it (although I can't think who would do such a thing).
 
yeah but i think in certain cases you should. if you took out the overdubs i dont think id like the song so much, especially with the first album and to me that means credit. if you took out the bass parts the songs would not move me the way they did, especially with the first two albums so for me if the song is diminished and i love it less then to me there part was integral and deserves credit as it was integral to the emotional success of the song. i do appreciate the word silly to lighten things up honestly. no reason to be all intensely serious about the discussion. i wonder how much carlos almar makes with bowie over the years. as he wrote the music bit with the special guest stars but i doubt he gets much credit or money. maybe now but not then and for a long long time
 
The way you phrase "that Johnny Marr did in his own right", can you please give an example of something on a Smiths record that he didn't do in his own right?? Johnny was writing songs in F#, open E, open G, open A, he played piano, mandolin and autoharp, he had things capo'ed at the 4th or 5th fret, he was recording backwards guitar... and on and on. He was always pushing himself to do new things. Did he learn things from Porter? Sure. But John Porter suggesting that he play a part on a Telecaster instead of a Rickenbacker doesn't change that Johnny wrote the parts. Porter may have stayed up late recording those 15 tracks on This Charming Man, but Johnny wrote and played every single note of it.

The argument is to do with how the final recording was fashioned and what constitutes the definition of how that final musical recording was composed. Forget this argument about 'writing'- it's a red herring. In the final analysis, those records would have not sounded the way they did - and therefore that music would not have been as it was - were it not for Porter's contribution as a producer. That, to my mind, constitutes a claim for being a co-composer (as does Rourke's contribution). You are hung up on the idea that 'composition' = 'writing' which, as I say, is a red herring anyway. Marr devised melodies and chord sequences, sure, but the final piece of music was 'composed' - i.e. assembled; put together; realised - in the studio, and that final version was, in the case of Porter's best recordings, significantly more sophisticated than anything Marr achieved without Porter.


Do you realize that all of Meat Is Murder and The Queen Is Dead were self produced by the Smiths, with Strangeways being co-produced by them and Street.

Er... yes. The credits are on the records.

These albums were mammoth works full of great songs.

Agreed. But they're not great recordings. At least. 'The Queen Is Dead' certainly isn't. 'Meat Is Murder' is fine as a recording, but it's still relatively simplistic compared to Porter's production - and that applies to the music too: as good as the songs are, there is nothing on those records that equals the musical sophistication of 'How Soon Is Now', 'William, It Was Really Nothing' or 'This Charming Man'.

Then with the debut album, 90% of the chords and riffs were right there in the Troy Tate sessions, albeit in a less polished form. I'm a fan of John Porter, but I think you are massively overstating his contribution by implying he should get song credit, and I think even he would agree.

I'd agree that the debut album doesn't come across as having a huge measure of input from Porter - still getting into his stride perhaps - but then again what about Rourke's contribution? The bass lines on 'Hand That Rocks The Cradle' and 'Still Ill' - to name but two - were a significant musical contribution. I'd argue again that Rourke had a case for being co-credited for the music; not the songs, just the music.



John Porter only produced one record and some singles.

So he produced several records then. Singles are records.


Yeah... he hobbled along from 1985-1987 before giving up the ghost, the last 3 years being an abject failure by any standard.:lbf:

No, I think the Smiths did great work for the entirety of their career, and produced some of their best songs in 1985 - 1987 - but musically the peaks were the Porter-produced records I've mentioned. I certainly do think Marr has hobbled along - in a creative, if not a commercial sense - since then, with various desultory projects and often fine musical contributions to generally mediocre or plain bad songs. The last 3 years have been a big success for Marr, in terms of how his solo work has been received. It's still shit though.



John Porter left the scene right when things were getting interesting. Your assertion that people recalling the "sound of the smiths" or the "jingle jangle sound" are referring to Porter productions is just ludicrous. Tell us please, was Johnny able to recapture the "smiths sound" on the other 3 records and scores of singles NOT produced by Porter?

