Morrissey: Sunny





Being a Smiths fan in the 80s meant learning to accept the occasional disappointment. There was none greater than hearing their debut album for the first time.[Read the whole article]
Those of us who'd fallen in love with their first three singles, and had heard the legendary the Jensen and Peel sessions, were expecting nothing less than brilliance.
But John Porter's poppadom-flat production crushed the life out of their best songs. And only The Smiths could have been so wilful as to leave even better songs off that album (This Charming Man, Back To The Old House).
Meat Is Murder repeated the same tragedy, this time reduced to farce. You should have heard the almost holy hoedown that was Barbarism ... when it was played live. And where was Please, Please, Please?
I hardly ever play those first two Smiths' albums now. But I still love Hatful Of Hollow, The World Won't Listen and Louder Than Bombs - their de facto greatest hits.
The Queen Is Dead also stays stuck to the shelf. The problem is isn't that it's bad. In fact, it's just far too good, far too close to home and near the bone, flipping me right back to being 16 and suicidal. There are too many bad memories there.
The Smiths album I keep returning to, though, is Strangeways, Here We Come, 20 years old today. It's very much Johnny Marr's record - a deliberate attempt to escape the "jangling" indie band albatross round his pretty white neck. Tellingly, there are no guitars on the opener, A Rush And A Push. Elsewhere Johnny laid on synths and saxophones. Musically, it's their most brilliantly realised piece and expansive of work. It just flows.
Labels: mp3, smiths, The Guardian

Here's a good piece from the Guardian about musical partnerships:The announcement last week that Jimmy Page and Robert Plant had decided to reform Led Zeppelin for One Night Only, despite years of simmering resentment and the suggestion that hell would have to freeze over before they once more bestrode the stage like corkscrew-haired colossi, got me wondering: is rock'n'roll really just a history of men's love affairs with their other halves - their male partners in the band? And, without those love-hate relationships and the desire, in US shrink parlance, to complete unfinished emotional business, would rock'n'roll have ever sounded the same?[Read the whole article]
Most of the biggest bands ever have been dependent on a co-dependency, the sort that makes the most dysfunctional marriage look healthy and sane. From the hyphenated to the ampersandy, there have been Page and Plant, Lennon and McCartney, Jagger and Richards, Morrissey/Marr, Strummer/Jones and Wilson/Love... Think of a great band and it usually contains two warring partners who might otherwise, at least if Freud had his way, be copulating wildly on the studio floor; think of an all-time classic rock song and it's more likely than not the result of friction between two rampaging egos who are secretly vying for each other's love.
And it's still going on: in the 90s, Suede's Brett Anderson and Bernard Butler loathed each other with a vengeance, publicly so, making their recent reunion all the more weird ("Actually, not that weird." - Anderson and Butler's accountants), while Carl Barat and Pete Doherty's entire output as the Libertines would appear to be based on unresolved issues between them, blurring the line between creative and sexual tension. The rivalry that seems to spur on the Gallagher brothers is, of course, something else entirely, but even there the conflict between two artistic (term used advisedly) individuals would appear to be the motor driving the band.

From the Guardian: Labels: smiths