|
When you
come to interview a man who personifies the term "English" in the way
that (Stephen) [sic] Morrissey of the Smiths does, it's no surprise
that tea is served early in the proceedings.
"You do take milk, I presume?" inquires Morrissey ("No one
has called me Stephen for a very long time."). And if
you do take sugar, I'm afraid you'll have to leave the room." Couldn't
I sneak a couple of hits while you avert your eyes, I wonder.
"I spend most of my life averting my eyes," intones Morrissey,
solemnly, as the twinkle in his own negates the seriousness of the moment.
It's a sort of test. I think I passed.
It's this kind of quirky, off-beat Englishness that Morrissey brings
to life in the Smiths that has made them a massive world-wide success,
with hit singles in every country except the U.S.A. Why don't the Smiths
have hit singles in America? Because their record company doesn't release
their singles in America. But, hopefully, all that is about to change.
Some time ago, American music lovers switched on to Morrissey's unique
diary style, which he uses to chronicle the angst of every world citizen.
But it's only recently that Sire, the Smiths' American record label,
has tuned into the potential mega-units the band can sell in that country
- based on the Rough Trade singles from Britain that move so well in
U.S. import stores. Sire has released the double album Louder Than
Bombs in an effort to seep up these consistently healthy import
sales. Meanwhile, the Smiths are in a British studio where their next
vinyl opus is taking shape. For this release, they're leaving Rough
Trade for Britain's EMI... and the considerable benefits of major label
attention, not the least of which is an advance of between two and six
million dollars, depending on which story you believe.
The debate concerning the ethics of big record labels swallowing the
offspring of the independent labels in the U.K. is far too involved
(to say nothing of being utterly pointless) to sidetrack Morrissey as
we sip our tea in the elegantly appointed lounge of the studio where
the Smiths are recording. Still, with a major label behind them in Britain
and the band hopefully about to become an American hit singles
band, Morrissey appears to have watched the dictation of what President
Reagan would call "market forces" with some amusement.
"There is a great bulk of unreleased Smith material
which has been consistently rejected by our record company in America,"
he says. "They've released the studio albums, but not the Hatful
Of Hollow collection. I think if they had released singles simultaneously
in America and the U.K., the picture could have been a lot rosier."
That may be, but even as an "import" attraction, the Smiths' picture
is far from fuzzy in America. And Morrissey knows this well.
"It never ceases to amaze me how Smiths fans in America feverishly
collect everything they can get their hands on. They have to wait. They
have to queue up. They have to sell their mothers - but they do it."
You'd think that such rabid American fandom would have meant American
release from single one onwards.
"This keeps me awake every night of the week," Morrissey reckons
with that earnest expression that once again makes me wonder just how
seriously he means it. "The records were sold by Rough Trade in America.
Sire didn't organize distribution. They probably didn't even know it
was going on. They do now, though. Hence, the release of 'Louder
Than Bombs'."
Doesn't that make you angry?
"Not angry, no. I think the record company was short-sighted. The
Smiths could have had a hit single in the U.S. by now. I find it very
hard to believe that they continually checked the material, and said,
'No, that's not right.' It's hard to believe that 'How Soon Is Now'
was not a hit. I thought that was the one - and there
have been others. I think the record company's atitude was the Smiths
are a cast-iron immovable albums band, and that's how they'll
stay, and that's how they'll grow. I think that's a shame. I like singles.
We've had hit singles in every country in the world, except the U.S.,
where we have a massive following. It's confusing."
True, it is confusing. In certain areas, the Smiths are a huge
concert attraction, often outselling acts with major action in the American
charts. Would Morrissey care to name a few names here?
"Well, I can, but I don't want to sound bitter or twisted. An example
might be A-ha, whom I happen to like a great deal. On the last tour,
we were doing two shows, as they were cancelling their one show because
they couldn't fill the auditorium. And yet a look at the charts showed
them with a single at number two and an album at number nine."
So it would seem that all that's missing for the Smiths in America are
a few hit singles, such as a few of the cuts that can be pulled off
'Louder Than Bombs'. Surely, that must be the idea?
"In a sane world, yes. But I wouldn't like to speak for record companies."
That is Morrissey's closing remark on the subject, delivered, as
usual, with a solemn tone and twinkling eye.
Like the person in one of his best
songs, Morrissey is a veritable "charming man," a refreshing discovery
after the misconceptions delivered by certain music writers who've crossed
his path. It's not that he's difficult, simply that Morrissey doesn't
enjoy people who aren't genuinely interested in the Smiths and their
music. Inquiring, as one journalist did, why he chose to use a picture
of Elvis Costello (rather than Presley) on a record sleeve,
or wondering what happened to the flowers he used to distribute at early
gigs, are guaranteed to turn him from a warm and articulate conversationalist
into a frosty mannequin incapable of saying anything but "Ummm," "Aaaaah"
and "Maybe." The Smiths are quite fortunate in having him as spokesman,
while tuneSmith Johnny Marr - who, as we speak, is busy recording a
new song in the depths of the building - is equally able to turn out
a witty phrase and a thoughtful observation. But a media man, Morrissey
is not.
"And happy to not be so!" he affirms with a laugh. "I was
starting to become one around 1984 when I would do anything
to gain some ground for the Smiths. I did hundreds of interviews then,
but I soon decided that wasn't the way I wanted to live my life."
Adjustments followed. Morrissey now carefully chooses his interviews.
And the visual side of the Smiths is an area he is happy to ignore.
Indeed, he takes pains to ensure that it exists as little as possible.
Photographs are carefully worked out, and off-the-cuff snap situations
are out of the question. Morrissey is not a man to be caught unaware.