No, he wasn't. Personally, I'm not arguing for a 'Smiths sounds' anyway, since stylistically 'William, It Was Really Nothing' and 'How Soon Is Now' are poles apart. But what most people are referring to, if they do refer to a 'Smiths sound' is probably that 'jingle-jangle' sound of 'William...' and 'This Charming Man'. And no, Johnny didn't 'recapture' that sound on later Smiths records; he claimed he wanted to explore new musical territory - I'd argue he simply couldn't. As I've posted above, subsequent efforts to do so have been crude by comparison.

What about the Smiths instrumentals? They are still songs.

No, they're not. They're instrumentals.. You've just said it yourself. Play those records to 99.9% of people on Earth and ask them if they're listening to a song. They'll answer "no, I'm just listening to a piece of music".

And the rest of the songs were songs before Moz added vocals to them.

No, the rest of the 'songs' were just instrumentals, musical recordings until Morrissey added the vocal melody/lyric that transformed them into songs.

They were for the most part complete pieces of music which he wrote vocal melodies around.

Not sure about this. My understanding is that they would often add on further overdubs once they had the vocal melody as a guide. However, that's really an irrelevance: let's say they were complete pieces of music - it doesn't alter what I'm arguing for; complete or otherwise, it was music; Morrissey then created the song.

If the music is so unimportant, then why on earth does Morrissey's band struggle along when they could just play a completely different arrangement?

Because it's not unimportant - it's great music.

Because the Smiths songs were special, and the soul of those songs is just as much in the music Johnny wrote as it was in what Morrissey wrote and sang.

The Smiths songs were indeed special, but the soul of those songs is the soul of their creator, Morrissey. I don't know where the word 'soul' comes from, but 'spirit' basically means 'breath' ( as in words like 'inspired', 'respiration' etc) and therein lies the clue. Breath = voice = soul. Morrissey literally breathed those songs into life - Marr and the others watched him do this in the studio, having no idea what the song was going to sound like until that moment. The songs quite literally were the product of Morrissey's soul. This is why it still sounds so natural for Morrissey to sing them, and why it sounds so unnatural when Marr sings them.


Johnny was not some macho rocker, he was writing incredibly intense, sensitive, sometimes very dark music... which is often forgotten I think.

Not by me; and it seems an odd claim - that Marr is widely regarded as an insensitive macho rocker? I don't know where that notion comes from, it's not something I've even come across at all, let alone as a general perception.
 
You don't get a writing credit for "overdub choices", silly. Heck, if someone were to record a cover version of This Charming Man consisting almost entirely of bar chords they would be entitled to claim they co-wrote it (although I can't think who would do such a thing).

Now that's interesting. Presumably you mean "different bar chords" since, if they were the same bar chords as those featured on the record, there could be no claim to a co-write (since the credit would belong to whoever came up with those bar chords on the original records, had the song been credited in that way).

So what you're really saying here, is that is somebody does a cover version with completely new music, they're not entitled to a co-credit: the music they have added may be theirs, but the songs isn't. Yet what remains of the original 'song' on their cover version? The vocal melody and the lyrics.
 
yeah but i think in certain cases you should. if you took out the overdubs i dont think id like the song so much, especially with the first album and to me that means credit. if you took out the bass parts the songs would not move me the way they did, especially with the first two albums so for me if the song is diminished and i love it less then to me there part was integral and deserves credit as it was integral to the emotional success of the song. i do appreciate the word silly to lighten things up honestly. no reason to be all intensely serious about the discussion. i wonder how much carlos almar makes with bowie over the years. as he wrote the music bit with the special guest stars but i doubt he gets much credit or money. maybe now but not then and for a long long time

The overdubs and all that count as arrangement and production. The writing of the song is the original structure, words and melodies. To put it another way, when somebody covers a song but it has a completely different sound, it's still the same song, it just has a different arrangement. No matter how original the cover version is, the royalties still go to the original writer(s).
 
And to the above post, re: 'This Charming Man', you can add as another example the very song you've cited, 'William, It Was Really Nothing'. Your faith in Marr's self-publicity is touching. You really think he composed the complex orchestration of harmonic overdubs, that defines what is so remarkable about the backing music on that record , in the back of a van? Bollocks he did. What he means is that he came up with a basic rhythm track, chord sequence, melody line, which was then worked on and worked on and worked on in the studio. You're obsessed with this notion of Marr having 'written' stuff, as if that somehow distinguishes his musical contribution to the record. He didn't 'write' anything, he just jammed on his guitar, recorded it and brought it into the studio, where the creative process of composing the finished music then continued evolving. It's this 'talking up' and overselling of his own contributions that wearies me with Marr. He's a fast talker huckster; in another life he'd have been a salesman; he has doggedly downplayed the contributions of Rourke and Porter (and Street, and Gannon) for decades, and people have fallen for it. Why on earth they continue to do so is beyond me, when his solo stuff makes patently clear that he just can't do what he claims to have done in The Smiths: write great songs.

OK, I've been reading this thread from the beginning and I've refrained from commenting until now.

Your assertion that Morrissey deserves to be credited with "song writing" as well as writing the lyrics is ridiculous enough. Vocal harmonies can be chopped and changed to suit individual singers. The very best cover versions of songs are the ones which change vocal harmonies and arrangements, almost creating a "new song". However, those artistes who make such covers don't claim a writing credit.

Also, your argument that John Porter deserves some sort of song writing credit is just plain ignorance. You have either conveniently forgotten or you are unaware that ALL of the songs on The Smiths first album and the vast majority of most of the rest up to the 'Strangeways....' album were performed live at gigs LONG before they were recorded. John Porter did not work with The Smiths until their fourth BBC Radio session (the second Peel session). It was subsequent to then that he was asked to re-record the first album (the songs of which, Troy Tate had already recorded in the previous couple of months) and also to produce 'This Charming Man' as the next single. Yes, he clearly taught Johnny Marr pretty much everything he needed to know about producing a record and they obviously concentrated on all those complex guitar parts and overdubs etc. However, that is PRODUCTION and John Porter is fully credited for that on the record labels and frequently by Johnny Marr.

As has previously been mentioned, John Porter did not produce any of The Smiths following albums but he did sterling production on a number of singles and received full production credit for those, too.
 
Forgive me if this has been already brought up, but: if Morrissey was able to write melodies to his words independently, why didn't he just go up to Marr and say "Here's my song, words with melody, could you please score some chords underneath?". He didn't, and it's obvious why: he needed to be inspired by an instrumental provided by his co-writer, whether that be Marr, Whyte, Boorer, Nevin or whomever. That he transformed the instrumental into a song by means of his (rather unique) way of putting the vocal over the song structure is undisputed. But he couldn't do it without hearing the instrumental first.
 
yes i understand the legality of it i just find the reasoning for the legality to be unreasonable. its easier to sell a person or a duo and maybe a gang but when you add all those credits the product becomes less personal and we dont connect with it as much and so they sell the story and the emotional connection. take away some of the things that people claim arent music and the emotional impact is different and less which might not make me spend my money meaning the part left out not considered music or musical contribution is essential to my liking it and spending money on it
 
The anonymous poster arguing that everyone with a hand in production, arranging and studio performance duties deserves a writing credit, and somehow simultaneously that only Morrissey deserves a writing credit, seems to be completely unaware of the entire body of knowledge, terminology and practices established in the music world and would like to reinvent the wheel here. You can legitimately debate who's contributions move you or anyone else until the cows come home, but there are established roles that have been around for years, and in this case, they stuck to those roles. I tend to agree that some of those roles oversimplify what's been created and what it means, and that a guitar arrangement can be just as purposeful as a symphony, but when you get into saying someone "deserves a credit" you are ignoring the artists own assessment of their roles and the general way things are handled in the business.
 
im not ignoring them i just dont agree with the general way things are handled in the music biz. im also not the one arguing for a morrissey "song" johnny "music" credit. thats some other guy, my only point being that morrissey had a hand in writing there music i.e the arrangements and was insistent at times over marrs disapproval. im of the philosophy of credit the group and record with a sound engineer and not a producer
 
yes i understand the legality of it i just find the reasoning for the legality to be unreasonable. its easier to sell a person or a duo and maybe a gang but when you add all those credits the product becomes less personal and we dont connect with it as much and so they sell the story and the emotional connection. take away some of the things that people claim arent music and the emotional impact is different and less which might not make me spend my money meaning the part left out not considered music or musical contribution is essential to my liking it and spending money on it

Well, this is because NO MATTER how much you like the production, or the input of the bass player, however, the song itself is the fruit of the composers. Now wait: I appreciate and love Andy Rourke's and Mike Joyce's playing on Smiths records, so I don't share Morrissey's opinion of lawnmower parts etc, but even if the songs were recorded with another rhythm section, they would be the same songs. Different bass lines, maybe, different sound, but the song would be the same.

This is a fact that can be easily proven. Just go to Youtube and look for demos by Pete Townshend, Barry Gibb (Woman in Love), but i could carry on with the home-demos that were included on the 2011 Suede reissues. The latter shows exactly the same songwriting method as with The Smiths: they sound rough, but Bernard Butler wrote the music, and Brett Anderson sings on the top of it. But the songs are the same. It was exactly the same with Marr/Morrissey
 
"Different bass lines, maybe, different sound, but the song would be the same." (in the legal sense)

not to me. the sonics in my fav song the bassline included are what make the whole of it a song. a different bassline could ruin the song and not make me spend the money on the purchase to pay the royalty to anyone. a good one might and if the bass player is coming up with the part on his own with no direction from band leader then its integral to the purchase and my love for it and the royalty.
 
just wanted to say sorry if im upsetting anyone here. its not my intention

also wanted to add that ill an lay off the word also for a while
 
OK, I've been reading this thread from the beginning and I've refrained from commenting until now.

Your assertion that Morrissey deserves to be credited with "song writing" as well as writing the lyrics is ridiculous enough. Vocal harmonies can be chopped and changed to suit individual singers. The very best cover versions of songs are the ones which change vocal harmonies and arrangements, almost creating a "new song". However, those artistes who make such covers don't claim a writing credit.

Hi, since you've refrained from commenting until now, it's a pity you don't have a more informed understanding of the argument I've put forward over several pages of this thread, in fact you've fallen at the first hurdle; however I'll excuse your ignorance.

I'm afraid it's a simple fact that Morrissey is credited with songwriting. It's on the album credits.

A cover version can vary the vocal melody of course, but it the original melody will still be recognisable; it is isn't, the no, of course it's not the same song - it's the same words set to a different tune. As to why the cover artist doesn't claim a credit, well the obvious answer is that he would get sued for nicking somebody else's lyrics to use for his song; conversely the original artist probably won't give a toss that effectively a new song has been created, as long as he's getting the credit and therefore the royalties.

Also, your argument that John Porter deserves some sort of song writing credit is just plain ignorance.

Yes, but I'm afraid it's your ignorance, not mine. I haven't argued anywhere that John Porter deserves some sort of song writing credit. Read and try to understand the thread again if you wish.

You have either conveniently forgotten or you are unaware that ALL of the songs on The Smiths first album and the vast majority of most of the rest up to the 'Strangeways....' album were performed live at gigs LONG before they were recorded. John Porter did not work with The Smiths until their fourth BBC Radio session (the second Peel session). It was subsequent to then that he was asked to re-record the first album (the songs of which, Troy Tate had already recorded in the previous couple of months) and also to produce 'This Charming Man' as the next single. Yes, he clearly taught Johnny Marr pretty much everything he needed to know about producing a record and they obviously concentrated on all those complex guitar parts and overdubs etc. However, that is PRODUCTION and John Porter is fully credited for that on the record labels and frequently by Johnny Marr.

Again, you're just failing to understand the argument that's being put forward, but ok I'll go over it again.

I'm arguing that the songs should be credited to Morrissey (I could spell out the reasons but that would be laborious].

I'm arguing that the music should be credited to Marr, and to those who contributed substantially to the final recorded version (again, reasons presented in further detail above)

As has previously been mentioned, John Porter did not produce any of The Smiths following albums but he did sterling production on a number of singles and received full production credit for those, too.

Right... ok. I'm not really sure what point you're making here.

It's a shame, as I say, that having waited so long to contribute, your post had to be so misinformed and ignorant. I enjoy debate, as long as people are understanding and responding to the argument that is being made.

Cheers
S.F.
 
The anonymous poster arguing that everyone with a hand in production, arranging and studio performance duties deserves a writing credit, and somehow simultaneously that only Morrissey deserves a writing credit, seems to be completely unaware of the entire body of knowledge, terminology and practices established in the music world and would like to reinvent the wheel here. You can legitimately debate who's contributions move you or anyone else until the cows come home, but there are established roles that have been around for years, and in this case, they stuck to those roles. I tend to agree that some of those roles oversimplify what's been created and what it means, and that a guitar arrangement can be just as purposeful as a symphony, but when you get into saying someone "deserves a credit" you are ignoring the artists own assessment of their roles and the general way things are handled in the business.


Hmm... this sounds impressive but it doesn't really mean a whole lot!

The anonymous poster arguing that everyone with a hand in production, arranging and studio performance duties deserves a writing credit, and somehow simultaneously that only Morrissey deserves a writing credit

I don't think anybody on this thread, anonymous or otherwise has argued this case, such as it is, but in the context of my argument, it's simply a meaningless statement. The distinction I've drawn is between songs and music, therefore referring to 'a writing credit' fails to tell me which of those two you are even referring to. Presumably you mean songwriting, in which case again, you're simply not understanding the argument, which is that a distinction can and should be drawn between songs and music. As to everyone involved in the studio process being given a credit for (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here) the music, well no, that's not what I was arguing for.


seems to be completely unaware of the entire body of knowledge, terminology and practices established in the music world and would like to reinvent the wheel here.

Yes, that's right: I'm unaware of this 'entire body' you're referring to, and of which you are admirably well informed, having digested the whole corpus yourself; and yes, I would like to reinvent the wheel - that's pretty much what the thread is proposing, a hitherto to unprecedented, but nevertheless more accurate, representation of the creative process, by crediting the music to those who fashioned it, and the songs to the vocal melodist/lyricist. So, yes, happy to go along with that.


You can legitimately debate who's contributions move you or anyone else until the cows come home, but there are established roles that have been around for years, and in this case, they stuck to those roles. I tend to agree that some of those roles oversimplify what's been created and what it means, and that a guitar arrangement can be just as purposeful as a symphony, but when you get into saying someone "deserves a credit" you are ignoring the artists own assessment of their roles and the general way things are handled in the business.

This is all a bit convoluted - you seem to be hedging your bets here. Yes, we can legitimately debate - that's why this thread exists, and is its purpose, and is why you're contributing to it, so that's a non-story really.

You then argue for "established roles that have been around for years", only to cast doubt on the validity of these roles in your very next sentence! In any case, I'm not sure what these "established roles" are that you're referring to. As we've seen from earlier posts in this thread, historically there have been a whole range of methods and reasoning employed in the awarding of songwriting credits. To cite a couple of the more unusual examples, Lennon was often credited for songs he had no hand in writing, as was McCartney; Queen arbitrarily decided to credit all their songs to 'Queen' in 1989, after having fastidiously insisted on individual credits throughout their career up to that point, despite the fact that those credits were based on "whoever wrote the words" as Brian May put it.

"When you get into saying someone 'deserves a credit' you are ignoring the artists own assessment of their roles"? Well, of course! That must necessarily be the case in any instance when a songwriting credit is disputed. Gannon was clearly ignoring Morrissey and Marr's assessment of their roles in the writing of 'Ask' when he claimed a co-credit, otherwise he wouldn't have persisted with the claim! And yes, this thread evidently disputes (although I wouldn't say ignores) Marr's assessment of his role in the songwriting process.

"and the general way things are handles in the business"? Well, again I'm arguing for what I believe probably would be a revolutionary approach to songwriting credits - although it's specifically in relation to the songs of The Smiths, and there may be other examples where I wouldn't feel my argument applied. But as to this "general way things are handled in the business" - again, sounds impressive, but does it really mean anything? I don't see the kind of across-the-board consistency in the music industry that you seem to be arguing for. If you're referring to the role of producer and the fact that he is generally not given a songwriting credit for his contributions, well a) I'm not arguing that he should be given a songwriting credit, just that in some instances, his contributions would merit a co-credit for musical composition, and b) this is, of course, a purely hypothetical thread, presenting a hypothetical argument for how things might be in a fair and just world, it's not an attempt to argue that this is in fact the way things are, and it is of course an implicit acknowledgement that this is not the way things are.
 
You're obsessed with this notion of Marr having 'written' stuff, as if that somehow distinguishes his musical contribution to the record. He didn't 'write' anything, he just jammed on his guitar, recorded it and brought it into the studio, where the creative process of composing the finished music then continued evolving.
Just going to take a moment to chuckle at how crazy you sound.

It's this 'talking up' and overselling of his own contributions that wearies me with Marr. He's a fast talker huckster; in another life he'd have been a salesman; he has doggedly downplayed the contributions of Rourke and Porter (and Street, and Gannon) for decades
Where is your evidence? Let's see where he doggedly downplays Rourke, Porter or Street. As far as I've read he's always praised Andy, and he's always given a lot of respect/credit to Porter and Street for their talent as producers. Overselling of his own contributions? Marr is a pretty humble guy considering the body of work he produced. This is a guy who said he didn't want to be playing This Charming Man when he was 22, and he never did. To just arbitrarily stop playing your biggest, most crowd pleasing hit and move on in pursuit of what inspires you does not strike me as hucksterism... just the opposite.

Forget this argument about 'writing'- it's a red herring. In the final analysis, those records would have not sounded the way they did - and therefore that music would not have been as it was - were it not for Porter's contribution as a producer.
So... that magic Smiths sound... all down to John Porters genius. Right.

That, to my mind, constitutes a claim for being a co-composer (as does Rourke's contribution).
I agree that Andy's contribution was huge. Guess what? So were Paul McCartney's basslines on George Harrison's Beatles songs... or his guitar solo in the case of Taxman. Still, no writing credit for Paul there.

You are hung up on the idea that 'composition' = 'writing' which, as I say, is a red herring anyway. Marr devised melodies and chord sequences, sure, but the final piece of music was 'composed' - i.e. assembled; put together; realised - in the studio, and that final version was, in the case of Porter's best recordings, significantly more sophisticated than anything Marr achieved without Porter.
You should take another listen to the debut album. The recording is severely lacking in a lot of ways. The guitar tone, by Marr's own admission, leaves much to be desired. Hand In Glove for instance... there is a wall of noise, you can hardly hear the distinct guitar part at all. The three subsequent full lengths had much better tone and mixing, IMO. Not to mention some Porter productions that were left on the cutting room floor, like the abysmal simulated sitar version of Sheila Take A Bow.

But they're not great recordings. At least. 'The Queen Is Dead' certainly isn't. 'Meat Is Murder' is fine as a recording, but it's still relatively simplistic compared to Porter's production - and that applies to the music too: as good as the songs are, there is nothing on those records that equals the musical sophistication of 'How Soon Is Now', 'William, It Was Really Nothing' or 'This Charming Man'.
Well I Wonder tops all three of those songs in my opinion. Plus chestnuts like Bigmouth, I Know It's Over, That Joke..., There Is A Light, Headmaster, etc etc etc. Great songs with many layers of guitars, no Porter in sight.

I'd agree that the debut album doesn't come across as having a huge measure of input from Porter - still getting into his stride perhaps-
Wait, what?? You've just gone on for four pages about how Johnny couldn't do it without Porter, now you say the debut doesn't have a huge measure of input from him? It's the only album he did! A handle of singles later he was out of the picture.

No, I think the Smiths did great work for the entirety of their career, and produced some of their best songs in 1985 - 1987 - but musically the peaks were the Porter-produced records I've mentioned.
What are you saying... that in 85-87 Morrissey's "songs" were brilliant but the music suffered? Great songs but too bad the music isn't as great as it was in 1984? No one in the band was happy with the debut albums production by Porter, least of all Morrissey. It wasn't a "peak" by any stretch of the imagination.

But what most people are referring to, if they do refer to a 'Smiths sound' is probably that 'jingle-jangle' sound of 'William...' and 'This Charming Man'. And no, Johnny didn't 'recapture' that sound on later Smiths records; he claimed he wanted to explore new musical territory - I'd argue he simply couldn't.
You can argue that he never recaptured it in his solo years, but in the Smiths he didn't have to recapture it, that WAS the sound. A lot of the "jingle jangle" has to do with his own style of playing... in a nutshell, taking a fingerpicking style pattern and playing it with a pick.

