The Smiths - are they overrated or not?

Thank God!


But seriously that's exactly what I'm talking about when I mention indie and Smiths fans snobish elitism. Their music ideology is totally untolerant to anything outside. Kind of a musical Taleban if you ask me.

 

I am a huge Smiths fan but I don't read Morrissey's website and his interviews because I disagree with most of what he says. But when I play my CDs I listen to music not to "music ideology" and to be honest Morrissey's lyrics are very clever and the Smiths musical output is of the highest standard.

Someone can be a dick and an artist at the same time. I think Morrissey is one of them. When I listen to the Smiths I don't need to think about what the judge told Morrissey in court in the case against Mike Joyce.

 

I actually always read Mozza's interviews with interest. The man is smart, has a great humour and totally outspoken. As much as I disagree with many of his views (see above). A lot of my favourite musicians are equal arseholes, I have no problem with that. But the Taliban-like stance of his fans and worshippers towards "infidel" music is what makes me puke.

 

Despite my having gone to college back in 1987-91, I only got into the Smiths a good 10 years later. "How Soon is Now" is probably the only Smiths song I knew before about 1999, when I got the Smiths "Singles" comp.

Then, on a lark, I went to see Morrissey in concert around 2007, and I was totally blown away (one of the best concerts I've ever seen, and I was only a casual fan going in to it). I saw him again in 2009, and he was equally amazing. I now have his entire recent solo output - everything since his comeback in 2004.

I wouldn't say The Smiths are overrated at all. In fact, if anything, I kind of think they're a little underrated -- in that NONE of the circles I traveled in ever sent me in that direction until YEARS (literally decades) after this material first came out. Discovering The Smiths so many years after the fact has been a real delight. I'm actually kind of surprised more people aren't more into them (and Morrissey) than they are.

That said, while I understand his "true Fans" are really somewhat 'over the top', I have to say I've never encountered any of them in any context (on-line or IRL). Consequently, they don't bug me at all - because they pretty much don't exist to me. Are The Smiths / is Morrissey overrated to them?? Sure. But they don't define the totality of conventional wisdom (not by a long-shot).

 

Anton,
Morrissey being portraited as Taleban is very strange to me.

First, I have been (as part of the Dutch army) in Afghanistan and have been witness of some of their murders, like the one of a child. I don't like Taleban views, for that reason, to be compared to Morrissey's social, political or musical ideas. As far I know, he has never killed women or opponents.

Second, when perceiving Morrissey as someone not open for other kinds of music than indie (whatever that may be), that's something which is not based on reality. He is fan of total different kinds of music. What do you think of his love for female pop icons? (for him reason enough to help singers like Sandie Shaw, Cilla Black and Nancy Sinatra in their musical career)

 

Definitely not overrated. They had a distinct sound and Morrissey was a true original.

 

Peter Buck is basically a rhythm player. Johnny Marr is much more than that.

 

That Sandie Shaw album "Hello Angel" is unbelievably good. I wish she'd done more with them.

 

I'm sort of a recent fan of The Smiths. They weren't well known in my neck of the woods, but I was always aware of them. I picked up their "Singles" compilation several years ago; I think it's great! Johnny Marr is a really good guitar player.

 

No. One of the top (very few) bands of the 80s.

 

You got me all wrong. I didn't compare Morrissey to Taleban (not in my wildest nightmares), but rather called indie purists among Smiths fans and worshippers Musical Taleban. Certainly not to be taken at face value. If it's offensive to you or anybody I apologize. I know that Moz himself has a very broad and eclectic taste.

P.S. My cousin served in Afganistan in the early 80's and witnessed the same stuff as you did before these guys were even called Taleban.

 

Ah, but how about during those all-important teen years? Most of us have a Great Moment Of Lonesome Tragedy or two then (that sounds like a Louvin Bros album title). But then, I don't suppose there were many clubs for you to strike out at in Moscow during the '80s, eh?

 

There were clubs and discos even then. But it was at-home parties which were the real deal. In terms of scoring certainly... Of course I had my share of teenage rejected love drama but I didn't even know who The Smiths were back then!

 

No. In my opinion they really were a special band. The combination of Marr & Morrissey really did produce magic. The kind of magic neither of them ever produced after the Smiths, although I do like Morrissey's solo work. Most of my friends had never heard of the Smiths before I mentioned them, which makes me consider them somewhat underrated in this day & age.

In regards to snobish Smiths fans... I believe all bands have their intolerant raving fan-boys, simple as that.

Personally, I would put Marr & Morrissey in the same leaugue as Lennon & McCartney and Richard & Jagger. But that's me.

 

Why does it matter so much, though? This is something that you've brought up in a lot of your threads.

I mean, aren't Beatles fans so much worse?

 

Not nearly. Even the most fanatical Beatles fans don't consider the other 60's music utter garbage which The Beatles were destined to save the world from.

 

Anyways, I think the Smiths are a lot like Joy Division to me... I like them a lot, but I'm sick of hearing them or about them. Special occasions only.

 

one of those groups that never clicked with me - it was the vocals and the uninspiring instrumentation. Each to their own eh?

 

So would I, but that has as much to do with the fact that I don't put Lennon & MacCartney and Richards & Jagger in quite THAT kind of league to begin with.

I admit the Beatles and Stones were the best of the best of their day. But circumstances were different then (more of a collective national consciousness about music, for one, even through the 70's run of the Stones), and that contributes mightily to the pedestal they're both so rightly put on. My issue is that the height of that pedestal (relative to a number of their peers) is disproportionately much higher than it should be.

Morrissey & Marr were damn good writers (and still are, if not together). I'm not a 'fanatic' either, I've only ever owned a little more than half the Smiths catalog, the Rhino Morrissey comp, and all of Morrissey's last four albums since 2004 (including the b-sides comp). I may get more eventually, not because I'm a fanatic, but because I'm slowly and rather recently discovering they were really damn good.

 

Absolutely to each their own. Who knows what they would have put out if they went on, but I find their short catalog full of entertaining music.
The Marr Morrissey combination has a magic appeal. Heart wrenching songs like Well I Wonder, Back The Old House won me over....and that's just the start.
The sarcasm... Barbarism Begins at Home, Girlfriend in a Coma etc priceless...& Andy Rourke's playing just makes me smile.

 

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't like both, but how many Iron Maiden fans would consider listening to The Smiths and vice versa? Not too many I'd think. Personally I have zero interest in heavy metal... even a hard rock band such as Led Zeppelin is a guilty pleasure for me. My reasons parallel Morrissey's statement in many ways.

I can enjoy a good action film - it doesn't always have to be thought-provoking Indie - and I enjoy good fun in music. It's hard for me to articulate my love of the Ramones and my hatred of Metal, but my perspective is cast in stone.

 

Just to put the disparity between their UK and US popularity in perspective; their four studio albums went to #2, #1, #2 and #2 in the UK. In the US they charted at #115, #110, #70 and #55. Their popularity was growing, but they never cracked the Top 40.

Also, their singles rarely cracked the mainstream Top Ten in England. The 1992 re-release of This Charming Man got to #8, their highest Singles Chart position (the original release of that single peaked at #25). Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now and Sheila Take a Bow both got to #10 on the UK Charts, but all their other singles charted lower than that.

 

I think their approaches are comparable. They're both composers first, coming up with the chord-patterns and song structures. Of course REM is a collaborative band and Marr is given full credit for the music in The Smiths. They had a more "pop" aesthetic so there's often more going on melodically in the trio's basic tracks than with REM - a lot of Smiths songs jump around quite a bit.

Judging from his comments in the latest MOJO article Marr sees his legacy and the legacy of The Smiths in counterpoint to Buck and REM.

 

saviours of 80's rock and gods of British music, definitely!

 

Quotes like that just make me laugh because, while I have loved the Smiths for over two decades, I also love Iron Maiden and quite a bit of metal. I think at the end of the day, you just can't expect your favorite artists' tastes to mirror your own, or be surprised when they don't. I remember an article from the 80s in which Morrissey ripped into the Cocteau Twins, and I adore the Cocteau Twins as much as the Smiths. I just find those things amusing. I think you just have to approach Morrissey as a whiny old crank who likes to say things to get a reaction out of people; not take him so seriously, but at the same time, be happy you don't have to hang out with the guy or anything. It's easy enough for me to tune that out and just focus on the music.

In the early 90s, Morrissey was quoted as saying something like "rave is the refuge for the mentally deficient," which at the time pissed a lot of people off. Again, (although admittedly not a fan of rave myself) I just thought it was amusing.