This also insures that the Smiths delete that most major of all '80's
rock 'n' roll promotional devices: that is, the Smiths won't (gasp!)
make videos.
"I don't even use the word 'video,'" he confirms with an expression
that makes me wonder if he's found a cigarette butt in the bottom of
his tea cup. "Sometimes it will slip out, but I prefer to say 'film'
or 'promotional device.' Anything we've done has been under extreme
pressure from Rough Trade when they've been desperate to hand something
to Germany or Holland. I liked the film for 'Panic' that was made by
Derek Jarman. It had a nice intensity about it. But the others... I
wake up in the middle of the night biting my pillow in frustration at
their very existence."
Can this be? A band on the threshold of major media coverage in America
- the mighty promotional machine poised and ready for action - and this
Smiths fella's trying to say they won't be doing any videos? He must
be kidding. People expect videos in 1987!
"Well, they shouldn't" is Morrissey's disarmingly simple solution
to an MTV programmer's worst nightmare.
"It's obvious that video is never going to work for the Smiths. I
totally and utterly despise video, more now than I ever did. It's totally
vacuous and uninteresting. I love music. We all do, and we
listen to it constantly. But whenever I see a group I like in a film,
I always end up thinking, 'Such a shame, they look so silly...'"
Actually, Morrissey has a point. I saw the vid... uh, promotional item
for an early Smiths' release, and he's quite right. It'll never work
for the Smiths.
But are they worried? Of course not. We're talking about a band that
made huge inroads into the American national consciousness without radio
play - a feat which made a lack of MTV coverage seem like an oil leak
in J.R. Ewing's Cadillac. Morrissey pours more tea, settles back, and
explains.
"We did have the support of the college radio stations for a while,
but I've never, ever heard the Smiths on a network station
- and I've been to America many, many times. I have heard our
records on daytime television soap operas during two separate occasions.
Maybe that is more important (in America). I don't know.
As a result, we were very surprised at the live reaction we got the
first time we toured the States in 1985. We were amazed at the size
of the venues we could play. And when we came back in 1986, we were
doing two nights in some venues that we considered very large,
10 to 15 thousand people."
By British standards, that is large. In the U.K., a top chart
act will be delighted to fill an average concert venue that holds two-and-a-half
thousand people. Mega-stars will sigh with relief if "Sold Out" signs
adorn a 12,000 seat hall. This makes the Smiths very big cheese, indeed,
a fact that is studiously ignored by the British music press who prefer
to debate the ethics of leaving a street-credible independent label
for the evil capitalist advances of a major deal. Meanwhile, the Smiths
repeat their success formula from the U.K., across the pond in the States:
heavy on the worthwhile, limited radio exposure; laid-back on the heavyweight
press analysis. Oh, yeah, and a live reaction that knocks spots off
of most minstrels tapping out a tune these days.
"The atmosphere has been frighteningly hysterical sometimes,"
Morrissey ruefully recalls. "There have been riots. I've been dragged
into orchestra pits and the stage set has been destroyed. And that was
on our first American tour! I think it's just people having a good time,
and they've never intended any serious harm. We've broken through in
America with records and radio sessions the same way we did in England.
People hear our music before they read any blurb in the music press,
so it's just people reacting to our records. It's obvious that the Smiths
could never be promoted in that typical slaggy way."
Riots? Morrissey being manhandled by rabid Smithies? As someone who
saw them on their first British tour, watching Morrissey handout flowers
from a three-foot high stage to rows of static, open-mouthed believers,
I can only wonder and shift my imagination into overdrive.
Of course, that was then, but this is now. There have been riots in
England, too. One tabloid scandal sheet wanted to underline the faint
but persistent buzz of scandal that follows Morrissey's more pugnant
views by insisting that the crowd who yanked him offstage at one concert
were outraged supporters of the Royal Family who found themselves unable
to cope with the presence of a man who'd have the audacity to name an
LP The Queen Is Dead.
Morrissey lends no credence to that sort of hysterical crap by discussing
it at length, but it must point to the possibility that, somewhere along
the way, the Moral Majority and PMRC will probably be sticking their
septic noses into a Smiths' lyric sheet. Morrissey isn't worried.
"It could get me into trouble. No doubt there is someone out there
waiting for the Smiths to blow into their town. I've never
been aware that any of my lyrics are controversial. But in the morbidly
barren world of pop music, they tend to stick out, so journalists get
excited and want to turn what is essentially a statement into a campaign.
A journalist's life must be so mundane - think about the people you
have to interview - so when I come along with something mildly pointed,
it becomes a movement. Which it was never meant to be, and, in fact,
never was."
Thought for the day: what will those same journalists make of an album
title like 'Louder Than Bombs'? Or even the Smiths next studio
LP, which I'm reliably informed will be called Strangeways, Here
We Come? Well, be the first on your block with at least part of
the scam. When the local stiffneck starts foaming at the mouth over
yet another subversive pop act, you can coolly clue in that honcho that
"Strangeways" is the name of a large prison in the Smiths' hometown
of Manchester, England. Any other interpretation is left up to the individual.
That should give you a good 10 points on the underdog-music-genius justification
scale. But if the gates of commercial success really open the way I
believe they will, you won't need to stick out your neck at all. The
Smiths will be a household name, no matter what they call the
next record.
Of course, it's just my neck that's being stuck out here. I ask Morrissey
to join me on a projected ego trip, fueled by the satisfaction of major
talent realized at long last. He simply smiles and is called away to
add some vocals to a new track. Somewhere down the hall, the Smiths'
genius rolls on and on.
I'm left to smile and collect the tea cups of this charming man.

This
article was originally published in the July, 1987 issue of Creem
magazine. Reprinted without permission for personal use only.
|