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:
 
View attachment 91948
Pretty sure that’s Morrissey’s Autobiography.
Maybe she's a disgruntled fan lol

It is pretty interesting he's actually naming someone as the guilty party. Not sure if it's a good strategy though.
It's hard to say since Capitol won't make any statement on it.

I suspect that this is really about the Miley Cyrus/I Am Veronica issue.

When Morrissey was told her label didn't want her on the record he wanted to re-do the vocals ASAP (within days) with a different singer and the logistics were probably difficult to make happen there was pushback from Capitol saying, "We need a couple months or so."

There was a point in time where they were trying to work with him and in lieu of releasing "Veronica" they released Rebels Without Applause (which was recorded in a submarine taking on water which probably cost Capitol a lot of money to arrange).

Morrissey then probably had some unfriendly words for them as they debated when it could get done and at some point they got fed up with him and to spite him they decided not to release the record at all.

They are probably not that interested in censoring the song Bonfire Of Teenagers as much as they are interested in sticking it to him for being a dick. He calls it censorship and blames Capitol because he has never taken the blame for anything that has ever happened in his life.


Anyway.. that's just my opinion.


EDIT: I am still a huge fan of his music and still think his live shows are something special but outside of the music he has not been nearly as interesting as he was 15 years ago. At least we can go back and watch/read old interviews when he was hilarious.
OK. I would like to know how is it that anyone can think that would be anywhere near an acceptable attitude from a record label? Refusing to release an album to "stick it" to the artist? Just to spite him? If that the case that's just ridiculous and completely unprofessional on their part!
As mentioned above, i've felt for a while now most of this is on Morrissey with bragging about Miley. For whatever reason those accolades, usually only mentioned by M, matter so much to him. James Hetfield of Metallica sings on Danzig's first album but couldn't be credited or acknowledged because he was under contract to Elektra. Had he been credited, Elektra would have filed an injunction. I'm sure Moz feels the Miley fiasco is hogwash and was more than likely intolerable to Capitol's potential legal issues.
But Moz said Miley had even asked to appear on the video. So it can't be the case that she couldnt be named.
 
I'm sure if the songs were better, the album would have been released. With one or two exceptions, the songs previewed live were not strong. And in a couple instances, they were downright poor.
I think the songs were good enough for a release. They don't remind of Action Man and People are the Same Everywhere.. they are definitely a lot better than those.

It really seems like Moz being Moz and pissing of people in the music business. He's been doing it since The Smiths when they couldn't keep a manager after Joe Moss and all is countless complaints about the people in power not using their power to promote him.

Am I surprised he managed to find a way to get Capitol to not release his record because they can f*** with him? No.

Am I surprised Capitol or any of the labels they own signed him in the first place?
Very.
 
OK. I would like to know how is it that anyone can think that would be anywhere near an acceptable attitude from a record label? Refusing to release an album to "stick it" to the artist? Just to spite him? If that the case that's just ridiculous and completely unprofessional on their part!
It's not acceptable but multi-billion dollar companies have been doing the opposite of the right thing since the day they had enough money to do it.

Another thing they get out of this is to hold on to the record and release it after Morrissey dies. I doubt that was their goal in the beginning but I'm sure they are considering it now.
 
It's not acceptable but multi-billion dollar companies have been doing the opposite of the right thing since the day they had enough money to do it.

Another thing they get out of this is to hold on to the record and release it after Morrissey dies. I doubt that was their goal in the beginning but I'm sure they are considering it now.
There's the opposite of the right thing though, and there's being outright unprofessional. The latter doesn't seem to fit well with a company whose purpose is to make money.

I really don't think Morrissey is old enough yet for that to be a consideration.
 
Please, get over it, Moz!
Focus on Without Music The World Dies please.

Why should he ‘get over it’?

He wrote & recorded an album & signed a contract with a major label to release said album.

If I were Morrissey, I’d be angry that my work had been stolen & buried, my voice silenced, too.
 
Blimey, lay off the gin before jumping on the laptop, Moz

What makes you think he was drunk?

This reads like a very well thought out & intelligent piece of writing to me.

He has a right to continue to speak about this. Or would you prefer that he just shut up like a good boy?
 
Why should he ‘get over it’?

He wrote & recorded an album & signed a contract with a major label to release said album.

If I were Morrissey, I’d be angry that my work had been stolen & buried, my voice silenced, too.

we don’t know what was in the contract he signed. This very well, believe it or not, could be his fault.
 
LOL at him pretending Capitol even cares what's on the album. They shelved it because they're tired of dealing with his shenanigans. If it's spicy and full of controversial opinions that makes it even more appealing for them to release. But they haven't because they're just done with his shit.
Then just give the album/rights back to him and tell him to bugger off for good...
 
There's the opposite of the right thing though, and there's being outright unprofessional. The latter doesn't seem to fit well with a company whose purpose is to make money.

I really don't think Morrissey is old enough yet for that to be a consideration.
Your profile says you are from Chile.

In the US the big corporations are incredibly evil.

They do whatever they want and if anyone pushes back on them they fund campaigns for politicians who will not push back on them.

Capitol is owned by Universal Music Group which had revenue of $8 billion in 2022 and the company is worth around $38 billion based on stock market cap.

Whatever they need to do in order to control the music industry, the artists, the tours, the merchandise and anything else that they can make money on, they will do it.

Being petty towards Morrissey costs them almost nothing.. possibly saves them money.
Flexing their power to be petty is the American way.
 
I'm sure if the songs were better, the album would have been released. With one or two exceptions, the songs previewed live were not strong. And in a couple instances, they were downright poor.

Surely they listened to the album before signing a contract to release it.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the material.
 
I don't think there is any mention of Capitol signing Morrissey anywhere.

I think we just assume that there was some kind of contract signed. Don’t think a business would do things on a handshake.
 
I still don't understand why he signed with them in a deal that didn't give him the right to walk and shop it elsewhere if they refused to release it within a certain time period. He should have just self-released on on Bandcamp or something for digital, then a boutique label for CD and vinyl special editions. Absurd that 2.5 years later still no album release in sight (and another new album already in the can too!). He has to get over this boomer obsession with big name record company labels and , traditional record contracts, the old way of releasing music.

He could also possibly re-record it and shop the new masters elsewhere or just self-release those (Capitol may own the original master recording, but if Moz still owns the publishing rights, he could essentially just do a cover of himself and re-record and not even have to pay a publishing rights fee to Capitol).

I like this possible solution - as I disliked the production on Rebels…so much that I’ve never returned to it since the first listen - but I can imagine Morrissey not wanting to be forced to return to the material. Artists generally look forwards to their next work, not wanting to attempt to recreate a painting/song/poem they created years ago.
 
I agree but why no press release or anything?

You mean why hasn’t Capitol announced the signing? I haven’t a clue. They still haven’t made any statements, even after these Central posts/baiting.

But there must have been some kind of contract.
 
You mean why hasn’t Capitol announced the signing? I haven’t a clue. They still haven’t made any statements, even after these Central posts/baiting.

But there must have been some kind of contract.

They never mentioned terminating the contract either, we only heard that from Morrissey, all very odd this saga.
 
I think we just assume that there was some kind of contract signed. Don’t think a business would do things on a handshake.
Of course a contract was signed. Capitol wouldn't have released Rebels Without Applause otherwise. And they wouldn't be able to hold Bonfire hostage!
 
Last edited:
The real story here is that Morrissey rushed into a dreadful deal with Capitol in his haste to release an album. Soon as I heard it wasn't getting a UK release I knew it was doomed.
I've also said from the beginning that an album with this title will never get a release.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom