Morrissey's Statement

[spleenhead]

I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but there is still one thing that I don't understand (and I really don't want to trawl through every thread on the subject).

This business about Tim Jonze letting slip to Moz that Conor thought he wouldn't like a black person living next door to him. This was supposedly in the interview right? If so, was this in the second (phone) interview? If so, was this phone interview after Tim had had some kind of briefing on the subject from Conor? If it actually happened in the first meeting then surely this proves that the NME had some kind of agenda on what they wanted to print even before Moz had spoken a word. Yet Jonze claims no stitch up was possible because of the straight Q+A nature of the affair.

Can anyone shed some light?

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

He seems to be arguing that they changed their questions to him, such as changing "you sound like my parents" to "you sound like a Tory" - but he doesn't seem to be disputing that he said what he said. He just doesn't think it was offensive. I don't think it's offensive either, but some people do - and that's why the NME has an opening to attack him.

Ah well, another day, another controversy. All is well in Morrisseyland.

One of Merck's statements over the past days suggested, I thought, that statements that weren't made consecutively were put together, with intervening questions or comments by Jonze removed. But that's beyond our business- it would be really interesting to read a true transcript or hear the tapes, but that's probably not for us.

All is well in Morrisseyland. I hope! Hope he had some champagne last night... he deserves it.

 

[Worm]

Anyone can see that Morrissey repeated himself and added nothing new. The greatness of the statement is precisely that-- its redundancy.

It's very simple. You can read Morrissey's failure to elaborate as stubborn and standoffish. Or you can read it as a frantic protest of innocence from someone so childlike and naive he still doesn't understand what all the fuss is about. Either way, he poses an important question to each of us: is Morrissey wrong to leave his position unclarified, or are we wrong to demand additional degrees of clarity from him?

The matter was never about racism per se. It was about the problematic fact that Morrissey's language unwittingly echoed language used by genuine racists. This was McNicholas's and Jonze's original complaint, now lost in their outrageous attempt to sell papers by slandering Morrissey. You know what? They had a point. But they have a point in the minds of people of a certain age, raised in the present era of heightened awareness about racism and other kinds of bigotry.

Morrissey wasn't raised and educated in the same era of political correctness as was Jonze, and as were many younger fans like myself. In a funny way, Jonze was actually being insightful when he said Morrissey sounded like his dad. He unwisely chose to use this as a wedge to insult and attack Morrissey instead of pausing for a moment and reflecting on the difference between the generations. Who looks more foolish, Morrissey for saying "I am against all forms of oppression and cruelty"-- a principle he has championed for over two decades in his work-- or Tim Jonze for whining that Morrissey didn't use the exact words he wanted him to?

 

[Worm]

There's no obligation for Morrissey to make his views on these matters more clear, or for him to have an opinion on any of them at all.

Full stop.

But what does Morrissey's statement actually "prove" beyond that he is not an overt racist?

Somehow you're missing the larger and obvious fact of his music. Twenty-three years of singing about sensitivity, culture, compassion, personal freedom, and absolute hatred of (to use his words) oppression and cruelty ought to count for something. "Oh yeah, that."

Furthermore, what does contacting "Love Music Hate Racism" after a controversy is brewing and promising to provide space in your advertisements and booths at your gigs prove?

The LMHR campaign said he met and offered support in 2004 after meeting the organizers at a Libertines concert. For whatever reason nothing was made official, but LMHR themselves established this chronology.

 

[Worm]

If anyone cares, I would like to offer up a link for interesting reading. By strange coincidence two artists I admire are standing in roughly the same position at the moment. Here is a great essay by Martin Amis in which he defends himself from charges of racism stemming from remarks he's made about Islamofascism.

I read his defense with the same reaction I had reading Morrissey's: embarrassment for their attackers. How did it come to this, that such statements were even necessary? Amis had to resort to an uncharacteristically blunt rejection of racism, and anyone who knows his books ought to recognize how much it must have pained him to howl in all caps, "I DO NOT 'ADVOCATE' ANY DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF MUSLIMS. AND I NEVER HAVE."

Here's a relevant passage:

When Bennett wonders why I don't "recant", what does he expect me to do? Pretend that I didn't in fact experience this transient impulse (which was not racist but simply retaliatory)? Does he want - do you want - novelists to sound like politicians, or like the pious post-historical automata that Bennett and Eagleton claim to be? Do you want the voice of the individual, or the aggressive purity of the ideologue?​

Amis's defense is both more detailed and better written than Morrissey's, but of course to say so is simply to note the distance between novelist/public intellectual and pop star. Anyway, as I said above, both statements show that their accusors ought to question their "standard of proof". Substitute "pop stars" for "novelists" in the line I quoted above and you've a much more eloquent version of the question I was talking about in my other post.

 

[Anaesthesine]

he poses an important question to each of us: is Morrissey wrong to leave his position unclarified, or are we wrong to demand additional degrees of clarity from him?

Morrissey wasn't raised and educated in the same era of political correctness as was Jonze, and as were many younger fans like myself. In a funny way, Jonze was actually being insightful when he said Morrissey sounded like his dad. He unwisely chose to use this as a wedge to insult and attack Morrissey instead of pausing for a moment and reflecting on the difference between the generations. Who looks more foolish, Morrissey for saying "I am against all forms of oppression and cruelty"-- a principle he has championed for over two decades in his work-- or Tim Jonze for whining that Morrissey didn't use the exact words he wanted him to?

Well said, I was going to post about that myself. I'm closer to Morrissey's age, and I remember a harder-core racism than what is being discussed here. This is a good thing, we are living in an age of greater tolerance. My work often takes me to more isolated rural areas, and I regularly hear old-time racists who casually mention lynching and who miss the days of slavery. For real. What Morrissey said does not read as racist to anyone who can remember how cruel, hateful and all-pervasive real, grass-roots racism can be.

These attacks are so absurd that he cannot really refute them logically. How could anyone? How could any one of us prove that we are not a racist? Well, we would start by saying "I have friends who are ____." When that is not enough, we would then say "____ has always been a great influence on me." When that is not enough, where would we go next? Morrissey was giving all the evidence he has - that he respects artists and writers from different backgrounds, that he has written anti-racist lyrics, that he has participated in anti-racist events. This new standard of political correctness is wiping away the memory of what true racism really is. The other day I actually heard a guy say that slavery was the best thing to ever happen "to those people," and he meant it. To even think of Morrissey in that context is so absurd that it defies explanation.

Morrissey may be naive and somewhat out-of-touch, but he just explained himself in the best way he knows how. There are fans here who are so disappointed that they are giving him up as a lost cause. What a shame. He has just smacked his head against a generational wall. This is how one generation's hero become the next generation's joke.

What a terrible shame it would be if such a thing were to happen to someone who has done more for tolerance than most artists I can think of.

 

[suparni]

I don't want to start a huge argument but the first thing I noticed when I read Morrissey's statement is that if you replace the word NME with england.... the New NME vs. the old NME = the new England vs. the old England... there is a parallel that only reinforces... ummm many things...

I laughed so hard at how he did that... but nobody seems to see it. maybe I am just nuts... but it was the first thing I noticed. Done so well and with so much style and craftsmanship that you can't really pin down but I only imagine a twinkle in his eye as he wrote it.

You think I am nuts in this read of it?

edit... this is why i said people underestimate... and why I said I am not so much concerned with or identified with what he says... but rather how he says it... in my view genius... classic double meaning wit filled genius - the best press statement ever written in the music world.

 

[nugz]

You think I am nuts in this read of it?

maybe nuts for other reasons, but not for this one ....

 

[suparni]

maybe nuts for other reasons, but not for this one ....

can i still hang out with you or will you abandon me like all my friends did when I came back with a string of wooden beads around my neck?

 

[Worm]

You think I am nuts in this read of it?

Nuts but entertaining.

the best press statement ever written in the music world.

True with emphasis on your qualifying clause. (Has boredom ever electrified you?)

 

[nugz]

can i still hang out with you or will you abandon me like all my friends did when I came back with a string of wooden beads around my neck?

haha, it would take more than that to scare me off.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

I don't want to start a huge argument but the first thing I noticed when I read Morrissey's statement is that if you replace the word NME with england.... the New NME vs. the old NME = the new England vs. the old England... there is a parallel that only reinforces... ummm many things...

I think that this is a very creative and fascinating reading of that press release. We all know that Morrissey certainly isn't incapable of weaving this kind of elaborate, concealed metaphor, but I wonder whether even he realized it this time.

maybe nuts for other reasons, but not for this one ....

*tee, hee*

 

[suparni]

I think that this is a very We all know that Morrissey certainly isn't incapable of weaving this kind of elaborate, concealed metaphor

Morrissey has still not convinced you that he is capable of weaving such a thing?

Do you and I own the same record collection?

 

[Not Right in the Head]

Morrissey has still not convinced you that he is capable of weaving such a thing?

Do you and I own the same record collection?

Yes, and yes, and I know that I'm contradicting a bit of what I said to you earlier, but if he did it deliberately, then whom was he targeting with the real, hidden message? Like you said, the alternate reading doesn't exactly make him look good to anyone but The Establishment that those in the UK seem so fond of talking about.

 

[Worm]

These attacks are so absurd that he cannot really refute them logically. How could anyone? How could any one of us prove that we are not a racist?

Thanks and yeah, this is what I was getting at. There's just something wrong with the question. When I was a kid "racism" was not really a word in common usage. People were "prejudiced" and the really nasty types were "bigots". It wasn't until the political correctness movements filtered down into the culture that "racism" began to be tossed around. If you compare "prejudiced" to "racist" it's so much more helpful in understanding a person and his or her motivations. "Racist" is a word that has almost no meaning when used in the present context, for the reasons you point out. Everyone knows what it means, but as soon as you try and prove someone is or isn't a racist it becomes difficult and pretty much useless in all but the most obvious, egregious cases.

The word "racist" implies an absolute category and as such fails to account for shades of bigotry. This should be of special concern to people who are sincerely committed to ending racial discrimination, because not only can the absolute terminology sometimes falsely characterize the innocent, it can also let some of the guilty off the hook. To make an analogy, it would be like wiping out all legal definitions of homicide except first degree murder. Imagine how many killers would go unpunished.

 

[suparni]

Yes, and yes, and I know that I'm contradicting a bit of what I said to you earlier, but if he did it deliberately, then whom was he targeting with the real, hidden message? Like you said, the alternate reading doesn't exactly make him look good to anyone but The Establishment that those in the UK seem so fond of talking about.

well that is fine because I admitted to wearing robes and beads around my neck and sitting watching videos of one of the most attacked people - from both the left and the right - one of the most spiritually incorrect and controversial mystics of our time - putting myself and my views in such a vulnerable position - in the direct line of fire... that anybody who wishes to quote my read on it would be a fool - given how unbulletproof I made myself through admissions on this board. If the stupid media reads and grabs onto my read on this statement I fully permit Morrissey to draw attention to my controversial and questionable world views and history in a place ridden with controversy and attack from both the left and the right. Clearly I am not right in the head and this is a ridiculous read on a very clear and single pointed assertion of the truth... after all I am just a silly fool who was wearing robes and listening to one of the most challenged and condemned figures in the modern mystic world. So no need to fret about the establishment - the read came from a total nut.

now that that is out of the way... i do find the letter fascinating.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

well that is fine because I admitted to wearing robes and beads around my neck and sitting watching videos of one of the most attacked people - from both the left and the right - one of the most spiritually incorrect and controversial mystics of our time - putting myself and my views in such a vulnerable position - in the direct line of fire... that anybody who wishes to quote my read on it would be a fool - given how unbulletproof I made myself through admissions on this board. If the stupid media reads and grabs onto my read on this statement I fully permit Morrissey to draw attention to my controversial and questionable world views and history in a place ridden with controversy and attack from both the left and the right. Clearly I am not right in the head and this is a ridiculous read on a very clear and single pointed assertion of the truth... after all I am just a silly fool who was wearing robes and listening to one of the most challenged and condemned figures in the modern mystic world. So no need to fret about the establishment - the read came from a total nut.

Despite the lack of emoticons, I sure hope that you're being sarcastic here. Don't retract your statement, at least not because of my reply--I agree with you.

 

[Worm]

Can anyone shed some light?

As I understand it, Tim made the remark during the second phone interview. We don't know when Conor said it originally, though.

I doubt very much Conor briefed Tim on anything. More of an opportunistic ambush after Morrissey made his comments to Tim after the first interview. At that point, either Conor took Tim's interview and began slicing and dicing (as we originally thought) or Tim's scathing article was taken and used by Conor with some palliative modifications (as Tim now says). I don't think it was premeditated, merely a bad decision to sensationalize what they thought was scandalous talk from Morrissey.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Sorry if this has been posted before, and also for the slightly cropped bottom first column. Note the comment by the NME at the end - two writs - one against the NME, and one against Conor McNicholas.

Peter

 

[suparni]

Despite the lack of emoticons, I sure hope that you're being sarcastic here. Don't retract your statement, at least not because of my reply--I agree with you.

I am not retracting anything. And I am not being totally sarcastic. In the eyes of the (worthless!!!!) establishment, my past and my experience could very well lead to my being written off. Osho was very much attacked and my living in his resort for 7 years on and off... listening to him... would lead most people in the establishment to reject and attack me... here is writer Tom Robbins on Osho - so as you can see I am quite serious in my analysis of how I personally could be portrayed as a "not right in the head." Somebody who I have great respect for and whose talks I have absorbed and love is categorically dismissed, attacked and condemned by the establishment without fail - from all sides. That would make me a nut.
here is Tom Robbins on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq7IUM4lCrs

And if my being a nut would defend Morrissey against the bloodthirsty establishment - by all means proceed... because I don't like those people. I am not retracting and I am not being totally sarcastic. I very much dislike the establishment and their extreme ways - esp when they attack free thinking and expression and art. Morrissey is not a cruel person and there are grey areas in everything... that is an indication of intelligence and change and life... humanity is a complex phenomenon and not everything is black and white and there is no excuse for NME attacking people and trying to start problems... but that is another matter all together.

Most of all, it is quite possible that I am reading something totally imaginary here. I have been known to read too much into things and even get a little paranoid - an underlying charachteristic that only reveals itself in times of great stress or confusion, but nonetheless a trait I carry. Admitted. I am just suggesting and bouncing my crazy idea around... I am not Morrissey and I do not know him and I have absolutely no idea if it is even possible that he would think these things... I am just projecting myself all over his words... granted. and here is an emoticon for you...