Independent.ie: Lloyd Cole Interview - with Morrissey anecdotes (July 2, 2023)

Lloyd Cole interview Sunday Independent (Ireland) 2nd July - Morrissey references

Morrissey became a fan. He said Cole was the sort of person who gets "erotic about blotting paper". To which Cole replied: "I do. I am a real stationery fetishist."
When Lloyd Cole and the Commotions played their first gig in London at the Dominion Theatre, they came offstage and went to their dressing room to find Morrissey "drinking a cup of tea. We were friends for a few years." Does he despair for his old friend's right-wing politics now? "Oh, I couldn't possibly be friends with Morrissey now. But that's the lovely thing about art, those Smiths records and those Morrissey records are yours now. You can remove the author. In fact, the author is necessarily removed when the record is released."
In 1985, he and Morrissey met up a few times. "We had tea at Fortnum & Mason. That was his idea. We would play each other songs that we were working on. I got to hear 'Meat is Murder' before it came out."
Was that a bit like Alan Bennett and Dennis Potter having lunch together?"It absolutely wasn't," he says with a laugh, "because we were both still young and immature and still finding our way, in terms of finding our voices.
"I think Morrissey probably found his voice on The Queen is Dead and I found mine on my first solo record. I think I was trying to be less worthy from Rattlesnakes onwards. I love Rattlesnakes to death but it is hard for me to listen to the singing now. I don't en- joy the sound of my voice on that record. It's overly mannered.

https://archive.is/pVhnY

 

[Requiescant]

Its strange isnt it or maybe it isnt, but i dont think murder is seen as bad as paedophilia, so a murderer like Spector can still be played, its just seen as a tragic story, i suppose you can kill or murder somebody and not be seen as necessarily 'bad'. But abusing a child is something quite different, deliberately evil i suppose.
Meek killed his landlady but was a very tragic, confused and angry individual, not evil i would say. Glitter and his type plan and prey and choose to live in places which enable their sick desires.
Me and a bunch of mates drove from london to Bournemouth new years eve 1987 to see Glitter, a very popular yuletide entertainer, little did we know.
Back to Greggs, i dont know if it was a radio or someones compilation but when i heard it i was looking to see if anyone else was as dumbfounded as me to hear a relatively obscure Moz 45 from yesteryear being played. Of course no one was

Don't get me wrong, Joe Meek is one of my musical heroes, and that's why I added 'manslaughter' to the description. Nobody knows for sure what happened that afternoon except that there was a lot of shouting before two shots were heard. Same with William Burroughs, he's always claimed he and his wife were playing 'William Tell' games with loaded guns. Who knows? But yeah, paedophilia does appear to be a more heinous crime than murder these days. As does making comments about people's gender or sexuality, or indeed immigration.
As for Glitter, I recently watched a documentary on Glam Rock, and read a book on 1973, which was described as one of the greatest eras in Pop Music, and Glitter was completely whitewashed from both. Not a single mention or clip of archive footage, and yet he was the biggest selling artist in the UK in 1973. I TOTALLY disagree with the removal of artists and their work from history regardless of how repellent their crimes are, or how disgusting an individual they have become. You can't just paper over the cracks and pretend everything was hunky dory. You can't just pretend they didn't exist when they pretty much encapsulated the zeitgeist of those times. Glitter made some pretty good records and was a fantastic entertainer, and many of my friends made annual Yuletide pilgrimages to see him(I never got the chance). As you say, little did we know

 

[Crisstti]

True, but you're leaving out the part that pretty much everybody who ever supported UKIP and For Britain was, on some level, racist.

How can you be so sure of this?

 

[BookishBoy]

How can you be so sure of this?

It's a good question, but by living in the UK and talking to people, it's not hard to ascertain.

OK I've never met a single person who ever supported For Britain, they never got more than a few hundred votes in any election (!!) but I've talked to plenty of UKIP supporters in the past and...you just know. It's a very particular English type.

 

[No 27]

Morrissey didn't say he intended to vote for For Britain because of its position vis-á-vis animal rights. If animal rights were his central concern, politically, he would've advocated that people "support" the Animal Welfare Party (AWP).

From its website:

Our Policies Include:​

• Averting climate catastrophe, improving human health and saving NHS funds by leading an urgent transition to healthy and sustainable plant-based diets
• Re-directing farming subsidies away from the intensive animal agriculture and fisheries industries and into sustainable, plant-based, organic agriculture
• Increasing penalties for those convicted of animal abuse, raising the maximum custodial sentence to 10 years
• Phase out farming practices and systems which are harmful to animals, biodiversity and our planet
• Improving labelling of all products with information which allows consumers to make informed choices in line with their own principles on the environment, health, animal welfare and the social circumstances in which a product is produced
• Phasing out animal experimentation with binding targets for reduction combined with proper funding & real support for alternatives
• Ending live animal export and reducing journey times for animals travelling to slaughter within the UK
• Ending all slaughter without prior stunning
• Introducing independently monitored CCTV for all slaughterhouses
• Strengthening companion animal welfare with an end to breed specific legislation, the sale of animals online and in retail stores and the exotic pet trade
• Ending the badger cull and strengthen the fox hunting ban

Had he been that bothered about animals, he would have said of the AWP that, "It is the first time in my life that I will vote for a political party", but he didn't; he said it about For Britain.

The AWP's 2019 manifesto said,

Civil rights, freedom of speech and protests, and protection of privacy are core values in any democratic state. These fundamental rights may not be altered - not even under the guise of fighting terrorism.

... which seems to address his, and other people's, right to express themselves as freely, and f_ckwittedly, as they like.

His each-time-you-vote-you-support-the-process gibberish is addressed by the AWP's manifesto too:

We would call for immediate electoral, democratic institutional reform. Our Parliamentary system is discredited, and the ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) voting process should be consigned to history, replaced with a comprehensive proportional representation (PR) system to encourage democratic engagement with the political process. People would then feel that their vote can make a difference, and that all political parties can have a chance to influence the future direction of our society.

However, the AWP is also committed to some degree of wealth-redistribution which - despite Morrissey's utterly hollow, anti-establishment posturing - wouldn't've gone down well. They want to:

Increase the top tax rate to 50 per cent for those earning more than £150,000. AWP believes those who benefit most from the wealth created in the United Kingdom need to give more back to the society that has provided them with those benefits and the security and opportunities that arise from substantial private wealth.

The United Kingdom has always shown itself to be a forward-thinking, progressive society, which has welcomed immigration as a necessary part in our economic and social development and supported those fleeing persecution elsewhere in the world. This needs to be encouraged and we should not allow ourselves to be swayed into a dismissive position by those who see immigration as only a negative. ...

I wonder if the following wouldn't also have put him off.

A multi-cultural environment is one that has great benefits for everyone in our society and is the natural and ordinary consequence of migration. Many thousands of British-born people emigrate from the United Kingdom each year and are welcomed in those countries to which they move, and it is to the UK's credit that we have historically done the same in reverse, by welcoming those moving to the United Kingdom. ...

We need to provide increased support for asylum seekers and refugees, who are seeking to escape from persecution, war, famine, social collapse or personal, domestic situations of abuse. While we believe that the UK should provide adequate financial and logistical support to countries with internally displaced refugees or to neighbouring countries that provide shelter, the United Kingdom does receive a very small number (compared to many other nations) of refugees, and we need to help them to adjust to life in a country that is very different to the one they have left behind. The Government must encourage such persons to come forward with information about their skills and qualifications, and allow them access to the workplace and the social support structure whilst their application is being evaluated. ...

Those who abuse the system will not be granted the rights afforded to those genuinely needing help. We further believe that the ‘Life in the UK’ test should include animal issues and basic legislation.

Morrissey did not support For Britain because of its position on animal rights. If that had genuinely been the case, other parties were available to him.

 

[Amy]

How can you be so sure of this?

Read their manifestos. They are essentially 'single issue' parties obsessed with nationalism and what they perceive as endless threats to the British way of life eg. immigration, the spread of Islam, multiculturalism, asylum seekers etc, etc. They have a very recognisable rhetoric, they claim to be the forgotten voice of the 'ordinary person' but they are built on hatred and division.

 

[Rufusindigo]

You are completely missing the point,
Nobody lured Morrissey in. Morrissey was and always has been fed up with traditional British politics. ‘Sick to death of Labour or Tories’. You know all that.

