morrissey = the new david byrne
Sep. 21st, 2006 03:21 pmok usually when i do this kind of thing i frame the question fast and badly (or i wd never frame it at all) and
koganbot becomes testy towards my fuzziness
but here is MY "explanation" of morrissey = he brought something to the boywing of britrock = called CAMP -- as in polari, as in an angry bitchy code against the UNSTYLISH USELESSNESS of the STRAIGHTS -- except that, since he wz militantly coy abt his sexuality (korrektly, as "coming out" would have stripped a powerful ambiguity out of what he wz doin), his camp was developed as a kind of MALE HET camp...
ANYWAY -- i have always bin ambivalent abt camp as an attitude (it's quickwitted and funny but it's also a compensatory attitude adopted by those who take themselves to be victims and are sniping secretly back...)
and given the shifts since the mid-80s in fashions in sexuality and within sexuality blah blah, i think morrissey's STYLE (sex! yes! but not for me...) reveals itself as a lot more reactionary a-and larkinesque than it did at the time
(again i feel i have not got at the nubbin of what i'm on about but have at it anyway)
but here is MY "explanation" of morrissey = he brought something to the boywing of britrock = called CAMP -- as in polari, as in an angry bitchy code against the UNSTYLISH USELESSNESS of the STRAIGHTS -- except that, since he wz militantly coy abt his sexuality (korrektly, as "coming out" would have stripped a powerful ambiguity out of what he wz doin), his camp was developed as a kind of MALE HET camp...
ANYWAY -- i have always bin ambivalent abt camp as an attitude (it's quickwitted and funny but it's also a compensatory attitude adopted by those who take themselves to be victims and are sniping secretly back...)
and given the shifts since the mid-80s in fashions in sexuality and within sexuality blah blah, i think morrissey's STYLE (sex! yes! but not for me...) reveals itself as a lot more reactionary a-and larkinesque than it did at the time
(again i feel i have not got at the nubbin of what i'm on about but have at it anyway)
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:27 am (UTC)I am really really really REALLY REALLY REALLY not down with het men being camp. It never transcends the pantomime level of affecation, and in my experience most het blokes who've dabbled in androgyny and camp seem to have used it as an excuse to be even more massive misogynists than other men. There's also this element of "I am too ugly and weird to get girls so...I know! I will pretend that I don't want girls!" to it, except they don't want boys either, and it's just so self-deluding and self-denying and wrong-headed. There is also, you know, get yr fucking grubby indie hands off OUR dressing-up clothes, from the gay perspective.
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:41 am (UTC)(also: in the bi male haha "community", esp.of a certain age -- mine -- there are a LOT of very unconfident how you say "social retards" who were actually not bi at all but full-on gay, except really alienated from the enforced manners of the clone-style of the day and unhappy that they didn't accord with the brazen fronting stereotype)
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:45 am (UTC)this is a list of contradictions btw, not a series of points towards an argument
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:50 am (UTC)"Girls like the Smiths" = "girls have terrible terrible taste in men"! It is the same thing as girls nowadays going crazy for Bright Eyes or someone.
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:58 am (UTC)have you ever read dan rebello's "1956 and all that"? it's about the kitchen sink moment in theatre esp., and how it swept in after noel coward and "changed everything" --- i think it's REALLY REALLY fascinating on the pro and con of these various issues
it even sort of jigsaws in w.the brady-hindley stuff -- maybe i should write something abt it one day
:(
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:54 am (UTC)obv xhuxk's eternal tuff question "YES BUT HOW DOES THIS MAKE THEM ROCK HARDER" still obtains, but i think it goes some way to explaining the fondness many of us have for them
(worth noting maybe: as of 1986 neither psb or morrissey were OUT, and PSB were getting a LOT of flak for it from the activists) (haha not so much morrissey as there was a "you can keep him" sentiment possibly!)
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:57 am (UTC)Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 12:00 pm (UTC)Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 12:05 pm (UTC)i have not read that book but it looks interesting!
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 12:11 pm (UTC)Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 12:14 pm (UTC)Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:43 am (UTC)But in general the point is the if you buy into certain ideas of social acceptability, non-retardation, attractiveness, cool, glamour etc. you may well react negatively to people who don't fit those ideas REPEATEDLY and LOUDLY mocking or - worse! - claiming them. It's like how one deep root of slim people's dislike of fat people is the fact that the slim people have often had to work quite hard to be that way and so people flaunting their obvious lack of this body-work-ethic is in some way mocking.
"Your value system is kind of silly" is and always has/will be a devastating critique IF you can do it convincingly and from a position of strength.
i.e. only insecure people hated the Smiths!
(except much as I would have loved this analysis as a Smiths fan and wanted to believe it it wasn't entirely true. There was something genuinely quite annoying about Morrissey in particular - crystallised by the "pinched" comment above I think. The value system he proposed wasnt a glorious polysexual widening of everything but something far creepier and more limited.)
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:45 am (UTC)*erm, ok, hug**
**google image search "Morrissey Wolverhampton 1989" if you dare; I do not.
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 11:55 am (UTC)Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 12:04 pm (UTC)That said there's also a big self-mocking element (or there was back then more so) and some of the stuff the Smiths sang to - shyness for instance - is not an exclusively adolescent condition.
The brand of angsty music you mention I tend to find insufferably hectoring so maybe there's a big gulf of taste too!
Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 12:09 pm (UTC)Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 03:50 pm (UTC)Re: REPOSTED FROM ORIGINAL PAZZ & JOP THREAD
Date: 2006-09-22 12:04 pm (UTC)well, there's a whole strand about murderers, paedos, perves -- actual real sexual outcasts and pathologues (is that a word): "girlfriend in a coma i know i know, it's really serious"
but what i found odd was that this strand seemed to be a kind of dogwhistle that half the fans were ENTIRELY MISSING, which i, a merely enquiring passerby, was picking up loud and clear