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

'BONFIRE OF TEENAGERS’ IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS'

unnamed.png


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

unnamed.jpg


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.

unnamed[1].png




(Middle image = Michelle Jubelirer).
FWD.



Media items:
 


There are more important things than Miley. for this, most often does not arrive immediately, so that you can blame it on something insignificant, for example, Miley.
nowadays, being an honest person is fraught

Morrissey's doing great. God grant him strength and patience!
 
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.
He also lied about her being involved in the concert with Arianna Grande, he's a known liar and your twisting of things won't change that
 


There are more important things than Miley. for this, most often does not arrive immediately, so that you can blame it on something insignificant, for example, Miley.
nowadays, being an honest person is fraught

Morrissey's doing great. God grant him strength and patience!

Isn't this the speech where he told a ton of lies and was outed by the Der Spiegel audio?
 
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.
Sub judice doesn't stop discussion of events on a political discussion show. The Manchester Arena bombing, the London Bridge Attack were all discussed on Question Time immediately after the event. You conflated sub judice rules and media guidelines, not me.
I didn't say that someone's ethnicity is relevant to their actions. But it sometimes is relevant to the story. Relevant to what happened.
And my point was about the first 24-48 hours. Until there was time for the narrative to be spun. That is my point. But I appreciate the point is way over your head.
 
Sub judice doesn't stop discussion of events on a political discussion show. The Manchester Arena bombing, the London Bridge Attack were all discussed on Question Time immediately after the event. You conflated sub judice rules and media guidelines, not me.
I didn't say that someone's ethnicity is relevant to their actions. But it sometimes is relevant to the story. Relevant to what happened.
And my point was about the first 24-48 hours. Until there was time for the narrative to be spun. That is my point. But I appreciate the point is way over your head.
The Manchester Arena and London Bridge attacks were never sub judice because no arrests were made. There were no trials to prejudice. Because the perpetrators died at the scene, remember?

Of course you do. You're trolling. And this is the last morsel I throw you. Moron.
 
Isn't this the speech where he told a ton of lies and was outed by the Der Spiegel audio?
what kind of lies do you mean? please give an example. As far as I understand, in this interview he expressed his opinion on the resonant issues at that time.
 
He also lied about her being involved in the concert with Arianna Grande, he's a known liar and your twisting of things won't change that
I didn't see the context, I didn't see what exactly he was lying about on this topic, so I can't say anything whether he was lying or not. everything I have read and seen with the participation of this man speaks of him only as an honest and intelligent person, which is rare these days. and many people don't like such people. and others do. and I also did not distort a single fact here in any of my comments. However, I'm used to hate.
 
He also lied about her being involved in the concert with Arianna Grande, he's a known liar and your twisting of things won't change that
Morrissey:
"To tell the truth, Miley refused for reasons unrelated to me, after a serious run—in with a key figure in the circle," he wrote, adding that he would not disclose details of a "private quarrel.""Miley knew everything about me when she came to sing 'I Am Veronica' almost two years ago; she entered the studio already humming the song," the statement said."She volunteered. I didn't ask her to participate. Her professionalism was amazing, and her vocals are pleasing to the ear. Every minute spent with Miley was filled with love and fun."
(the translation may be not literal)
 
what kind of lies do you mean? please give an example. As far as I understand, in this interview he expressed his opinion on the resonant issues at that time.
He denied saying things, Der Spiegel released the audio of the interview and he was caught in a lot of lies
 
He denied saying things, Der Spiegel released the audio of the interview and he was caught in a lot of lies
and what did he say there that was so terrible? specifically, can you give? so as well as my alleged distortions of some facts) I think not. the facts were distorted by the newspaper Spiegel
 
Morrissey:
"To tell the truth, Miley refused for reasons unrelated to me, after a serious run—in with a key figure in the circle," he wrote, adding that he would not disclose details of a "private quarrel.""Miley knew everything about me when she came to sing 'I Am Veronica' almost two years ago; she entered the studio already humming the song," the statement said."She volunteered. I didn't ask her to participate. Her professionalism was amazing, and her vocals are pleasing to the ear. Every minute spent with Miley was filled with love and fun."
(the translation may be not literal)
Ok, so you quoted the same quote twice, I will answer both - Morrissey said that Miley told him she did not participate in the concert with Arianna because she was not into that sort of thing, when she was clearly there and its on video for everyone to see, which makes it obvious that Miley never said that to him. There's a thread addressing it somewhere around here.
 
and what did he say there that was so terrible? specifically, can you give? so as well as my alleged distortions of some facts) I think not. the facts were distorted by the newspaper Spiegel
These things have been gone over again and again, you can take a look at the site for threads about it
 
Ok, so you quoted the same quote twice, I will answer both - Morrissey said that Miley told him she did not participate in the concert with Arianna because she was not into that sort of thing, when she was clearly there and its on video for everyone to see, which makes it obvious that Miley never said that to him. There's a thread addressing it somewhere around here.
so what? what does this little thing have to do with the case?
 
so what? what does this little thing have to do with the case?
Jesus Christ, I am being bombarded with notifications from you, do your own research
 
The Manchester Arena and London Bridge attacks were never sub judice because no arrests were made. There were no trials to prejudice.
Not true. On the day after both attacks the police raided properties and made arrests. The day after Manchester the police arrested the attacker's brother. The day after London Bridge the police made at least 12 arrests in Barking, and the next day at least another 5 in Newham. Google it.
Sub judice would prevent discussing details of the attack. I wasn't suggesting anyone should do that. Sub judice would not prevent having a discussion about what the attack In Nottingham tells us about Britain in 2023. You think it tells us nothing. I disagree. Deciding whether or not to discuss that topic is a political decision. Not a legal one.
 
He don't think he did lie about Miley - it sounds like he misunderstood her. He'll have started complaining about the One Love gig & she'll have said "I'm not into all that" - meaning I'm not talking about this subject with you.
 
He don't think he did lie about Miley - it sounds like he misunderstood her. He'll have started complaining about the One Love gig & she'll have said "I'm not into all that" - meaning I'm not talking about this subject with you.
LOL no :crazy::lbf:
 
Jesus Christ, I am being bombarded with notifications from you, do your own research


I have research and listen now completely. Very interesting interview) I didn't see any support for violence in any form. at the same time, in my opinion, he made other political statements that many might not like
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom