Printable View
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
What interested me more than the song's lyrics was the question he posed at the gig (which can be separated from Morissey's argument/politics). Why is it that a mass murderer like Abedi, whose horrific crime was so recent, is a less instantly remembered name than one from long ago like Hindley? Or, for that matter, a Fred West, Harold Shipman or Peter Tobin?
Personally I don't think the murderer deserves the profile or notoriety that goes with such a vile act. To be quietly forgotten rather than held up as anything is probably the best way to go. Why should Morrissey be trying to contribute towards his martyrdom?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Morrissey is an idiot of the highest order. I'll acknowledge his contribution to some great songs a few decades ago but I was never even a fan of his whiny voice.
Johnny Marr on the other hand is a bona fide legend.
Yeh I'd agree it would be better if the names of such barbaric killers were to be forgotten. Their notoriety prevents that, however. While Abedi's actions were as horrific as any perhaps the one-off nature of the atrocity (as opposed to the years of killings by Hindley) means the act itself and its devastating legacy are more remembered than his name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I was never a big Smiths fan but would acknowledge that the Morrissey/Marr partnership yielded a catalogue of music that meant the world to their devotees. I think both were equally integral to the band's success.
without Jonny Marr, he'd just have been a really weird poet, and not a very good one. his words worked as songs, where having a certain vibe has more mileage than words on a page. tbh, it seems to me that this song 'bonfire of teenagers' is horrifically exploiting a tragedy for the sake of his own ego, from which his ghastly beliefs emanate. absolute bell end.
How many names of terrorists slip of the tongue? How many serial killers?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
The geopolitical nutters aren't embedded into collective conscious. There's a Harold Shipman doc on every couple of hours on the Channel 5s, there's 10 part series streaming on practically every platform about any serial killer you want. Most of their names are remembered in jokes or rhymes.
It's the lurid angle alluded to the other day with Tobin. People are natural curtain twitchers, terrorism is too dry for jokes and jump-frights. Morrisey curtain twitched himself in the 80s, with the moors murderers.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
People like Hindley are trialled and jailed and alive in our media for decades after their crimes. They become infamous names and personalities.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Suicide bombers blow themselves to pieces before we ever know who they are. It doesn’t mean we’re sympathetic or forgiving to them because they’re Muslims.
:agree: Was at Madison Square Garden a week past for the Killers and Johnny Marr was the support - really pleasant hearing a couple of Smiths songs without Morrisey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
It's standard practice in the media to not focus on the perpetrators of terrorist acts, to avoid glorification and martyrdom. Essentially it's a form of propaganda (by omission) but there's an awful lot of research papers and discussion on the subject and I guess it works. When I think back to the Manchester Arena bombing the thought in my mind (aside from the horror of the bombing itself) is the unity of and with the people of Manchester. I haven't a scooby what cause the terrorist was supporting.
There's even a UNESCO handbook about the portrayal of terrorism in the media.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247074
That’s right. I remember thinking the same about the neo Nazi nail bomber back in the 90s (Brick Lane and the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho, remember that?) and wondering why his name wasn’t widely known. Mark something I think? It’s to avoid martyrdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
I actually walked past the Admiral Duncan a couple of months back and it stirred a memory of that nail bombing. Couldn't have told you the guy's name or that he was a neo Nazi though.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
It's just weird that a racist like Morrissey can climb on a stage and make out he's discovered some kind of right wing gotcha which then gets propagated round the internet when a minute's thinking or research would have shown it to be a daft point.
His ilk wouldn't mind a few Islamist martyrs. Keeps the hate churn going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Whatever your opinions of Morrissey as a person, you're doing him a disservice there. His input was utterly essential to the Smiths and without his collaboration with Morrissey it's unlikely Johnny Marr would be as respected as he is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentDaleCooper
What if it were Marr who had gone on to express the views Morrissey does these days? Would you still respect his musicianship?
Takes us into the realms of respect for the art, not the artist ie it's easy enough to jettison the likes of Gary Glitter's career to the dustbin in the wake of his imprisonment because he simply wasn't really much of a talent (although he commanded a hefty following at one point), whereas it's harder for long-time Morrissey fans to completely let him go because he's a genuinely talented artist with a body of work to back that up.
I agree with you on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Yeah, I also think there’s a bit of the “being greater than the sum of the parts” about The Smiths / Morrissey and Marr / many others.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I suppose it’s a bit unfair to diminish Morrissey’s entire contribution just because his voice isn’t to my taste and he’s turned into an absolute weapon later in life.
That's similar to Nick Caves view of Morrisey's work.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
I just checked that out. He makes some very valid points IMHO.
Incidentally it seems Gary Glitter DOES in fact still attract fans (albeit the article was written a few years back):
The Gary Glitter fans who still follow the leader | Pop and rock | The Guardian
yeah, I think this is sort of what I was getting at - he's obviously very creative and unique, but I think he's very lucky that he had such great chemistry, in a way that IMO, for example, Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood don't rely on, particularly the former...I know I'm comparing apples and oranges...and obviously any 'great' band is partly going to be bigger than the sum of its parts...don't know what my point is TBH. Probably something along the lines of 'he was always a bit over-rated, quite style over substance, and now that he's outed himself as a complete and utter walloper, I can't really be ersed with his music at all.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
something like that anyway :aok: