Is Johhny being a shit attacking Moz for publicity?

[Anonymous]

• Johnny hasn't attacked "Moz". He said, if stories in the mass media about Morrissey's opinions are true, then they'd disagree.
• You're unable to present any evidence that Morrissey gave a genuine f*** about the victims of the Paris massacre, whereas the TTY post from Boz Boorer - quoted above and on the previous page - shows that their aim was to get publicity and a No. 1 single.
• Even if Johnny were to criticise Morrissey (and it seems like he has good reason), it hardly renders him a "shit", as per the question posed in the title of the thread, and isn't nearly as shameful as Morrissey's attempt to ride the coattails of the dead.

I've no idea why your mentioning marr attacking morrissey as I never made that point nor tried to. That I can't prove anything is part of my point as there is very little evidence besides morrissey and boz wanting to release the song and trying to convince a label to do so by appealing to what I believe they think is the labels interest there in order to prove anything about why they want to release it. From what I've read about morrissey he takes his music very seriously and would see the songs release as a gesture of support you don't but there's no facts and just what you want to read into the situation. I again don't know why your bringing up marr in relation to anything I said here as I believe i stated earlier in the thread that it didn't seem like marr was attacking him and that press try to make drama to sell copy and that since morrissey is the more famous of the two it's natural for marr to be asked about him a lot

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

I asked him.
He said he absolutely adores his cat and loves him unconditionally.

good, thank you. If you want someone to talk about something, you simply ask. It's better than assuming because they freely don't mention one subject out of the millions of subjects that they don't care about said subject. Anyways M usually speaks out against violence and ignorance, which should pretty much sum up how he feels about the Paris attacks if he was asked.

 

[Quando quando quando]

The song title contains the word "Paris", but the song is not about Paris. It's all about Morrissey. A-f***ing-gain.

I don't know if he's been asked about it. However, he doesn't ordinarily need to be asked about the things he cares about before going on and on and on and on and on about those. Check out his posts on TTY some time. There, you'll find interminable paragraphs, almost as nonsensical as that novel he tried to write, about the record industry, royalty and meat. Nobody asked, yet still the endless rants pour forth. It's curious.

Now, remind me, where's the evidence that he actually cared about the murder victims in Paris?

It is NOT all about Morrissey.
He is a singer, he creates in his songs personages, like a writer does in a novel.
This is very 19teenth century thinking.
Do you want to hold a writer of fiction, as much as music is, accountable for what the characters say in a novel?
Please don't, cause they would have to be on trial and sentenced and put in jail for years.
We are not living under dictatorship yet.

You don't know if he was singing about himself. Could be, but you don't. That is part of the magic and the mistery.
And he did sing about a man who in the absence of love (neither to give, or to receive) decided to put his arms around a city and hereby declared his love for that city.
I think it was a touching song.

With regard to the letter of Boz, and the uproar.
What would have happened if there had been an email from the label to Moz with the proposal to re-release "Paris"? And by accident it was leaked?
First of all nobody would care that much cause hey, companies want to make money and are commercial and if there was an agreement made about the good cause nobody would care.
Of course Moz would be blamed about the leaking of the e-mail.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

It is NOT all about Morrissey.
He is a singer, he creates in his songs personages, like a writer does in a novel.
This is very 19teenth century thinking.
Do you want to hold a writer of fiction, as much as music is, accountable for what the characters say in a novel?
Please don't, cause they would have to be on trial and sentenced and put in jail for years.
We are not yet living under dictatorship yet.

You don't know if he was singing about himself. Could be, but you don't. That is part of the magic and the mistery.
And he did sing about a man who in the absence of love (neither to give, or to receive) decided to put his arms around a city and hereby declared his love for that city.
I think it was a touching song.

With regard to the letter of Boz, and the uproar.
What would have happened if there had been an email from the label to Moz with the proposal to re-release "Paris"? And by accident it was leaked?
First of all nobody would care that much cause hey, companies want to make money and are commercial and if there was an agreement made about the good cause nobody would care.
Of course Moz would be blamed about the leaking of the e-mail.

'And he did sing about a man who in the absence of love (neither to give, or to receive) decided to put his arms around a city and hereby declared his love for that city.'

And who built that city? the people.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmm my post didn't come up in this thread but did in others. Wonder why

 

[Musician]

With regard to the letter of Boz, and the uproar.
What would have happened if there had been an email from the label to Moz with the proposal to re-release "Paris"? And by accident it was leaked?
First of all nobody would care that much cause hey, companies want to make money and are commercial and if there was an agreement made about the good cause nobody would care.
Of course Moz would be blamed about the leaking of the e-mail.

Except, most of us here are not record label fans, they are corporate shits, so no-one expects them to act any different, n one would be surprised. As for Morrissey....

 

[Calamine Lotion]

good, thank you. If you want someone to talk about something, you simply ask. It's better than assuming because they freely don't mention one subject out of the millions of subjects that they don't care about said subject. Anyways M usually speaks out against violence and ignorance, which should pretty much sum up how he feels about the Paris attacks if he was asked.

It's ridiculous to suggest he only speaks about things he is asked opinions on or that the Paris attacks are just another random subject.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

It is NOT all about Morrissey.
He is a singer, he creates in his songs personages, like a writer does in a novel.
This is very 19teenth century thinking.
Do you want to hold a writer of fiction, as much as music is, accountable for what the characters say in a novel?
Please don't, cause they would have to be on trial and sentenced and put in jail for years.
We are not living under dictatorship yet.

