New NME Morrissey interview???

In spite of the badgering and posturing of "the NME" whoever it was that stitched that together, Morrissey is his usual charming self and I don't think this will hurt him at all. He made me laugh several times.

If the comments here are being read by people in Morrissey's camp, I'd say, don't worry. We knew the NME was shit before, and it was confirmed recently when they brought a retirement rumor here and then turned it into a story. Apparently all you need is an internet connection and an account with a printers and you can be a major British music journal/tabloid.

The NME is only of any influence in England or the UK, if that. Most people around the world only read it if they are fans of someone being covered in it that issue. They know that Morrissey does not need them or their approval. Those dates sold out before the magazine appeared. Morrissey has a loyal worldwide fanbase that is not interested in the trend of the week.

I would imagine that if the interview had ran as originally written there would have been no scandal. He said immigration, clearly a touchy subject, and although he was quite clear that he does not have racist feelings... it's all been said before, I won't attempt to rewrite it... once he said immigration, they decided to try to turn it into "The NME's Greatest Hits: Morrissey Edition". Maybe it mattered in 1992. It doesn't matter now. They didn't have anything on him then, either, but we've all seen this play out.

They were trying to use him because they are failing. They want to remind people of a time when they had some influence and were somewhat significant. That time is long past, and this will backfire on them.


Back to the interview, I found the part about why and how he feels he needs a record contract vs the Radiohead model most interesting.
 

It's always interesting to see the media cover itself. Morrissey may indeed have rather clumsily brought up the whole issue, but there is no doubt that the NME have raised sanctimonius editorializing to a whole new level.

The fact that most people will simply gloss over the whole thing, and the name "Morrissey" will again be linked to the word "racism" is tragic. I thought there could be some good to come of this, but maybe I was wrong.
 
True, these are modern atrocities and are pan-global (for shame), I think Mr. Reynolds was asking for (apologies if I've got this wrong), for the defining features of the Britain not in days of yore, but as recently as 20 years ago. I think. In which case I'll stick with my list posted somewhere above here.

Peter

Absolutely, it's the downside of instant communication, lightning-fast travel, multinational corporations. We're all getting homogenized. America doesn't seem to mind so much because we're used to changing like that. We're used to assimilation. But no one likes having a new neighbor tell you how to dress, eat, drive- or think. In America, the newcomers have changed, not forced change to happen. But when the rate of new residents' arrival is so high, change is forced on the new home.

I'm kind of glad I don't have a hometown, or even a home state. Everything is change to me.
 
Again - it seems you suggest English cultural identity only arises out of opposition. Is that it???

You have now heard some affirmative definitions of English identity. I'm not going to go there because my perception of England is second-hand, taken from books, movies and pop music. English people would laugh at my definition of England. On the other hand, a culture can probably be somewhat loosely defined by the art it produces, so I imagine my defintion would be flawed but roughly in the same vicinity as Peter's, albeit heavy with references to the English cultural products I have in my possession. (Orwell's aspidistra, yes, but Blackpool Tower?)

Notably, the definitions posted here are lists. It's hard to define what a country is. It's probably impossible, but in any case it's extremely difficult. Often it's easier to define using lists or by highlighting oppositions. I think I understand what you mean by "opposition" and "standing against"-- you suspect people are talking of an English cultural identity as a convenient rationalization for xenophobia. I don't think that is true in the vast majority of cases. England has a long and unique history in politics, literature, science, and (in the last half-century) pop music. The fact that its national identity is drawn from diverse sources (from the Romans all the way down to Zadie Smith's West African influences) doesn't mean they don't cohere as a distinct identity.

To say there is a unique cultural identity in England is not to be against other cultures or to insist that English identity ought to exist no matter what. Some people may mean it that way, but most, including Morrissey, do not. My point about America was similar to Morrissey's point about Dublin accents in Croatia, namely, preserving cultural identity is usually highly important in any nation in the world except the dominant, hegemonic powers (like the U.S. and, at one time, the U.K.). A Starbucks opening in the Forbidden City or (much more gravely) the American-allowed looting of the museums in Baghdad after the invasion are tantamount to cultural crimes. So what's wrong with lamenting the loss of native English culture, even if we admit that culture is a fluid concept?
 
America doesn't seem to mind so much because we're used to changing like that. We're used to assimilation. But no one likes having a new neighbor tell you how to dress, eat, drive- or think. In America, the newcomers have changed, not forced change to happen. But when the rate of new residents' arrival is so high, change is forced on the new home.

I'm kind of glad I don't have a hometown, or even a home state. Everything is change to me.

You're right. The reason why is...well, I hate to say this, but for once I agree with Theo. America is a young nation founded on ideals rather than a narrow band of racial or tribal identities. Words moreso than blood. That's a good thing, but I can appreciate the uniqueness of the nations that aren't built on our model. The most disgusting thing about the Iraq war is that the administration proposed to win the longterm battle by opening up Iraq to Wild West capitalism. Bullets were to rid the world of Saddam but iPods and Big Macs would secure their hearts and minds. That's not exactly my idea of Utopia.
 
Back to the interview, I found the part about why and how he feels he needs a record contract vs the Radiohead model most interesting.

So did I. I put his comment down to vanity-- thank God for his vanity.
 
You're right. The reason why is...well, I hate to say this, but for once I agree with Theo. America is a young nation founded on ideals rather than a narrow band of racial or tribal identities. Words moreso than blood. That's a good thing, but I can appreciate the uniqueness of the nations that aren't built on our model. The most disgusting thing about the Iraq war is that the administration proposed to win the longterm battle by opening up Iraq to Wild West capitalism. Bullets were to rid the world of Saddam but iPods and Big Macs would secure their hearts and minds. That's not exactly my idea of Utopia.

But if you think this America vaguely resembles the America our nation's architects had in mind, I urge you to read the work of Samuel Adams and The Sons of Liberty. Or better yet, read the Constitution. But I get your point.
 
(Haven't read the thread)

He says he'll never come back to England because it's full of immigrants... a bit rich coming from a man who has been living in foreign countries for over 10 years now. Let's face it, the chances of Moz learning Italian and compromising his Englishness in any way are zero, so why he should expect Muslims to speak like John Geilgud or dress like characters in Oliver is f***ing beyond me.

It's probably been said dozens of times, but:

"You silly old man
You silly old man
You're making a fool of yourself
Now get off the stage"
 
But if you think this America vaguely resembles the America our nation's architects had in mind, I urge you to read the work of Samuel Adams and The Sons of Liberty. Or better yet, read the Constitution. But I get your point.

And I get yours. There were specific, narrow visions of how Americans should look, sound, and act, but the prospects of (to use Pregnant's word) change, even radical change, were built into the model from the beginning such that you can say America turned out they way they did and did not want it to. One of the many paradoxes at the heart of this country's history.
 
NME:

"There is obviously a need for debate around taboo issues like immigration."

NME:

"We're not in the mood to play into grey areas"

Morons.

Completely sums it up for me.

This Conor NME editor is a self-serving c***. I even mostly like NME. But this is just so ridiculously stupid (even to the point of blatant self-contradiction; see above) and can have only one motive - publicity for the NME.

How dare they say they speak for us in that last part of the Morrissey piece? f*** off and die would be my reply to that.
 
this is all so stupid and silly. Morrissey didnt say anything racist, he didnt say anything wrong. he was giving his opinion. is he not allowed to have an opinion? people are blowing this way out of context.
 
(Haven't read the thread)

He says he'll never come back to England because it's full of immigrants... a bit rich coming from a man who has been living in foreign countries for over 10 years now.

Mmm,i don't think he did say that, you know
 
(Haven't read the thread)
Let's face it, the chances of Moz learning Italian and compromising his Englishness in any way are zero, so why he should expect Muslims to speak like John Geilgud or dress like characters in Oliver is f***ing beyond me.

You're an idiot, but props for this insightful observation. Funny.
 
Back
Top Bottom