Johnny Marr; 'Morrissey and I email!'

[Mars_Rover]

Morrissey's present band has two guitarists and they're always writing new songs - sounds like Johnny's ideal set up actually. He'd fit right in. And he wouldn't be the eldest person in the group, which would make a nice change for 'im.

 

[Maurice E]

I don't recall him saying anything like that. Nothing close. My recollection is that he was complimentary about Johnny and seemed open for a reunion (and biographers have noted he held out hopes for at least a year or two). He never suggested that his best work was only possible with Marr.

Johnny has done lots of good records since The Smiths. He's made some mediocre records, too, many more than Morrissey has. But you make it about Johnny's ego when in fact Johnny (as he states in the full interview to which Maurice has provided a link) has always had modest ambitions. His one goal in life seems to be to play his guitar with people he likes. Period. As he says in the interview, he started off merely wishing to play on a 45, not take over the world, and he's been doing the same thing since he was 14 or 15. Just a guy playing in a band, which is what he is. I don't think The Cribs or Modest Mouse hold a candle to The Smiths, but his work with them seems entirely consistent with his personal philosophy. I believe him when he says he feels no need to go back to a partnership with Morrissey (and I believe Morrissey when he says the same about Marr).

This is true in only a limited sense. Johnny left The Smiths, but as many people over the years have attested, Johnny felt pushed out of The Smiths for various reasons. Now and then when he walks onstage with Modest Mouse or The Cribs he probably can't help but think, "Damn, I wish I was playing with Morrissey, Mike and Andy". Then he probably remembers that he'd be playing with Morrissey, Mike and Andy after three hours of dealing with attorneys, record company execs, caterers, van drivers, and making sure one of the roadies got his paycheck.

Morrissey and Johnny have remained totally consistent over the years. The former is a true pop star, the latter is a musician who likes making music for himself and his friends. I hope they continue to remain true to themselves and refuse each and every offer to reform. Johnny's re-mastering efforts to remove all the studio shit added to The Smiths' songs in the 90s means a million times more than a reunion tour ever could. When your band is accepted as standing on the same hallowed ground as The Beatles, the story's over. There's nowhere left to go.

Except to the bank, of course. And nobody wants to see them do a cash-grab.

I think you're quite wrong there, Worm, which surprises me as I generally tend to agree with what you say.
Moz has lavished tons of praise on Marr over the years. He dedicated his Ivor Novello award to Marr (or at least singled him out for special thanks), and even, in recent years, he said that Marr's songwriting skills had never been equalled (it was unclear at the time if Moz meant equalled by his own band or by songwriters generally). In the early years Moz would say stuff like it was much harder to find wonderful pieces of music with his solo collaborators than it was with Marr.
Marr has said very little in comparision about Moz, even making very unflattering comments at times.
Only recently he was asked who was the better vocalist; Moz or the singer from Joy Division, and he went for Joy Division.

 

[smiler]

I don't recall him saying anything like that. Nothing close. My recollection is that he was complimentary about Johnny and seemed open for a reunion (and biographers have noted he held out hopes for at least a year or two). He never suggested that his best work was only possible with Marr.

he pretty much begged him to come back for years and as i said he moved on. his work with johnny is now only amongst his best

Johnny has done lots of good records since The Smiths. He's made some mediocre records, too, many more than Morrissey has. But you make it about Johnny's ego when in fact Johnny (as he states in the full interview to which Maurice has provided a link) has always had modest ambitions. His one goal in life seems to be to play his guitar with people he likes. Period. As he says in the interview, he started off merely wishing to play on a 45, not take over the world, and he's been doing the same thing since he was 14 or 15. Just a guy playing in a band, which is what he is. I don't think The Cribs or Modest Mouse hold a candle to The Smiths, but his work with them seems entirely consistent with his personal philosophy. I believe him when he says he feels no need to go back to a partnership with Morrissey (and I believe Morrissey when he says the same about Marr).

you really believe that? johnny marr has "modest ambitions?" he seems very driven and focused to me. You don't think he might be just saying that because his career has stalled - do you remember the healers? - nobody does

This is true in only a limited sense. Johnny left The Smiths, but as many people over the years have attested, Johnny felt pushed out of The Smiths for various reasons.

yawn

Morrissey and Johnny have remained totally consistent over the years. The former is a true pop star, the latter is a musician who likes making music for himself and his friends. I hope they continue to remain true to themselves and refuse each and every offer to reform.

they don't need "an offer" Johnny just needs to submit some music for his friend

Johnny's re-mastering efforts to remove all the studio shit added to The Smiths' songs in the 90s means a million times more than a reunion tour ever could. When your band is accepted as standing on the same hallowed ground as The Beatles, the story's over. There's nowhere left to go.

Does it have to be that big a deal - can't marr just be nice to him in the press and send him some music? - its that simple

Except to the bank, of course. And nobody wants to see them do a cash-grab.

agreed

 

[mcrickson]

I know Johnny Marr is one of the greatest guitarists who ever lived, but..do we still think he's capable of writing new material that would be worthy of the Smiths' name or a Morrissey/Marr co-write?
His style has changed exponentially over the years.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

I know Johnny Marr is one of the greatest guitarists who ever lived, but..do we still think he's capable of writing new material that would be worthy of the Smiths' name or a Morrissey/Marr co-write?
His style has changed exponentially over the years.

I think the former could never, never happen. Should never happen. Smiths is dead. Smiths was 25 years ago. But it would be fascinating to hear what Morrissey and Marr could come up with now.

Smiler, do you really think Morrissey is just sitting back, hoping Marr will approach him on those simple terms?

 

[mcrickson]

I think the former could never, never happen. Should never happen. Smiths is dead. Smiths was 25 years ago. But it would be fascinating to hear what Morrissey and Marr could come up with now.

Well what I guess I meant was would you want them to have a Smiths' sound? Is Johnny capable of rendering new material WITH that sound?

 

[Mr Smith]

It's their life to live their own way.

 

[Worm]

Moz has lavished tons of praise on Marr over the years. He dedicated his Ivor Novello award to Marr (or at least singled him out for special thanks), and even, in recent years, he said that Marr's songwriting skills had never been equalled (it was unclear at the time if Moz meant equalled by his own band or by songwriters generally). In the early years Moz would say stuff like it was much harder to find wonderful pieces of music with his solo collaborators than it was with Marr.

First, I said that Morrissey was often complimentary toward Marr. I never said he had turned against Marr, only that he had never come out and stated that his best work was only possible with Marr. He never said that.

Second, Morrissey took shots at Marr, too. I remember clearly a Spin interview (probably recycled from the NME) in which he knocked "Getting Away With It" ("Yes, 'Getting Away With It', a very apt title", he said). That would have been early 1991. He has also pointedly criticized Johnny for avoiding responsibility for what happened with Mike and Andy, preferring instead to sit in the background while he, Morrissey, took the brunt of the criticism. Also, Morrissey has made many comments showing a lack of sentimentality toward The Smiths and a preference for his solo lineups, including his 1992 MTV appearance when he was asked specifically if he missed The Smiths and answered he preferred "this" (pointing to Boz, Alain, Gary and Spencer).

Only recently he was asked who was the better vocalist; Moz or the singer from Joy Division, and he went for Joy Division.

Yes. He also called Bernard Sumner the best guitarist of his generation. In another interview he said his favorite New Order track (sic) was "In A Lonely Place". Two laughable suggestions, and I love New Order. You must surely be aware that he's tight with Barney (at least) and I would imagine all of the New Order camp.

In the interview you posted he stated that he hates evaluating bands because his opinion changes day to day. Maybe on the day he asked he thought Ian was better than Morrissey. Or maybe he was having a laugh, as he was years ago when he told Details that Barney could sing "Hand In Glove" better than Morrissey-- or the way Morrissey said The Smiths' back catalog was a "dead fish slowly rotting on the wall" in 1995. We accept that Morrissey throws out teasing comments he doesn't necessarily mean, why wouldn't Marr? And haven't we established by now that Morrissey and Marr often make bitchy comments in public and then later admit to being friends?

 

[smiler]

Smiler, do you really think Morrissey is just sitting back, hoping Marr will approach him on those simple terms?

not sure, but i guess what i'm saying is that johnny should put the ball firmly and clearly into Morrissey's court because thats where it belongs.

so why not approach in the simplist way with some grace?

then its up to Morrissey. If Morrissey felt inspired by the music marr sent then why wouldn't he sing on it? - it doesn't have to sound like the Smiths at all.

 

[Worm]

he pretty much begged him to come back for years

When? Where?

you really believe that? johnny marr has "modest ambitions?" he seems very driven and focused to me.

I really believe that I have read countless interviews with Johnny Marr in which he has told the reporter in no uncertain terms that his favorite thing to do is simply to play music with friends. (I'm excluding the early Smiths interviews when he talked about conquering the world, because even Morrissey backed off from such talk in later years.) I'm not saying Marr has no ambitions. He does. He probably thought the Healers would be much more popular than they were. I'm saying he isn't the arrogant, ego-driven person you make him out to be.

You don't think he might be just saying that because his career has stalled

What do you mean "stalled"? Didn't Modest Mouse's album go #1 in the States?

You can't compare the career of a pop star-front man to a guitarist. They're not going to look alike. Marr has done well by the only standards that matter: his, and his accountant's.

yawn

"Yawn"? You're tired of the many accounts in the press and in books about The Smiths that explain in very plausible detail how the non-music related pressures of being in The Smiths drove Johnny out? You don't believe them? You don't care about them?

they don't need "an offer" Johnny just needs to submit some music for his friend

He is. For his friends in Modest Mouse and The Cribs. I'm not being glib. That's apparently how he sees it.

Does it have to be that big a deal - can't marr just be nice to him in the press and send him some music? - its that simple

Yes. It is that simple. It's precisely that simple. They're two friends who could easily collaborate. And just as easily they can continue doing what they've been doing, which is leading separate and fulfilling creative lives. So it's not really about Johnny's stubborn, prideful refusal to come out in public and admit he's crap without Morrissey, is it?

 

[ray_afraid]

I don't call Morrissey picking the name of the album and sleeve photo working on the album together!

Moz also picked the track list.
And I'm pretty sure, though it could be rumor, that he and Johnny wrote one or two of those songs together.

 

[Anaesthesine]

After what the two of them have been through (all the love, the ego bruising and the long-standing sense of betrayal), I'd be surprised if they could still make great music together.

The love comes first: Morrissey is correct when he says that the pleasure is in making music with people you like, and if you don't like each other, there's no point other than money.

I'd be curious to see what would happen if the two of them got together. The Smiths is dead, but Morrissey and Marr could still have something beautiful to say, something that they didn't have the chance to finish all those years ago.

 

[anon x]

Except to the bank, of course. And nobody wants to see them do a cash-grab.

M's bank manager would be a very happy bunny though.

 

[Worm]

something that they didn't have the chance to finish all those years ago.

What didn't they finish? Serious question. The Smiths look pretty complete to me. I didn't always think so (especially given Morrissey's 1988 comment about "the picture being whipped away before it was complete") but in retrospect, it's all there. Start, middle, end. A timeless and living monument that needs nothing more.

Doesn't the recent Beatles hoopla get you thinking about what a great band's career really looks like? Don't the greatest bands release a handful of albums and classic singles and then either explode or drift into irrelevance? You'd think The Beatles had released 87 classic albums, but, as with The Smiths, their actual body of work is smaller than their legend would lead you to believe. We got four great albums, almost twenty great singles with B-sides, and a few other odds and ends like "Rank". What else do we need?

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

What didn't they finish? Serious question. The Smiths look pretty complete to me. I didn't always think so (especially given Morrissey's 1988 comment about "the picture being whipped away before it was complete") but in retrospect, it's all there. Start, middle, end. A timeless and living monument that needs nothing more.

Doesn't the recent Beatles hoopla get you thinking about what a great band's career really looks like? Don't the greatest bands release a handful of albums and classic singles and then either explode or drift into irrelevance? You'd think The Beatles had released 87 classic albums, but, as with The Smiths, their actual body of work is smaller than their legend would lead you to believe. We got four great albums, almost twenty great singles with B-sides, and a few other odds and ends like "Rank". What else do we need?

Ah, but what I'm saying is that it wouldn't be Smiths. Smiths is dead. Smiths was a couple of boys in their early twenties. (Marr was not quite 24 when they ended.) New work by Morrissey and Marr wouldn't be by the Smiths. It would be by a couple of guys in their (eek) early 50s. It might sound like the Smiths in some ways, because it's Marr's guitar and Morrissey's voice, but I think it would be something new.

No, I'm not proposing a reunion. That isn't possible. Those men aren't with us anymore. But there are two guys who, I think, still have untapped talent that could be extraordinary if they worked together.

At this point in life, while I love the energy very young people bring to the art they make, I'm also really interested in what people older than I am have to say. Morrissey has always been 15 years ahead of me. I listened to Rubber Ring when he was 30 and I was 15. I want to know what's next, because he was 100% right on that song.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Another interview, another non-answer. Trust me on this one, give it two more years...

Peter

 

[Worm]

Ah, but what I'm saying is that it wouldn't be Smiths. Smiths is dead. Smiths was a couple of boys in their early twenties. (Marr was not quite 24 when they ended.) New work by Morrissey and Marr wouldn't be by the Smiths. It would be by a couple of guys in their (eek) early 50s. It might sound like the Smiths in some ways, because it's Marr's guitar and Morrissey's voice, but I think it would be something new.

No, I'm not proposing a reunion. That isn't possible. Those men aren't with us anymore. But there are two guys who, I think, still have untapped talent that could be extraordinary if they worked together.

At this point in life, while I love the energy very young people bring to the art they make, I'm also really interested in what people older than I am have to say. Morrissey has always been 15 years ahead of me. I listened to Rubber Ring when he was 30 and I was 15. I want to know what's next, because he was 100% right on that song.

A perfectly valid point. Except.

The sounds made by guitar players don't really "mature" that much. Do they? The music expands and evolves in various directions, certainly. Marr's compositions on "Strangeways" are different than the ones on "The Smiths". But would you call them "older"? Aren't they sort of outside of time? Do the soundscapes created by The Edge or Keith Richards or Paul McCartney sound "older" to you? They're just different. They mutate, absorb other influences, take the occasional U-turn.

But the words and the singing of a vocalist do mature. And don't we get the older, wiser perspective in Morrissey's solo work as it is? What could Johnny Marr add to Morrissey's words and vocals right now? Nothing whatsoever (aside from better technical ability). I think what you may be pining for is to hear the contemporary Morrissey singing over mid-80s Marr, and that is exactly what Marr-- rightly-- is dead set against.

 

[Anaesthesine]

What didn't they finish? Serious question. The Smiths look pretty complete to me. I didn't always think so (especially given Morrissey's 1988 comment about "the picture being whipped away before it was complete") but in retrospect, it's all there. Start, middle, end. A timeless and living monument that needs nothing more.

I don't mean something musical that they didn't finish, I mean something personal. Having been in so many bands, with people I loved and people I loathed, I know that the music can end, but the relationship keeps evolving, long after you break up. Sometimes, when you see each other again after some time has passed, there is still something to say. Sometimes it's trash, sometimes it's beautiful.

Doesn't the recent Beatles hoopla get you thinking about what a great band's career really looks like? Don't the greatest bands release a handful of albums and classic singles and then either explode or drift into irrelevance? You'd think The Beatles had released 87 classic albums, but, as with The Smiths, their actual body of work is smaller than their legend would lead you to believe. We got four great albums, almost twenty great singles with B-sides, and a few other odds and ends like "Rank". What else do we need?

The recent Beatles hoopla got me thinking about a lot of things. I figure a truly great band is worth four, maybe five great albums, and then it's over. The Beatles career actually had a brilliant trajectory, and they managed to end on a higher note than they began. It's incredibly obvious that by the end John and Paul had nothing more to say to each other. Their songwriting was of an entirely different nature than Morrissey and Marr's, however.

Moz has lost his way musically, and it is reflected in his lyics. Marr doesn't seem to be inspired to very great heights these days, either.

However, I can see the two of them continuing to have a great musical sympathy that time does not diminish. There is so much to say about this time of life, and Morrissey and Marr could very well engage each other on an emotional level that benefits them both. The youthful idiocy has passed; maybe now they can say something to each other in middle age that would complete their broken circle.

Maybe not.

 

[Worm]

I don't mean something musical that they didn't finish, I mean something personal. Having been in so many bands, with people I loved and people I loathed, I know that the music can end, but the relationship keeps evolving, long after you break up. Sometimes, when you see each other again after some time has passed, there is still something to say. Sometimes it's trash, sometimes it's beautiful.

Fair enough. But if it's personal, it can just as easily be settled in private. Which is apparently what has happened.

I figure a truly great band is worth four, maybe five great albums, and then it's over.

Exactly. And even if you look at the longer careers of other great bands, if you trimmed the fat you'd probably get down to that number. It's true of bands like New Order, The Jam, The Clash, U2, etc.

Moz has lost his way musically, and it is reflected in his lyics. Marr doesn't seem to be inspired to very great heights these days, either.

Another fair point. But as a musician yourself, do you think that going back to the same collaborators you had twenty years ago would inspire and invigorate you? Isn't that really going backward? Like you said, maybe, maybe not.

There is so much to say about this time of life, and Morrissey and Marr could very well engage each other on an emotional level that benefits them both. The youthful idiocy has passed; maybe now they can say something to each other in middle age that would complete their broken circle.

Interestingly, we have a case study. The Go-Betweens did what you're suggesting Morrissey and Marr do. Grant McLennan and Robert Forster released a handful of scorching albums in the Eighties, split for most of the 90s, and got back together to rekindle a partnership that by all accounts was very successful. But as I said to Preggers, above, the difference between "Oceans Apart" and "Before Hollywood" is largely one of voice, not music. The perspectives of McLennan and Forster had changed and were (are) every bit as enjoyable in their "restored circle" as you suggest. But musically there's almost no difference. It worked because both guys wrote music and did duty as singer-lyricists. The Smiths reunion you describe would be fine for Morrissey but pointless for Marr, because Marr would likely be doing nothing more than re-writes of "Cemetry Gates" and "A Rush And A Push".

Not that that sounds entirely awful. But we basically get that now, with Morrissey's current partners.

A more useful comparison is actually Echo & The Bunnymen. Ian and Will got back together to write and record. The songs reflect an older, sadder, wiser sensibility, as you'd expect from two middle-aged men, but Will's music isn't much different than it was in 1980. As much as I like the Bunnymen's recent work, and appreciate their continued existence, their best four or five records are still the ones they released in the 80s.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

The sounds made by guitar players don't really "mature" that much. Do they? The music expands and evolves in various directions, certainly. Marr's compositions on "Strangeways" are different than the ones on "The Smiths". But would you call them "older"? Aren't they sort of outside of time? Do the soundscapes created by The Edge or Keith Richards or Paul McCartney sound "older" to you? They're just different. They mutate, absorb other influences, take the occasional U-turn.

But the words and the singing of a vocalist do mature. And don't we get the older, wiser perspective in Morrissey's solo work as it is? What could Johnny Marr add to Morrissey's words and vocals right now? Nothing whatsoever (aside from better technical ability). I think what you may be pining for is to hear the contemporary Morrissey singing over mid-80s Marr, and that is exactly what Marr-- rightly-- is dead set against.

The Smiths reunion you describe would be fine for Morrissey but pointless for Marr, because Marr would likely be doing nothing more than re-writes of "Cemetry Gates" and "A Rush And A Push".

Not that that sounds entirely awful. But we basically get that now, with Morrissey's current partners.

But I'm not describing a Smiths reunion. It isn't possible. Those boys are long in the past. I hope you're not the same person you were at 22. I know I'm not.

And I don't think you're giving Marr's musicianship enough credit. I think you said you're not a musician--neither am I. He does have a highly distinctive guitar style. The first time I heard Electronic, I thought, "Wow. That sounds like Johnny Marr!" The first time I heard one of the Modest Mouse songs with Johnny, I thought, "Wow. Sounds like somebody listened to a lot of Smiths!". So yes, it would sound like Marr. But I have to assume that he's matured musically.

He was really good at writing pop songs that sounded quite different from all the other Smiths songs--each sounds unique. So if he's still got that talent, then yes, it will sound like Marr. But listen to The Smiths and then listen to Years of Refusal. It's the same guy's voice, but it's not the same voice. The same guy wrote the words, but they're not the same words. You have to assume that Johnny's writing has changed and matured, too.

Doesn't matter, anyway. If it ever happens, it will be when we least expect it. The more noise people make, the less likely it is to happen. Maybe if we all stand up and scream "NO!" then Morrissey will do it, just to be perverse.