My understanding is that they would often add on further overdubs once they had the vocal melody as a guide. However, that's really an irrelevance: let's say they were complete pieces of music - it doesn't alter what I'm arguing for; complete or otherwise, it was music; Morrissey then created the song.
Usually the entire arrangement with all overdubs was complete when Morrissey came in to lay his vocals down. If he "created the song", then he shares songwriting credit with Johnny who wrote the music(without which there would be no melody). That's how it works here on planet earth.

Morrissey literally breathed those songs into life - Marr and the others watched him do this in the studio, having no idea what the song was going to sound like until that moment. The songs quite literally were the product of Morrissey's soul. This is why it still sounds so natural for Morrissey to sing them, and why it sounds so unnatural when Marr sings them.
And Morrissey would wait breathlessly to see what chord Johnny would play next. It was a two way street. If you don't think the songs were a product of Johnny's soul as well, I don't know what to say to you. That's why Johnny can play them today and make it look easy, whereas Morrissey's band is getting a big paycheck to cover a few songs spot on and they can't even get in the ballpark.
 
Just going to take a moment to chuckle at how crazy you sound.

That's ok, take all the time you want. Thus far, you haven't displayed sufficient intelligence to follow the fairly simple argument I'm putting forward - I wouldn't mind you disagreeing with it, if you could at least understand it; so I'm not too bothered about you thinking I'm crazy. I daresay much must seem crazy to you.


Where is your evidence? Let's see where he doggedly downplays Rourke, Porter or Street.

Look no further than the writing credits. That's sort of the subject of this thread, y'know?

As far as I've read he's always praised Andy, and he's always given a lot of respect/credit to Porter and Street for their talent as producers.

That's kind of beside the point, and nothing to do with the subject of this thread. y'know? Keep up.


Overselling of his own contributions? Marr is a pretty humble guy considering the body of work he produced. This is a guy who said he didn't want to be playing This Charming Man when he was 22, and he never did. To just arbitrarily stop playing your biggest, most crowd pleasing hit and move on in pursuit of what inspires you does not strike me as hucksterism... just the opposite.

Lord knows what point you think you're making here. Marr is a modest guy because he hasn't spent 25 years playing Smiths songs. Eh???? He's spent 25 years talking about it, that's for sure, and constantly referring to 'his' band and 'his' songs. He's certainly sold that pup to the likes of you. Not that he has much choice, because he patently has to trade on being willing to discuss the Smiths and Morrissey in order to get media coverage.

So 'This Charming Man' is his biggest crowd pleaser? Interesting choice...


So... that magic Smiths sound... all down to John Porters genius. Right.

No, I'd have to disagree with you there. It's an interesting proposition but you'd have to put forward some evidence to back up your claim.



I agree that Andy's contribution was huge. Guess what? So were Paul McCartney's basslines on George Harrison's Beatles songs... or his guitar solo in the case of Taxman. Still, no writing credit for Paul there.

Ok, so let me try and untangle what point you're making here in relation to my argument. Let's see, I guess you're trying to say that an instrumental contribution shouldn't entitle you to a songwriting credit. Ok, fair enough, glad we've found some common ground there. Anyway, McCartney was credited for plenty of Beatles songs to which he contributed absolutely nothing, since they were written by Lennon. No, hang on, I suppose he made musical contributions, so there's that. Then again, as Harrison pointed out in interviews, he made lyrical contributions to Lennon-McCartney songs, and got no credit for that. Anyway, if anyone can make sense of all that, then I guess we're well on our way to being able to cite the Beatles as a good case study for rationalising songwriting credits.


You should take another listen to the debut album. The recording is severely lacking in a lot of ways. The guitar tone, by Marr's own admission, leaves much to be desired. Hand In Glove for instance... there is a wall of noise, you can hardly hear the distinct guitar part at all. The three subsequent full lengths had much better tone and mixing, IMO. Not to mention some Porter productions that were left on the cutting room floor, like the abysmal simulated sitar version of Sheila Take A Bow.

You should take another look at the posts that you're 'replying' to - or rather: reading, failing to understand, and then typing whatever it is you want to get off your chest anyway (honestly dude, find another thread for that!). The quality of Porter's recordings is not the subject of this thread.


Well I Wonder tops all three of those songs in my opinion. Plus chestnuts like Bigmouth, I Know It's Over, That Joke..., There Is A Light, Headmaster, etc etc etc. Great songs with many layers of guitars, no Porter in sight.

Agreed. Indeed. Still, again, nothing to do with the subject of this thread.


Wait, what?? You've just gone on for four pages about how Johnny couldn't do it without Porter, now you say the debut doesn't have a huge measure of input from him? It's the only album he did! A handle of singles later he was out of the picture.

Ok, tedious, but I'll spell it out again. I'll try to use one syllable words, that might help:

No I have not. He can do it on his own, if 'it' means 'music' (damn, two syllables!!). But it's not as good. And he can't write songs.

Is that simple enough for you? I don't know how much simpler I can make it before you response to the actual argument.


What are you saying... that in 85-87 Morrissey's "songs" were brilliant but the music suffered?

No.

Great songs but too bad the music isn't as great as it was in 1984?

Depends what you mean by 'great'. If you mean, 'sophisticated' then, in the case of Porter's best productions, no it wasn't as great. If you mean 'melodic' , yes it was often as great.

No one in the band was happy with the debut albums production by Porter, least of all Morrissey. It wasn't a "peak" by any stretch of the imagination.

Agreed.


You can argue that he never recaptured it in his solo years, but in the Smiths he didn't have to recapture it, that WAS the sound. A lot of the "jingle jangle" has to do with his own style of playing... in a nutshell, taking a fingerpicking style pattern and playing it with a pick.

No, that's fingerpicking a la Marr (i.e. uniquely brilliant fingerpicking like no other guitarist). That's a style, not a sound. The 'sound' of 'This Charming Man', 'William...', 'How Soon Is Now' is not something he successfully recreated. Compare 'Shoplifters...' to 'How Soon is Now'. It's a pale shadow.


Usually the entire arrangement with all overdubs was complete when Morrissey came in to lay his vocals down.

Bollocks. But anyway, so what if it was? (And it wasn't)

If he "created the song", then he shares songwriting credit with Johnny who wrote the music(without which there would be no melody). That's how it works here on planet earth.

Translation: "that's how songwriting has conventionally been ascribed, and I'll be darned if my mind is ever going to be open to any argument for redefining what constitutes the credit for a song. That's how it works here on planet earth, fella - we b'ain't never done no different, and we b'ain't never gonna! Now git going, fella!"

There would be no music without the guitar. Are you suggesting Marr's guitar deserves a co-credit as well? Are you suggesting that all the records that inspired Marr to compose music deserve a co-credit? How about Shelagh Delany and Victoria Wood while we're at it? Do they, and countless other sources, also deserve a co-credit for inspiring Morrissey's lyrics. heck, these songwriting credits are getting longer and longer on planet egosheep!

Being inspired by something/someone does not mean that that something deserves a co-credit.


And Morrissey would wait breathlessly to see what chord Johnny would play next. It was a two way street. If you don't think the songs were a product of Johnny's soul as well, I don't know what to say to you.

How about "Could you explain what you mean again, cos it's just not penetrating my skull?" That would be a good place to start.

The music, in as much as he contributed to its composition, was the product of Johnny Marr's soul.

That's why Johnny can play them today and make it look easy, whereas Morrissey's band is getting a big paycheck to cover a few songs spot on and they can't even get in the ballpark.

That's why Johnny can play the music today and make it look easy. He certainly doesn't make singing the songs look easy - it's painful to watch, painful to listen to, and he looks distinctly uncomfortable (not surprisingly, given how badly he's doing it).

Agreed, Morrissey's band can't recapture the finesse of the Smiths' music, and in particular Johnny's guitar playing. That's because they're not as good musicians, and because he's never had a guitarist who's in the same league as Marr, who is phenomenal.
 
i dont know how you guys can debate this way because i can barely read it
 
Back
Top Bottom