This is something I've never heard before. The story is told on Twitter by Dennis Herring, who produced Modest Mouse.
Clearly some records become hits because of the music, not what I would call 'the song' (vocal melody and words). But if records were credited as I feel they should be - with separate credits for the 'song' (vocal melody/words) and for the music, then publishing royalties would be separately accorded. So if somebody had written a great hook, their creative role in the creation of the record would be acknowledged (beyond what they earnt as musicians).
So, for example, 'This Charming Man'.
Royalties would be split between the songwriter (Morrissey) and the musical composers (Marr/Rourke/Porter in this instance I would reckon).
!Morrissey being the songwriter because he created the vocal melody and words. If you sing the song a cappella that's all it is.
Marr, Rourke and Porter would all have had a financial share of royalties for the music. I add Porter in this case because I have a memory of an interview with him - or it may even have been Marr - talking about how he stitched together bits of riffs and music that Johnny had. Rourke would get a credit for his incredibly distinctive and melodic bass part, which really holds the music together.
In the case of a song like 'Ticket to Ride', as another example, Lennon would have been credited with the song, but Harrison would have gotten royalties and a musical composer credit for the arpeggio riff.
Unfortunately for you, they are.I appreciate all this - that instrumentals are regarded as songs by some people, I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying they shouldn't be.
And not just for the sake of it, for a reason. The reason being that it is blatantly obvious after the course of some 35 years that Morrissey can create decent songs and Marr can't. Sure, I don't dispute that Marr is now a songwriter, because he adds vocal melodies and lyrics to his instrumentals, so therefore he now creates his own songs. They're generally rubbish, but I don't dispute that they're songs. But the part of the creative process that made them songs was the addition of his vocal melodies and lyrics. Before that they were just instrumentals.
Sure, people can - and do - refer to instrumentals as 'songs' - but why do so? Why not just refer to them as 'instrumentals'?
The clue is in the word. 'Song' fairly evidently has the same etymological roots as the verb 'to sing'. It relates to the voice, and to words.
The tapes that Marr gave to Morrissey were instrumentals. Morrissey used these to create his songs.
To say that Marr co-created these songs because he composed the music is, I feel, a misconception. Marr created the music.
Morrissey created the song, using the music.
When he went solo, Morrissey continued to create songs, using other people's music: the generally wasn't as good as Marr's music for The Smiths, but the songs have often been as good as the songs of The Smiths.
Morrissey has demonstrated that he doesn't actually need great music to produce great songs
. And that the songs are great (e.g. 'First of the Gang to Die') despite the music being... not rubbish at all (not in that instance anyway) but not on a par with what Marr created for The Smiths,
shows that the songs are independent of the music: they can be evaluated and appraised independently of the music.
You feel, I think, that I'm denying Marr a role in the creative process of The Smiths. I'm not. He co-created the music. It was beautiful, remarkable, great music.
But that still doesn't entitle him to say that he 'co-wrote', say, 'Bigmouth Strikes Again'.
The Smiths' songs are great songs. If Marr had co-written the songs it would logically suggest he's a great songwriter. So why has he never written any great songs? Because songs aren't music - they're vocal melodies and words set to music. And Marr can't create great vocal melodies and words. These days, he's a songwriter - but a poor one.
Back in the days of The Smiths, he didn't 'co-write' songs, he just composed music.
So when people say Smiths songs by Morrissey/Marr,
you would correct them and say ... Smiths songs written
by Morrissey with music by Marr?
Yes, I would, and my reasons why are clearly enough laid out in previous posts; however, you're not really addressing my argument: quoting my posts and adding lots of emojis isn't a counterargument; emojis are simply what the name suggests, expressions of your emotions. You've demonstrated that you're very emotional, but you've yet to demonstrate that you can think and argue rationally.
Such replies as you've provided indicate that you're fixated on the idea that the existing Morrissey/Marr credit must be accurate and that therefore Marr's contribution (the music) must therefore be part of the song, and that therefore 'music' and 'song' are the same thing, and interchangeable terms.
Every response you have given me is rooted in this a priori assumption, without rationalising why you maintain that assumption. You've yet to explain why you think that an 'instrumental' and a 'song' are the same thing in your mind - other than because other people have told you they're the same thing (I've explained why I think they're not).
Clearly, nothing is going to dissuade you of that notion, so there's nothing more for you and I to discuss.
I agree with this. Morrissey should be considered the song writer. Ive made a similar points before.Clearly some records become hits because of the music, not what I would call 'the song' (vocal melody and words). But if records were credited as I feel they should be - with separate credits for the 'song' (vocal melody/words) and for the music, then publishing royalties would be separately accorded. So if somebody had written a great hook, their creative role in the creation of the record would be acknowledged (beyond what they earnt as musicians).
So, for example, 'This Charming Man'.
Royalties would be split between the songwriter (Morrissey) and the musical composers (Marr/Rourke/Porter in this instance I would reckon).
Morrissey being the songwriter because he created the vocal melody and words. If you sing the song a cappella that's all it is.
