Morrissey Central "‘BONFIRE OF TEENAGERS’ IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" (June 14, 2023)

'BONFIRE OF TEENAGERS’ IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS'

Artist-friendly Capitol Records (Los Angeles) have no plans to release ‘Bonfire of Teenagers’ two and a half years after the album was recorded.

Morrissey’s new comment on the situation:

“It’s a clear display of how censorian the music industry has become. It is a new part of the music industry that does not work and that nobody likes. Music should be the primary democracy, as all art should be, and any effort to keep people away from it simply invites deeper discussion. There is no point banning ‘Bonfire of Teenagers’ because somebody somewhere might be offended if they heard it. Why waste time on other people’s mental incapacities? And where is Capitol’s support for the kids who were murdered in that Manchester bonfire on 22 May 2017? Although Capitol claims to be a label of ‘diversity’ it is very difficult to see their humanity. If you are only prepared to release music that draws people’s minds away from thinking then you are unfit for any contact with creative people. Songs are literary compositions, and writing music should be an unrestricted open form. It seems to me that Capitol Records cannot observe the possibility that their artists or their potential customers have ever thought. But silencing certain artists achieves nothing, and simply makes the bonfire burn taller and louder. The moral perspective at Capitol Records who is sitting like a hen on an egg on ‘Bonfire of Teenagers’ is Michelle Jubelirer, who played no small part in removing ‘World Peace is None Of Your Business’ from the shelves in 2014 - determined that it could not sell or be heard. The same creeping culture of censorship at Capitol Records has taken place with ‘Bonfire Of Teenagers’, and the civic structure of Capitol now appears fascist. I still have hope in the music industry, but there are evidently several powerful faces within it that have no honest interest in music … and you follow them into the shadows at your peril.”
MORRISSEY.

'BONFIRE OF TEENAGERS' IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS - MESSAGES FROM MORRISSEY - MORRISSEY CENTRAL - 'BONFIRE OF TEENAGERS' IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS

MESSAGES FROM MORRISSEY on MORRISSEY CENTRAL

www.morrisseycentral.com

---

(Middle image = Michelle Jubelirer).
FWD.

---

Media items:

• NME: "Morrissey accuses Capitol Records of “fascism” for not releasing ‘Bonfire Of Teenagers’" - June 16, 2023.
• Far Out: "Morrissey accuses Capitol Records of "fascist" behaviour" - June 16, 2023

 

[gashonthenail]

The tragedy of the "Bonfire of Teenagers" song is that it could have been soooo much better. It's a brilliant, brilliant topic for a song. And parts of what Morrissey's done with it are wonderful. The way he sings this:

Oh, you should've seen her leave for the arena
Only to be vapourized
Vapourized

Gives me goosebumps every single time.

But the whole "Don't Look Back in Anger" bit is kind of lame - forgivable, but lame. I get it, he's making the case for anger as a valid response to a despicable, unthinkable crime like this. But it's not a great piece of songwriting.

And then the whole song is ruined by the "go easy on the killer" refrain at the end. It's lazy, and it makes very little sense (unless he's referring to the countless missed opportunities to stop Abedi before his attack). If he wanted to make that argument, he should have done so with more, you know, words. Otherwise it just ends up being so vague that it allows anyone to project their own anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim meaning on to it. (Which maybe, quite possibly, is Morrissey's meaning too: we simply don't know, despite the best efforts of some people on here to claim to know the inner workings of his mind.)

I would agree with that. Although there are parts of the song that are spine tingling - the song as a whole I have never thought is a particularly great song. The album though I think is very strong. As good as if not better than Dog, which I think is one of Moz's best albums, or certainly his best this century.

 

[Redacted]

If that were the only issue - it would simply be a matter of removing the backing vocals, or recording some new ones, as the chap from Capitol said himself a few months ago. BOT has been killed and buried. There is more to it than just legal issues with MC's voice.

It's obvious Morrissey won't agree to removing the vocals and that is why Veronica was not released as the first single but Rebels was and the fact that a single was released just proves that BOT has not been killed and buried by Capitol, Morrissey walked, there is no longer a contract to distribute. Morrissey violated the contract. I am sure some people think making up conspiracies is more fun, but logic dictates otherwise.

 

[Gregor Samsa]

Even though I’m not overly enthusiastic about the previewed songs from BOT (except Rebels), I am 100 percent behind Moz on this. It’s absolutely disgraceful that Capitol refuses to do business. f***ing rogue and uncalled for behavior.

 

[gashonthenail]

It's obvious Morrissey won't agree to removing the vocals and that is why Veronica was not released as the first single but Rebels was and the fact that a single was released just proves that BOT has not been killed and buried by Capitol, Morrissey walked, there is no longer a contract to distribute. Morrissey violated the contract. I am sure some people think making up conspiracies is more fun, but logic dictates otherwise.

He has made no indication at all that he refused to take MC's backing vocals off the track. As one artist to another I just don't think he would do that. He has criticised her lack of punk spirit on the matter - but he would almost certainly have respected her decision as a singer. It is up to a singer to decide how their voice is used - given Moz's respect for the singing voice, he would respect her request to be removed from the track.

In truth, Miley has backed off for reasons unconnected to me, having had a major clash with a key figure in 'the circle'. I cannot give any details about the private fight because … it is private, after all.

 

[Malarkey]

I have no idea what you are talking about anymore I’m afraid. This is motivated reasoning. You’re saying his politics are just what he privately thinks. That’s not actually an important factor in politics as an inherently public phenomena. Of course you can be confused about your own political statements and effects!

You’re dedicated to defending Morrissey. I wish you and him the best. Not sure if this track is worth all of the attendant trouble though.

No - you do actually have to make a coherent political statement if it's your politics. He is capable of saying 'don't eat meat' so he can say 'don't let non-white people live in the UK or the USA' - it's not hard.

 

[gashonthenail]

so he can say 'don't let non-white people live in the UK or the USA' - it's not hard.

And why would anyone want to say that? Only an idiot numbskull would be against limited and controlled immigration.
What he has said is that he recognises realities. And reality itself is the enemy of the new woke religion. Reality is now a hyper, cyber reality that can be shaped and scripted by the big corporations. And if you disagree with the new hyper reality then you are guilty of a hate crime. Empirical reality, that 2 + 2 = 4, is a white, colonial, patriarchal oppression.

My politics are straightforward: I recognize realities. Some realities horrify me, and some do not, but I accept that I was not created so that others might gratify me and delight me with all that they think and do - what a turgid life that would be. I've been offended all of my life, and it has strengthened me, and I am glad. I wouldn't have the journey any other way. Only by hearing the opinions of others can we form truly rational views, and therefore we must never accept a beehive society that refuses to reflect a variety of views.

 

[Roman Holiday]

And then the whole song is ruined by the "go easy on the killer" refrain at the end. It's lazy, and it makes very little sense (unless he's referring to the countless missed opportunities to stop Abedi before his attack). If he wanted to make that argument, he should have done so with more, you know, words. Otherwise it just ends up being so vague that it allows anyone to project their own anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim meaning on to it. (Which maybe, quite possibly, is Morrissey's meaning too: we simply don't know, despite the best efforts of some people on here to claim to know the inner workings of his mind.)

I have to disagree. I think it's a great, dark line, and it would've been clumsier and amateurish if he had made it any more obvious. The individual perpetrator is dead, so the "killer" is the religious ideology. "Go easy on the killer"—go easy on Islam, keep dancing on egg shells around it and lavishing it with multicultural niceties as always in spite of these atrocities.

 

[BookishBoy]

I have to disagree. I think it's a great, dark line, and it would've been clumsier and amateurish if he had made it any more obvious. The individual perpetrator is dead, so the "killer" is the religious ideology. "Go easy on the killer"—go easy on Islam, keep dancing on egg shells around it and lavishing it with multicultural niceties as always in spite of these atrocities.

That's an interesting interpretation. Not sure I agree, but it's entirely valid!

 

[Anonymous]

No - you do actually have to make a coherent political statement if it's your politics. He is capable of saying 'don't eat meat' so he can say 'don't let non-white people live in the UK or the USA' - it's not hard.

False equivalence that reveals your misunderstanding of this issue. Vegetarianism is not a stande that can be compared to xenophobia, which influences policy and behaviour in unpredictable ways. There is - quite rightly - a stigma around around the latter, hence the existence of dog whistles and mainstreaming of more fringe ideas.

Let me be clear - I don’t want to demonise Morrissey and I actually do not think he is as bad as some of the folks that get posted on Central. However, he is in denial about what he has made with Bonfire. I suppose you are hoping for the best and that you can free him for his current ideological captors. I feel a bit more pessimistic. There’s no album, just a fairly unpleasant track to construct an album, or a current moment, around.

 

[Malarkey]

And why would anyone want to say that? Only an idiot numbskull would be against limited and controlled immigration.
What he has said is that he recognises realities. And reality itself is the enemy of the new woke religion. Reality is now a hyper, cyber reality that can be shaped and scripted by the big corporations. And if you disagree with the new hyper reality then you are guilty of a hate crime. Empirical reality, that 2 + 2 = 4, is a white, colonial, patriarchal oppression.

My politics are straightforward: I recognize realities. Some realities horrify me, and some do not, but I accept that I was not created so that others might gratify me and delight me with all that they think and do - what a turgid life that would be. I've been offended all of my life, and it has strengthened me, and I am glad. I wouldn't have the journey any other way. Only by hearing the opinions of others can we form truly rational views, and therefore we must never accept a beehive society that refuses to reflect a variety of views.

Rather than letting you interpret what he means by "realities" - he could say "I want to limit and control immigration because I think foreigners commit violent crimes".

 

[Malarkey]

False equivalence that reveals your misunderstanding of this issue. Vegetarianism is not a stande that can be compared to xenophobia, which influences policy and behaviour in unpredictable ways. There is - quite rightly - a stigma around around the latter, hence the existence of dog whistles and mainstreaming of more fringe ideas.

Let me be clear - I don’t want to demonise Morrissey and I actually do not think he is as bad as some of the folks that get posted on Central. However, he is in denial about what he has made with Bonfire. I suppose you are hoping for the best and that you can free him for his current ideological captors. I feel a bit more pessimistic. There’s no album, just a fairly unpleasant track to construct an album, or a current moment, around.

I don't agree. But as this did happen in the 90s & he escaped by running off to America, maybe Mexico can come to his rescue twice.

 

[gashonthenail]

Rather than letting you interpret what he means by "realities" - he could say "I want to limit and control immigration because I think foreigners commit violent crimes".

'Foreigners' is an emotive term. But higher rates of psychosis in migrant populations, for example, is well established in the literature. That is simply a fact and I don't report that fact with the intention of demonising anyone. It's just a fact. And young men are much more likely to commit crime than young women. So if tens of thousands of unaccompanied young men come into a country - that is bound to have an effect on violent crime, including sexual crime. I think Moz alluded to rape statistics in Berlin didn't he? Or would you rather gloss over that fact?

 

[justpassinthru]

"Why waste time on other people’s mental incapacities?" lol at the projection here from morrissey. i would argue that is exactly what has been decided about him.

 

[NealCassidy]

Wikipedia ignores it…

I Am Not a Dog on a Chain - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Malarkey]

'Foreigners' is an emotive term. But higher rates of psychosis in migrant populations, for example, is well established in the literature. That is simply a fact and I don't report that fact with the intention of demonising anyone. It's just a fact. And young men are much more likely to commit crime than young women. So if tens of thousands of unaccompanied young men come into a country - that is bound to have an effect on violent crime, including sexual crime. I think Moz alluded to rape statistics in Berlin didn't he? Or would you rather gloss over that fact?

And he can say - this is a song about stopping immigration because immigrants commit violent crimes.

 

[Anonymous]

For the first 24-48 hours the mainstream media didn't even mention that the attacker was black. That is a political decision, not a legal one.

I repeat: You are confused and unable to understand why the media is covering the case this way because you have a lack of knowledge of this issue and you're continuing to flail around trying to find sinister motives where there are none.

It's not a political decision not to mention his ethnicity, it's simply in keeping with IPSO media regulations that most of the UK press are signed up to. The press will never write "a black man did such-and-such" because its irrelevant and in breach of IPSO regulations. Clause 12 to be precise. I'll post it here for you. Now sit down, read it, and just accept that there's nothing sinister to see here and you have wrongly presumed there is because you do not have a proper working knowledge of UK media law.

Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice deals with discrimination. It says the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. It also states that these details should not be included in a story unless they are relevant.

 

[gashonthenail]

I repeat: You are confused and unable to understand why the media is covering the case this way because you have a lack of knowledge of this issue and you're continuing to flail around trying to find sinister motives where there are none.

It's not a political decision not to mention his ethnicity, it's simply in keeping with IPSO media regulations that most of the UK press are signed up to. The press will never write "a black man did such-and-such" because its irrelevant and in breach of IPSO regulations. Clause 12 to be precise. I'll post it here for you. Now sit down, read it, and just accept that there's nothing sinister to see here and you have wrongly presumed there is because you do not have a proper working knowledge of UK media law.

Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice deals with discrimination. It says the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. It also states that these details should not be included in a story unless they are relevant.

omg can you actually dig yourself a hole any deeper? we can still see ya.
First you claim it was because of sub judice rules - obviously not true.
Now you claim - accurately - it was because of media guidelines. That is exactly my point. Deciding what is relevant and not relevant is an editorial and a political decision. I think his ethnicity was relevant. I think many would agree with me. If the attacker had been white I bet that would have been reported. But I agree his ethnicity is not relevant to the narrative the mainstream media wanted to get across. It was definitely not relevant to that.

 

[mozich]

 

[Anonymous]

omg can you actually dig yourself a hole any deeper? we can still see ya.
First you claim it was because of sub judice rules - obviously not true.
Now you claim - accurately - it was because of media guidelines. That is exactly my point. Deciding what is relevant and not relevant is an editorial and a political decision. I think his ethnicity was relevant. I think many would agree with me. If the attacker had been white I bet that would have been reported. But I agree his ethnicity is not relevant to the narrative the mainstream media wanted to get across. It was definitely not relevant to that.

I stated that sub judice was one of the reasons it wasn't covered on QT, which you complained about in your first post. Then you switched to complaining his ethnicity was not reported, so I explained that was because of media regulations. Two separate complaints, two separate explanations. But you have deliberately conflated the two in yet another lame, Trumpian attempt to look like the smart guy. It's not working.

The fact you openly admit you think someone's ethnicity is relevant to their actions tells me all I need to know. You are a truly damaged individual. And as such I want no further discussion with you and will be backing out of this thread. Also because your comments are now bordering on trolling, and I don't feed those morons. But lest you come back with another witless, predictable, Trumpian response along the lines of "you've left because you know I'm right", I'll just posit this...

You seem to think there's a conspiracy of silence because the media didn't tell you his ethnicity. The same media that is running pictures of him that clearly show his ethnicity. It's not a very good conspiracy really is it? Maybe it only exists in your head.

 

[Deleted member 31782]

I want to listen to this album even more now.