Dennis Herring (producer) / Twitter - Extraordinary story about the Smiths' songwriting and recording

This is something I've never heard before. The story is told on Twitter by Dennis Herring, who produced Modest Mouse.

 

[Vegan. Cro. Spirit. 444]

hello hi hello
hello hello hello
{next line}
hi hello hi

a personal
sucky masterpiece

 

[Anonymous]

Cool story, Tom comes across as a complete tool with his commentary though.

Yeah we have this going both ways. Panic is a T rex song with Morrissey's lyrics and melody that is great, while Bryan Ferry's "The Right Stuff" is a Smiths instrumental made completely unremarkable by some other singer. And then there is the matter of Morrissey and Marr's solo output...

Johnny is a great guitarist but would be nothing without Morrissey

But Morrissey has created lots of great songs in his solo career, despite the fact that the musical backing is generally (always?) average/unremarkable. Marr has not come up with any great songs post-Smiths. The reason is simple. Because the song is not the music. The song is the vocal melody/lyric. Marr is barely a singer, and has no great gift for vocal melodic phrasing, therefore he create no memorable vocal tunes and his lyrics are terrible.

'First of the Gang to Die' didn't need a great backing track to be a great song. The song is Morrissey's vocal and lyric. No matter how great Marr's backing tracks are these days, they're never going to become great songs.

But then we come to the matter of just how great Marr's backing tracks are, post-Smiths, and why they never seem to have come close to rivalling the likes of the music for 'How Soon Is Now' and 'William, It Was Really Nothing' or 'This Charming Man'. Answer - because Rourke and/or Porter weren't involved. And, of course, some (not all) of Marr's simpler Smiths-era backing tracks weren't all that spectacular, it's just that Morrissey elevated the music into very good or great songs (e.g. 'Unloveable', 'There Is A Light That Never Goes Out', 'Vicar In a Tutu', 'A Rush and a Push and the Land Is Ours').

 

[Bizarro]

Seems that Dennis should maybe have been Christened "Red" instead.

 

[Vegan Cro Spirit .888]

But Morrissey has created lots of great songs in his solo career, despite the fact that the musical backing is generally (always?) average/unremarkable. Marr has not come up with any great songs post-Smiths. The reason is simple. Because the song is not the music. The song is the vocal melody/lyric. Marr is barely a singer, and has no great gift for vocal melodic phrasing, therefore he create no memorable vocal tunes and his lyrics are terrible.

'First of the Gang to Die' didn't need a great backing track to be a great song. The song is Morrissey's vocal and lyric. No matter how great Marr's backing tracks are these days, they're never going to become great songs.

But then we come to the matter of just how great Marr's backing tracks are, post-Smiths, and why they never seem to have come close to rivalling the likes of the music for 'How Soon Is Now' and 'William, It Was Really Nothing' or 'This Charming Man'. Answer - because Rourke and/or Porter weren't involved. And, of course, some (not all) of Marr's simpler Smiths-era backing tracks weren't all that spectacular, it's just that Morrissey elevated the music into very good or great songs (e.g. 'Unloveable', 'There Is A Light That Never Goes Out', 'Vicar In a Tutu', 'A Rush and a Push and the Land Is Ours').

EXACTLY! CORRECT! dumb little backing has always sucked, correct
Moz rescued with his superb songwriting, but now that Moz gave him hello hi goodbye heave ho
his so called backing tracks 100% sucks
very insightful and commendable observation

 

[Anonymous]

That wouldn't be an accurate credit, as 'vocals' simply suggests 'singing' whereas was creating the vocal melody - and it's the vocal melody that is a song's 'tune'; also, generally speaking, Rourke created his own basslines, as far as we know, and as they were often a definitive part of the arrangement, he deserves a co-credit for the music; and then of course John Porter - even Marr acknowledges that Porter had a creative hand in the composition of the backing music he produced, particularly 'How Soon Is Now'.

