The Politics of Morrissey
- Thread starter Danny
- Start date
mozmic_dancer
One of the Good Guys
You Struck Gold!
Thank you for posting this.
Did you happen to notice his note at the bottom of the page:
"Armond White's book on Morrissey, Knee Deep in Great Experiences, will be published next year."
If his book is anything like this article, I'm gonna make it a point to buy it.
Thank you for posting this.
Did you happen to notice his note at the bottom of the page:
"Armond White's book on Morrissey, Knee Deep in Great Experiences, will be published next year."
If his book is anything like this article, I'm gonna make it a point to buy it.
Black Eyed
Isn't he gorgeous !!
Great link Danny, thank you very much
. A great read
PHP:
chrisarclark
Boycott Moz
foran article entitled "The Politics of Morrissey" this sure fails to deliver anything truly significant ona subject that is well worth examining. all this is is a ROTT review that devotes much of its time to the only overtly political song on the album- "I Will See You In Far-Off Places"- while descending into overly gushing hero worship.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Now I know Slate will publish anything.
"Morrissey's Politics" is weak. It proves yet again that the only positive articles we get from critics are either those from fawning, unabashed fans of Morrissey (like Douglas Coupland or Mark Spitz) or those who haven't been around long enough to understand his music. In either case, as someone in this thread has already remarked, the writers manage to say very little.
Now, I'm not claiming I've the market cornered on understanding Morrissey or his politics. Almond is entitled to his interpretations. There isn't much he writes about "Ringleader Of The Tormentors" that screams incompetence or stupidity. Some of his remarks are insightful.
However, he lost me completely with his musings on the "Smash Bush" photo.
I hate to break it to Almond, but "Smash Bush" really means what it seems to mean. Not only that, but Morrissey posing next to these words spraypainted on a wall suits Morrissey's "method" to a T. I'm amazed that a writer can throw together a piece on Morrissey and fail to understand that-- politically, at any rate-- Morrissey's bread and butter is shock slogans like that. I seem to recall a rather blunt proclamation somewhere along the lines of...ah yes, "Meat Is Murder", an album still available in the shops I'm told.
Of course, one needn't go back to 1985. One can refer to Morrissey's open hostility toward Bush (widely reported everywhere in the world except Slate, apparently), calling him a terrorist on one occasion or wishing he had died instead of Reagan on another.
Like most critics who ruminate on the depths of Morrissey's music, White is quick to pay tribute to his cleverness, and like most critics he's helpless before it. He can write, "Morrissey's perspicacity fits the mood through his indulgence of complex, contradictory feelings", which is fine and seems true, but then he scampers out of the warm bed of generalizations for frigid clunkers like his songs being "gender-confounding" ("Girlfriend In A Coma"? How so? Why not "Sheila Take A Bow" among 40 others?) and plain nonsense like "obstreperousness of his rhyming social critiques" (try that line at a party some time). Before long we're treated to the white flag of desperation ("the most influential pop artist of the last 20 years") and the knowing nod-- you know, for the fans-- about Morrissey's most oft-talked about and least understood literary passion ("Wildean wit").
In the end White's piece is just another game of Pin The Soundbite On The Ironist, and like all other comers he fails. I love reading rock critics like White precisely for their hazy understanding of Morrissey. It's a satisfying reminder that Morrissey taps a stream of pop consciousness that flows beneath the idiotic and the sophisticated alike (see also: Douglas Coupland's embarrassing non-interview or Will Self's review of the Palace show). His music is critic-proof. White and his cohort aren't totally wrong in any of their pieces, it's just that they only grasp one small portion of his art. To get an accurate picture of Morrissey you'd have to gather together each and every review or think-piece written about Morrissey or The Smiths, painstakingly piece them together into a single gigantic text, and maybe then you'd have a solid critical portrait of Morrissey. Much easier to put needle to vinyl and simply listen.
Anyhow, to be more specific, White is correct in locating Morrissey's greatness in his use of conflicting emotions. As I have written before (on the old board, sniff), I think Morrissey's writing comes from a basic emotional response to the world, contained perfectly in the lines from "The Boy With The Thorn In His Side": "Behind the hatred there lies/A murderous desire/For love". He doesn't sing about love and hate, but rather the tension between the two within a single heart. This is unique in pop music because he is the first major pop icon who claims to hate as strongly as he loves. He affirms joy (Smiths records particularly, aided considerably by Johnny Marr) yet doesn't avoid hatred (or sorrow, illness, and so on). Morrissey's capacity for love is great because his capacity for hatred is just as intense, which is why the slogan "Viva Hate" is really his variation on Lennon's endless blather about love-- and a far more powerful one for those of us for whom, thanks to the Baby Boomers, the ideals of the Sixties are dead. Often this comes out in songs about violence, Morrissey's exploration of the other side of romantic longing ("murderous desire")-- what White sees in his paeans to criminals and outcasts.
As artful and richly ambiguous as Morrissey's writing is, though, most of his delicately-conceived, ironical lyrics hover around the central tension between larger unironical extremes. These polarities don't negate each other or anything in between them, and only by taking them into account on their own terms can one approach an understanding of Morrissey's politics. What White misses is that when Morrissey appears to be most "sly" or ironical, he's being serious, and vice versa.
His extremist statements are thus exactly what they appear to be. If he doesn't toss out "facile panderings" it's because his agitprop makes no pretense of being anything but a potted plant crashing down on your head. He isn't Bono or Green Day because he never tries to sound reasonable or responsible. In fact, his thinking-- on the surface, anyway-- is much cruder. White writes that "climbing aboard the impeachment train would be too obvious for a pop star this sly", but only because Morrissey would send him without trial to the guillotine. We are told Morrissey's music "provok[es] his audience to reflect upon both hero worship and politician-bashing as fickle pursuits", but I guess he missed Morrissey's ABB-style endorsement of John Kerry in 2004. And we all know about his bald and unflappable support for questionable animal rights groups.
Yet, if these unironic statements are exactly what they appear to be in themselves, they exist in a larger context of irony. You have extremes in Morrissey's music which take on different values depending on the mode Morrissey's using at any given moment. We are left with a personality made up of disparate elements that obstinately resist our attempts to synthesize them, which is more or less a good definition of a true pop celebrity. Morrissey's politics, transmitted in song or not, are indeed fascinating and essential to his work. But his political statements, as potent as they may be, have always been problems that defy solutions. When he sounds most like he's down here with us, talking about our world, he is really speaking from the clouds of pop stardom. I think you have to accept his politics as theater and nothing more.
It may seem that I'm agreeing with White, who after all is saying, viz. the "Smash Bush" photo, that his simple politics aren't as simple as they seem. I'm saying that in fact the contradictions run deeper than White sees, their tensions much hotter, and that without recognizing them no deeper appreciation of Morrissey is possible. This is a man who admitted to wearing leather to an interviewer shortly after "Meat Is Murder" was released, and when confronted he simply owned up and left it at that. Calling him "sly" misses the point; figuring out how he can hold both positions in good faith is why Morrissey is fascinating and endlessly listenable.
And as always, the answer, as I suggested above, remains the obvious: lay down thy Internet and groove.
"Morrissey's Politics" is weak. It proves yet again that the only positive articles we get from critics are either those from fawning, unabashed fans of Morrissey (like Douglas Coupland or Mark Spitz) or those who haven't been around long enough to understand his music. In either case, as someone in this thread has already remarked, the writers manage to say very little.
Now, I'm not claiming I've the market cornered on understanding Morrissey or his politics. Almond is entitled to his interpretations. There isn't much he writes about "Ringleader Of The Tormentors" that screams incompetence or stupidity. Some of his remarks are insightful.
However, he lost me completely with his musings on the "Smash Bush" photo.
I hate to break it to Almond, but "Smash Bush" really means what it seems to mean. Not only that, but Morrissey posing next to these words spraypainted on a wall suits Morrissey's "method" to a T. I'm amazed that a writer can throw together a piece on Morrissey and fail to understand that-- politically, at any rate-- Morrissey's bread and butter is shock slogans like that. I seem to recall a rather blunt proclamation somewhere along the lines of...ah yes, "Meat Is Murder", an album still available in the shops I'm told.
Of course, one needn't go back to 1985. One can refer to Morrissey's open hostility toward Bush (widely reported everywhere in the world except Slate, apparently), calling him a terrorist on one occasion or wishing he had died instead of Reagan on another.
Like most critics who ruminate on the depths of Morrissey's music, White is quick to pay tribute to his cleverness, and like most critics he's helpless before it. He can write, "Morrissey's perspicacity fits the mood through his indulgence of complex, contradictory feelings", which is fine and seems true, but then he scampers out of the warm bed of generalizations for frigid clunkers like his songs being "gender-confounding" ("Girlfriend In A Coma"? How so? Why not "Sheila Take A Bow" among 40 others?) and plain nonsense like "obstreperousness of his rhyming social critiques" (try that line at a party some time). Before long we're treated to the white flag of desperation ("the most influential pop artist of the last 20 years") and the knowing nod-- you know, for the fans-- about Morrissey's most oft-talked about and least understood literary passion ("Wildean wit").
In the end White's piece is just another game of Pin The Soundbite On The Ironist, and like all other comers he fails. I love reading rock critics like White precisely for their hazy understanding of Morrissey. It's a satisfying reminder that Morrissey taps a stream of pop consciousness that flows beneath the idiotic and the sophisticated alike (see also: Douglas Coupland's embarrassing non-interview or Will Self's review of the Palace show). His music is critic-proof. White and his cohort aren't totally wrong in any of their pieces, it's just that they only grasp one small portion of his art. To get an accurate picture of Morrissey you'd have to gather together each and every review or think-piece written about Morrissey or The Smiths, painstakingly piece them together into a single gigantic text, and maybe then you'd have a solid critical portrait of Morrissey. Much easier to put needle to vinyl and simply listen.
Anyhow, to be more specific, White is correct in locating Morrissey's greatness in his use of conflicting emotions. As I have written before (on the old board, sniff), I think Morrissey's writing comes from a basic emotional response to the world, contained perfectly in the lines from "The Boy With The Thorn In His Side": "Behind the hatred there lies/A murderous desire/For love". He doesn't sing about love and hate, but rather the tension between the two within a single heart. This is unique in pop music because he is the first major pop icon who claims to hate as strongly as he loves. He affirms joy (Smiths records particularly, aided considerably by Johnny Marr) yet doesn't avoid hatred (or sorrow, illness, and so on). Morrissey's capacity for love is great because his capacity for hatred is just as intense, which is why the slogan "Viva Hate" is really his variation on Lennon's endless blather about love-- and a far more powerful one for those of us for whom, thanks to the Baby Boomers, the ideals of the Sixties are dead. Often this comes out in songs about violence, Morrissey's exploration of the other side of romantic longing ("murderous desire")-- what White sees in his paeans to criminals and outcasts.
As artful and richly ambiguous as Morrissey's writing is, though, most of his delicately-conceived, ironical lyrics hover around the central tension between larger unironical extremes. These polarities don't negate each other or anything in between them, and only by taking them into account on their own terms can one approach an understanding of Morrissey's politics. What White misses is that when Morrissey appears to be most "sly" or ironical, he's being serious, and vice versa.
His extremist statements are thus exactly what they appear to be. If he doesn't toss out "facile panderings" it's because his agitprop makes no pretense of being anything but a potted plant crashing down on your head. He isn't Bono or Green Day because he never tries to sound reasonable or responsible. In fact, his thinking-- on the surface, anyway-- is much cruder. White writes that "climbing aboard the impeachment train would be too obvious for a pop star this sly", but only because Morrissey would send him without trial to the guillotine. We are told Morrissey's music "provok[es] his audience to reflect upon both hero worship and politician-bashing as fickle pursuits", but I guess he missed Morrissey's ABB-style endorsement of John Kerry in 2004. And we all know about his bald and unflappable support for questionable animal rights groups.
Yet, if these unironic statements are exactly what they appear to be in themselves, they exist in a larger context of irony. You have extremes in Morrissey's music which take on different values depending on the mode Morrissey's using at any given moment. We are left with a personality made up of disparate elements that obstinately resist our attempts to synthesize them, which is more or less a good definition of a true pop celebrity. Morrissey's politics, transmitted in song or not, are indeed fascinating and essential to his work. But his political statements, as potent as they may be, have always been problems that defy solutions. When he sounds most like he's down here with us, talking about our world, he is really speaking from the clouds of pop stardom. I think you have to accept his politics as theater and nothing more.
It may seem that I'm agreeing with White, who after all is saying, viz. the "Smash Bush" photo, that his simple politics aren't as simple as they seem. I'm saying that in fact the contradictions run deeper than White sees, their tensions much hotter, and that without recognizing them no deeper appreciation of Morrissey is possible. This is a man who admitted to wearing leather to an interviewer shortly after "Meat Is Murder" was released, and when confronted he simply owned up and left it at that. Calling him "sly" misses the point; figuring out how he can hold both positions in good faith is why Morrissey is fascinating and endlessly listenable.
And as always, the answer, as I suggested above, remains the obvious: lay down thy Internet and groove.
Similar threads