You don't know if he was singing about himself. Could be, but you don't. That is part of the magic and the mistery.
And he did sing about a man who in the absence of love (neither to give, or to receive) decided to put his arms around a city and hereby declared his love for that city.
I think it was a touching song.

I agree that he isn't always singing about himself. I used to think he was.

With regard to the letter of Boz, and the uproar.
What would have happened if there had been an email from the label to Moz with the proposal to re-release "Paris"? And by accident it was leaked?
First of all nobody would care that much cause hey, companies want to make money and are commercial and if there was an agreement made about the good cause nobody would care.
Of course Moz would be blamed about the leaking of the e-mail.

This part doesn't really work. I think if the record company had wanted to re-release Paris people would just expect that this is how record companies operate. And lots of celebrities who do things very publicly for charity are getting the benefit of being seen doing it. Sometimes it revives careers or makes someone more likable.
You're right. No one would care because companies want their money. But the letter from Boz posted on TTY makes it clear that "Boz" saw a missed chance for a number 1 record. There is nothing about charity. And the man who received this letter knew and worked with people that died in the attacks. The effect of the letter is that Morrissey or "Boz" seem to be chiding the record company for not being as capitalistic as they could be, and that's why it was a big deal.
It also showed Morrissey was lying when he said he asked for the single to be released and was refused. "Boz" asked, and there was no refusal. They got a reply saying they could license an independent release, but also asking where the money would go. Morrissey lied and called this a refusal.
So the whole thing is better forgotten if you want to remain a Mozbot.

 

[Quando quando quando]

Except, most of us here are not record label fans, they are corporate shits, so no-one expects them to act any different, n one would be surprised. As for Morrissey....

Yes, I understand what your saying but for what it's worth (nothing, of course) whatever happens and for everything he says, or not, he will get criticised. That's why I think he doesn't care anymore.
I think he did to a great extent in the past, defending his name and worrying about his public image, but decided it absorbing too much of his time and reserving that time for more enjoyable things to do.

 

[Quando quando quando]

I agree that he isn't always singing about himself. I used to think he was.


This part doesn't really work. I think if the record company had wanted to re-release Paris people would just expect that this is how record companies operate. And lots of celebrities who do things very publicly for charity are getting the benefit of being seen doing it. Sometimes it revives careers or makes someone more likable.
You're right. No one would care because companies want their money. But the letter from Boz posted on TTY makes it clear that "Boz" saw a missed chance for a number 1 record. There is nothing about charity. And the man who received this letter knew and worked with people that died in the attacks. The effect of the letter is that Morrissey or "Boz" seem to be chiding the record company for not being as capitalistic as they could be, and that's why it was a big deal.
It also showed Morrissey was lying when he said he asked for the single to be released and was refused. "Boz" asked, and there was no refusal. They got a reply saying they could license an independent release, but also asking where the money would go. Morrissey lied and called this a refusal.
So the whole thing is better forgotten if you want to remain a Mozbot.

Okay I will.
There are darker sides to him I know.
But I forgive him.

 

[Anonymous]

I've no idea why your mentioning marr attacking morrissey as I never made that point nor tried to. That I can't prove anything is part of my point as there is very little evidence besides morrissey and boz wanting to release the song and trying to convince a label to do so by appealing to what I believe they think is the labels interest there in order to prove anything about why they want to release it. From what I've read about morrissey he takes his music very seriously and would see the songs release as a gesture of support you don't but there's no facts and just what you want to read into the situation. I again don't know why your bringing up marr in relation to anything I said here as I believe i stated earlier in the thread that it didn't seem like marr was attacking him and that press try to make drama to sell copy and that since morrissey is the more famous of the two it's natural for marr to be asked about him a lot

Fair enough, you didn't say Marr attacked Morrissey. I mixed up your post with somebody else's. Apologies.

However, there is absolutely nothing at all to suggest either that Morrissey wanted to "support" the people of Paris in any way. What, specifically, is the basis for your claim that he would "see the song's release as a gesture of support"?

You say that there are no facts upon which to base the assertion that Morrissey wanted to capitalise on the Paris massacre, but the message from Boz Boorer posted on TTY shows that he and his employer thought they could use it to get a No. 1 single - the first of his career in showbiz .

The whole episode was as crass as it was reprehensible ... but quite typical of the man (see The Youngest was the Most Loved for further details).

 

[Anonymous]

Fair enough, you didn't say Marr attacked Morrissey. I mixed up your post with somebody else's. Apologies.

However, there is absolutely nothing at all to suggest either that Morrissey wanted to "support" the people of Paris in any way. What, specifically, is the basis for your claim that he would "see the song's release as a gesture of support"?

You say that there are no facts upon which to base the assertion that Morrissey wanted to capitalise on the Paris massacre, but the message from Boz Boorer posted on TTY shows that he and his employer thought they could use it to get a No. 1 single - the first of his career in showbiz .

The whole episode was as crass as it was reprehensible ... but quite typical of the man (see The Youngest was the Most Loved for further details).

That's what I figured about the confusion so no worries. I don't have any facts it's just a belief going on the belief that he really believes in communicating through song and the power of his own work and that praising the city that was just attacked would be his kind of gesture. I think there mentioning a number one was trying to convince the label to release it but that's me. Not saying this because I think I know this was how it went but rather just to show that in light of more facts you can read it how you want and that this is another possible conclusion. I don't think he would be that callous but that's me but my point is that neither of us really know and that it could be either scenario