Marr, Rourke and Porter would all have had a financial share of royalties for the music. I add Porter in this case because I have a memory of an interview with him - or it may even have been Marr - talking about how he stitched together bits of riffs and music that Johnny had. Rourke would get a credit for his incredibly distinctive and melodic bass part, which really holds the music together.
In the case of a song like 'Ticket to Ride', as another example, Lennon would have been credited with the song, but Harrison would have gotten royalties and a musical composer credit for the arpeggio riff.
You can't just sing any melody over a given piece of music. He doesn't come up with singing melodies and then just apply them to whatever music he's given. The musicians compose a piece of music and he then sings over the top of it.Clearly some records become hits because of the music, not what I would call 'the song' (vocal melody and words). But if records were credited as I feel they should be - with separate credits for the 'song' (vocal melody/words) and for the music, then publishing royalties would be separately accorded. So if somebody had written a great hook, their creative role in the creation of the record would be acknowledged (beyond what they earnt as musicians).
So, for example, 'This Charming Man'.
Royalties would be split between the songwriter (Morrissey) and the musical composers (Marr/Rourke/Porter in this instance I would reckon).
Morrissey being the songwriter because he created the vocal melody and words. If you sing the song a cappella that's all it is.
Marr, Rourke and Porter would all have had a financial share of royalties for the music. I add Porter in this case because I have a memory of an interview with him - or it may even have been Marr - talking about how he stitched together bits of riffs and music that Johnny had. Rourke would get a credit for his incredibly distinctive and melodic bass part, which really holds the music together.
In the case of a song like 'Ticket to Ride', as another example, Lennon would have been credited with the song, but Harrison would have gotten royalties and a musical composer credit for the arpeggio riff.
You can't just sing any melody over a given piece of music. He doesn't come up with singing melodies and then just apply them to whatever music he's given. The musicians compose a piece of music and he then sings over the top of it.
If someone gives you an amazing piece of music e.g. Some Girls Are Bigger, it's very easy to sing over the top of it and end up with a great song. If someone gives you a rubbish piece of music e.g. People Are The Same Everywhere, you can't magically turn that into a great song.
If Morrissey composed singing melodies and then attached them to whatever composition he's provided with then, yes, he could be considered a songwriter. But he doesn't - he sings over the top of a completed musical composition.
Why are you arguing? it’s not that serious. Chill.Yes, I would, and my reasons why are clearly enough laid out in previous posts; however, you're not really addressing my argument:
I’m not arguing. I find you amusing.quoting my posts and adding lots of emojis isn't a counterargument;
emotional? rational? Lol. You’re the one throwing a tantrum because some people call instrumentals songs.emojis are simply what the name suggests, expressions of your emotions. You've demonstrated that you're very emotional, but you've yet to demonstrate that you can think and argue rationally.
No not ‘must be’ but the credit to both lyricist and writer of the initialSuch replies as you've provided indicate that you're fixated on the idea that the existing Morrissey/Marr credit must be accurate
Nah. Words and music together can and usually is called a song. The ‘instrumental’ even before Marr gives it to Morrissey, can be a song to Marr, and a Smiths song to be.and that therefore Marr's contribution (the music) must therefore be part of the song, and that therefore 'music' and 'song' are the same thing, and interchangeable terms.
Every response you have given me is rooted in this a priori assumption, without rationalising why you maintain that assumption. You've yet to explain why you think that an 'instrumental' and a 'song' are the same thing in your mind - other than because other people have told you they're the same thing (I've explained why I think they're not).
Clearly, nothing is going to dissuade you of that notion, so there's nothing more for you and I to discuss.
Why are you arguing? it’s not that serious. Chill.
Words and music together can and usually is called a song.
Yes, he's got a knack for writing pretty good singing melodies but that certainly doesn't make him a songwriter. He's never written a song himself in his life. Not once in the 300+ songs that he's sung has the credit simply been 'Morrissey'.No, this a false argument. I'm not disputing that Morrissey's vocal melodies were created by listening to the music. I'm not claiming that he created them in a vacuum. Clearly, he didn't. That doesn't detract from the fact that what Morrissey created was the song, and what Marr created was music. The song arose from the music.
"If someone gives you an amazing piece of music... it's very easy to sing over the top of it"...
true ...
"and end up with a great song"... not true. Or else Marr's collaborations for the past 30 years would have produced great songs. Which they demonstrably haven't.
"If someone gives you a rubbish piece of music... you can't magically turn that into a great song". I'd argue that's precisely what Morrissey has done time and time again throughout his solo career. Perhaps 'rubbish' might be too strong a word, but 'bland', 'indifferent', 'average'... sure. 'Sing Your Life', just off the top of my head. Great song. Is it a great piece of music? No.
"If Morrissey composed singing melodies and then attached them to whatever [musical] composition he's provided with then, yes, he could be considered a songwriter"
Again, false logic. You're assuming that because Morrissey doesn't work in a creative vacuum, because he doesn't create the melodies out of thin air, then he shouldn't be credited as sole creator of the songs. But this depends on what your definition of a 'song' is.
A 'song' is what the term implies (again, as I noted in an earlier post, look at the etymological origin of the word, springing from the same source as 'to sing') - vocal melody/words, which are the only elements needed to perform a song, the reason being that they are what constitute the song. That's why a cappella can exist.
So what Morrissey creates is the song. Does he needs music to do that? Yes. Does the music equate to the song? No.
Look at the example I provided earlier 'Irish Blood, English Heart' and 'Not Bitter But Bored'. Two completely different songs employing exactly the same (or virtually the same ) backing track.
Yes, he's got a knack for writing pretty good singing melodies but that certainly doesn't make him a songwriter. He's never written a song himself in his life. Not once in the 300+ songs that he's sung has the credit simply been 'Morrissey'.
Furthermore, traditionally songwriters develop songs together from the initial sketch all the way to the song's completion. Morrissey has never been able to do that. He requires a virtually complete composition and just sings over the top of it (see the recent tweet about Marr being annoyed at Morrissey singing over everything). One of the Bona Drag composers (Armstrong, possibly) mentioned this issue too. He said he wrote the entire song (or piece of music) 'like Johnny Marr used to' and then sent it to Morrissey. Mark Nevin made the mistake of not realising this. He sent Morrissey early sketches which he assumed they would work up together - not that M would simply sing over the top of it and the song would be finished.
Morrissey's singing melodies are often pretty flimsy. Heaven Knows I'm Miserable just has three notes all the way through. It's those beautiful guitar lines that really make the song.
Listen to the outro to There is a Light. The singing melody to the 'there is a light part' is effectively just two notes. The magic in that section is the beautiful flute part and the strings.
Morrissey did lots of amazing things in the Smiths - the words and the singing were just incredible. More than that, he also established their whole aesthetic which is why it's ridiculous when people claim that they love the Smiths but hate Morrissey. However, the incredible music in the Smiths songs must be largely attributed to Marr.
I know...I cannot believe this moron is still talking about this.
I cannot believe this moron is still talking about this.
You’d be wrong about that.It always amuses me when someone's response to a reasoned argument is an attempted insult - they never seem to grasp that it says more about their lack of intellect than it does about the person whose argument they're responding to.
You’d be wrong about that.
'Arguing' doesn't have to imply being worked up about something.
Yes I noticed you were arguing, I was just being amused.One can argue a case, as I was doing.
I'm surprised you're engaging in a discussion on a forum without understanding that distinction,
particularly as I employed the noun "my argument" rather than the verb, which ought to have made it all the clearer.
As regards the rest of your post, it basically boils down to the same a priori assumption you're making, to which I referred previously, and which you repeat above - the assertion that "Words and music together can and usually is called a song"[sic].
As I pointed out to you in my last post, whilst
no explanation needed.I don't dispute that words and music together are frequently referred to as a 'song', I've yet to hear your explanation for why you think that is the case,
Lol, but I do and can make a distinction between what can be called a song (a vocal song) and an instrumental. And like many, even though I know that a composition is a instrumental ( music without words) I can still call it a song, as many do.and for why you make no distinction between 'song' and 'instrumental music'.
As I've also pointed out to you a few times now, the word 'song' derives from the same root as the word 'sing' and refers to the voice and the art of singing. So there clearly is a semantic distinction between 'song' and 'music'.
That I recognise this distinction, is why I can readily understand and rationalise
subjectivewhy Morrissey continued to create great songs after the The Smiths split,
subjectiveand Marr hasn't created any great songs,
Doesn’t matter if they’re great or not. Marr’s compositions are songsand you presumably can't (or if you think you can, I'd be interested to hear your explanation - unless, God forbid, you actually think Marr has created great songs since The Smiths split up).
But to get back to my point: why do you regard an instrumental piece of music and a song as the same thing? Other than 'because lots of other people do'. I mean, your responding to my posts suggests you want to debate the idea, but you're not actually offering any thoughts of you own by way of counter-argument, you're basically just telling me what other people think and do, and failing to explain even why you believe those other people think as they do.
Yeah, you’re an ass.To put it bluntly, do you have any thoughts of your own,
"It’s not like Morrissey came in first with an a cappella sung lyric/melody and Marr and band played to it."
No. Nor does it have to be, as I've already explained to you. That the songs were inspired by Marr's music does not mean that they are therefore not a distinct creation in their own right.
Marr made the music which inspired Morrissey to create the songs - a song being a combination of vocal melody and words, as the etymological root of the word implies.
Yes. Nobody could accurately call Morrissey "gay" in the old sense of the word.An instrumental is a song. If you need to write a book to explain why an instrumental isn't a song then you are deluding yourself.
Is a silent picture a movie or a fillum?
Is Jackson Pollock's work a painting or a mess or 'art'?
English is an open lexicon, meaning new words arise and old words can get new meanings.
Well yes I am trying to engage in a discussion, but you seem to want to argue instead.
no explanation needed.
like many, even though I know that a composition is a instrumental ( music without words) I can still call it a song, as many do.
And that’s all that matters.
If you and I were sitting around listening to music and after a instrumental I turned to you and said ‘What an amazing song!’ and then you corrected me by saying
‘That’s not a song, it’s an instrumental’ I’d tell you to ‘Fvck off!’ I mean, what a buzz kill.
Yeah, you’re an ass.