Are you Andy Rourke by any chance?

 

[Carritt72]

This is something I've never heard before. The story is told on Twitter by Dennis Herring, who produced Modest Mouse.

View attachment 73431View attachment 73432View attachment 73433View attachment 73434

Jesus wept..someone from the production team of alt.rockers Modest Mouse comes out with something nearly 34 years after the split. Genius songwriting doesn’t come easy. We’ve known for decades the songwriting dynamic between Morrissey and Marr was far from typical. Do people really think both songwriters would settle for 2nd best? Essentially, we all know from reading countless interviews, books by Simon Goddard etc that Morrissey is an extra instrument. His unconventional phrasing and placement of lyrics in less obvious places is well known. Do people really think a 5 year period of creativity (almost unsurpassed bar The Beatles and The Jam) came easy? Friction and discord were inevitable. 5 years, 70 odd songs, less than a handful of duffers and some musical no mark is picking shit out of pepper. Jog on.
the last thing I will say is I always find it odd the Johnny Marr cuts his time in Modest Mouse as musically fulfilling and feeling likes gang mentality. Now, far be or from me to suggest he’s made that up but, if he’s saying his fleeting time in an also ran rock combo outweighs his time in The Smith, The The and Electronic then I fear he’s taking the piss.
Martin Carritt
West Yorkshire
England

 

[Anonymous]

Are you Andy Rourke by any chance?

How did you know??

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

But Morrissey has created lots of great songs in his solo career, despite the fact that the musical backing is generally (always?) average/unremarkable. Marr has not come up with any great songs post-Smiths. The reason is simple. Because the song is not the music. The song is the vocal melody/lyric. Marr is barely a singer, and has no great gift for vocal melodic phrasing, therefore he create no memorable vocal tunes and his lyrics are terrible.

'First of the Gang to Die' didn't need a great backing track to be a great song. The song is Morrissey's vocal and lyric.

But Morrissey needed the backing track in order to have a song.

Morrissey needed the musical vehicle in great part to inspire his vocal melody to come up with that melody and he needed that backing track to guide him in deciding what lyric would benefit the backing track.

No matter how great Marr's backing tracks are these days, they're never going to become great songs.

But they are songs. Bad or great is subjective. So no matter how bad you think a Marr song is, it is still
a song.

Even if Marr released an album of instrumental music they would still be recognized as songs by most listeners. Some of those listeners would call them great songs or bad songs.

But then we come to the matter of just how great Marr's backing tracks are, post-Smiths, and why they never seem to have come close to rivalling the likes of the music for 'How Soon Is Now' and 'William, It Was Really Nothing' or 'This Charming Man'. Answer - because Rourke and/or Porter weren't involved. And, of course, some (not all) of Marr's simpler Smiths-era backing tracks weren't all that spectacular, it's just that Morrissey elevated the music into very good or great songs

Yes Morrissey did elevate those backing tracks into great/memorable songs, but it’s the backing tracks that elevated and inspired him, stirred his imagination, so that he could do his part in helping to create with Marr those memorable songs.

(e.g. 'Unloveable', 'There Is A Light That Never Goes Out', 'Vicar In a Tutu', 'A Rush and a Push and the Land Is Ours').

I think it may be better to help your argument if you saw it as a memorable song vs a not memorable song, rather than what is or isn’t a song. Great or bad is subjective.

Yes I agree that a vocal melody or lyric can make the whole song memorable, and for most people’s attention it’s easier to be caught
by or remember a song by the sung
melody or lyric, not being aware that the backing track is also working on their emotions. But it’s only part of the picture, lots of songs with vocals are remembered also for the melody played by an instrument, usually, but not always, it takes both for the song to be memorable.

And yes, it’s true that millions of fans are not demanding that all the The Smiths albums be released without vocals. But, Morrissey needed the musical backings by Marr to inspire him to create those sung melodies and he needed those musical backings to help him decide what lyric would benefit the mood of the backing in order for it all to work together to be a memorable song.

As much as I’d like to hear a Morrissey a cappella album with
the only writing credit being his. I
don’t think it would go down well
in front of a live audience or how
memorable the a cappella pieces or
‘songs’ would be to the listener.

It would be interesting, but would lean more towards the genre of experimental, which probably wouldn’t have much of a lasting effect on most of his audience, because most people would still need the musical backing to call them and recognize them as songs.

 

[Geoffrey Ingram]

"All the glory of the Smiths except lyric n melody".

I have made the point many times on this site, and will continue to do so, that Morrissey created the songs of The Smiths, whilst Marr, Rourke and sometimes Porter or Street created the backing music and should have been credited as such - 'Songs by Morrissey, music by Marr/Rourke(/Porter)'.

'Panic', for example, wasn't 'Panic' until Morrissey put down his vocal.

This chum of Marr's, despite his efforts to run down Morrissey, confirms in detail how that process worked.

I'm not sure Marr will really be thanking him for that.

Before Morrissey put his vocal on Panic, it was Metal Guru

 

[Emotional Guide Dog]

Morrissey in 'pain in the arse' shock.

What next? The sky is blue and standing on Lego is really painful?

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Before Morrissey put his vocal on Panic, it was Metal Guru

But is Metal Guru still Metal Guru if it it doesn’t have Bolan’s vocal melody and lyric?

I guess we could only say that Panic was inspired by Metal Guru, but the
backing track that became Panic before Morrissey put his musical touch to it, was not the song Metal Guru, only inspired by it.

We could also ask ... if Bolan ( from Bolan heaven) sang
his lyric to Marr’s backing track would it become Metal Guru?

I guess we could call it a different version of Metal Guru or a song also
called Metal Guru different than the one that’s on The Slider.

 

[Anonymous]

But Morrissey needed the backing track in order to have a song.

Morrissey needed the musical vehicle in great part to inspire his vocal melody to come up with that melody and he needed that backing track to guide him in deciding what lyric would benefit the backing track.



But they are songs. Bad or great is subjective. So no matter how bad you think a Marr song is, it is still
a song.

Even if Marr released an album of instrumental music they would still be recognized as songs by most listeners. Some of those listeners would call them great songs or bad songs.


Yes Morrissey did elevate those backing tracks into great/memorable songs, but it’s the backing tracks that elevated and inspired him, stirred his imagination, so that he could do his part in helping to create with Marr those memorable songs.



I think it may be better to help your argument if you saw it as a memorable song vs a not memorable song, rather than what is or isn’t a song. Great or bad is subjective.

Yes I agree that a vocal melody or lyric can make the whole song memorable, and for most people’s attention it’s easier to be caught
by or remember a song by the sung
melody or lyric, not being aware that the backing track is also working on their emotions. But it’s only part of the picture, lots of songs with vocals are remembered also for the melody played by an instrument, usually, but not always, it takes both for the song to be memorable.

And yes, it’s true that millions of fans are not demanding that all the The Smiths albums be released without vocals. But, Morrissey needed the musical backings by Marr to inspire him to create those sung melodies and he needed those musical backings to help him decide what lyric would benefit the mood of the backing in order for it all to work together to be a memorable song.

As much as I’d like to hear a Morrissey a cappella album with
the only writing credit being his. I
don’t think it would go down well
in front of a live audience or how
memorable the a cappella pieces or
‘songs’ would be to the listener.

It would be interesting, but would lean more towards the genre of experimental, which probably wouldn’t have much of a lasting effect on most of his audience, because most people would still need the musical backing to call them and recognize them as songs.

You're hung up on the idea that because the music inspired the vocal melody, then the music itself is also the song. It doesn't follow.

We both agree that Marr deserves credit for the creative process that produced the songs of The Smiths, we just don't agree on what that credit should be.

You say that Morrissey needed the music in order to create his vocal melody. True. Marr needed a guitar in order to create the music. Should the guitar get a co-credit.

Morrissey used three instruments to create his vocal melodies: his voice, his lyrics, and the backing music.

Ask somebody to sing you a sing - any song - and they won't sing you the backing tracking. They'll sing you the vocal melody/words. And that's still the song.

"Even if Marr released an album of instrumental music they would still be recognised as songs by most listeners". No they wouldn't. They'd be recognised as 'instrumentals' by most listeners. That's why the word exists. And yes, I agree that Marr does write songs nowadays, but again the song 'The Messenger' is the vocal melody (such as it is) and the lyric (such as it is). So Marr composed the backing music and then created a song out of it.

 

[Anonymous]

But is Metal Guru still Metal Guru if it it doesn’t have Bolan’s vocal melody and lyric?

No, it's not. It's just a piece of music. You could take that piece of music and create/record an entirely new song out of it. Which I think is what some are suggesting was the case with 'Panic'.

 

[ShyShy_Flower]

Wasn't there a video on YouTube of Johnny Marr explaining how Morrissey would write lyrics over the best musical parts of the song? I can't find it now, but this story feels like it's a regurgitated version of that..

 

[Anonymous]

Wasn't there a video on YouTube of Johnny Marr explaining how Morrissey would write lyrics over the best musical parts of the song? I can't find it now, but this story feels like it's a regurgitated version of that..

It rings a bell. Might have been that BBC 'Young Guns' doc he was interviewed for. If I recall correctly he said it in a light-hearted way.

 

[Vegan Cro Spirit .888]

You're hung up on the idea that because the music inspired the vocal melody, then the music itself is also the song. It doesn't follow.

We both agree that Marr deserves credit for the creative process that produced the songs of The Smiths, we just don't agree on what that credit should be.

You say that Morrissey needed the music in order to create his vocal melody. True. Marr needed a guitar in order to create the music. Should the guitar get a co-credit.

Morrissey used three instruments to create his vocal melodies: his voice, his lyrics, and the backing music.

Ask somebody to sing you a sing - any song - and they won't sing you the backing tracking. They'll sing you the vocal melody/words. And that's still the song.

"Even if Marr released an album of instrumental music they would still be recognised as songs by most listeners". No they wouldn't. They'd be recognised as 'instrumentals' by most listeners. That's why the word exists. And yes, I agree that Marr does write songs nowadays, but again the song 'The Messenger' is the vocal melody (such as it is) and the lyric (such as it is). So Marr composed the backing music and then created a song out of it.

FFS all melody is credited to Moz
you'll choke if you try to hum a suco solo
song

 

[ACTON]

He says that "Morrissey would often write new shit....." when you see him using that to describe the genius of Morrissey's lyrics and melodies then you know it's probably time to stop reading this bullshit interview.

 

[Geoffrey Ingram]

But is Metal Guru still Metal Guru if it it doesn’t have Bolan’s vocal melody and lyric?

I guess we could only say that Panic was inspired by Metal Guru, but the
backing track that became Panic before Morrissey put his musical touch to it, was not the song Metal Guru, only inspired by it.

We could also ask ... if Bolan ( from Bolan heaven) sang
his lyric to Marr’s backing track would it become Metal Guru?

I guess we could call it a different version of Metal Guru or a song also
called Metal Guru different than the one that’s on The Slider.

Bloody hell. You need some anal beads to help you loosen up a little


..

 

[WolfE_]

Even if the melodies dont derive from Moz, the entire brand of 'The Smiths', their themes and why they appealed to people at the time and now has been entirely down to the lyrics, of which Moz holds sole primacy over.

 

[Anonymous]

These arguments about whether Moz or Marr is more important, or if the music or vocals constitutes the 'song' are so tiresome. For some reason this exact same argument rears it's head pretty much every time the Smiths are discussed. Round and round in circles it goes, every time. *yawn*