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.