In comes an anti-establishment party, UKIP, who challenge the traditional parties and are about to be lead by a woman who expresses great concern for animal welfare, lbgt-rights and is a lesbian agnostic. Morrissey likes this person and is devastated when she loses the contest to become leader of that party. She then moves on and starts her own party and Morrissey comes out in support of this party and is then crucified by the media for this support.

This is what happened and it’s there for all to see.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall account, but interestingly, according to this article, Morrissey hadn't even met AMW when he came out to support FB, as in the article she thanks him for his support and says she 'hopes to meet him one day', so why he would hurl himself into supporting her reamains something of a mystery https://www.nme.com/news/music/anne... for more free speech,such a concept could be.

 

[goinghome]

But he is still anti-violence, anti-corporate, anti-royalty, so he hasn’t changed at all.

It’s just the world that’s changed, not Moz, and social media has made things that weren’t a big issue then a huge thing now.

But in the end it’s all about the music anyway,

Overall yes, although isn't it violence that maintains an apartheid state such as Israel, and indeed, sadly and increasingly, most states? Which would be outside the purview of a singer, and it could be argued, is being mismanaged anyway, to say the least, by those 'educated' to arrange 'security'. More weapons being used by police and military, endangering civilians, and hosing masses more carbon emissions into the atmosphere, is exactly what we all need now to feel safe?

 

[Sooner Than You Think]

I liked Cole's work in the Communards...

 

[DagenhamDan]

Don't get me wrong, Joe Meek is one of my musical heroes, and that's why I added 'manslaughter' to the description. Nobody knows for sure what happened that afternoon except that there was a lot of shouting before two shots were heard. Same with William Burroughs, he's always claimed he and his wife were playing 'William Tell' games with loaded guns. Who knows? But yeah, paedophilia does appear to be a more heinous crime than murder these days. As does making comments about people's gender or sexuality, or indeed immigration.
As for Glitter, I recently watched a documentary on Glam Rock, and read a book on 1973, which was described as one of the greatest eras in Pop Music, and Glitter was completely whitewashed from both. Not a single mention or clip of archive footage, and yet he was the biggest selling artist in the UK in 1973. I TOTALLY disagree with the removal of artists and their work from history regardless of how repellent their crimes are, or how disgusting an individual they have become. You can't just paper over the cracks and pretend everything was hunky dory. You can't just pretend they didn't exist when they pretty much encapsulated the zeitgeist of those times. Glitter made some pretty good records and was a fantastic entertainer, and many of my friends made annual Yuletide pilgrimages to see him(I never got the chance). As you say, little did we know

Agreed, in 73 i was 6 years old and i didn't know anything about Bowie, loved The Sweets Blockbuster and Metal Guru but only cos it was on one of those awful Top of the Pops albums with session musicians, but i was absolutely aware along with everyone else my age of Glitter. He was massive, i was God (i swear) in my primary schools christmas play and the teacher thought it would be a good idea if dressed up in tin foil so i looked like Glitter
You'd get arrested for that now lol

 

[Seymour Glass]

Read their manifestos. They are essentially 'single issue' parties obsessed with nationalism and what they perceive as endless threats to the British way of life eg. immigration, the spread of Islam, multiculturalism, asylum seekers etc, etc. They have a very recognisable rhetoric, they claim to be the forgotten voice of the 'ordinary person' but they are built on hatred and division.

But Islam is a threat to British life, same as here in the US. They want to takeover and if you can't see that then you're dim or blind.

 

[Seymour Glass]

Why do you limeys love the Muslims so much? You don't care about your countries heritage or originality? You want evey country to be Muslim? Because that is there goal.

 

[No 27]

But Islam is a threat to British life, same as here in the US. They want to takeover and if you can't see that then you're dim or blind.

Muslims account for about 1% of the USA's population.

 

[gashonthenail]

...what they perceive as endless threats to the British way of life eg. immigration, the spread of Islam, multiculturalism, asylum seekers etc, etc.

Ah yes, Europe 2023 - nothing to see here, united in love, diversity is strength. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
And after recent events in France, maybe being concerned about such issues seems rational and common sense, rather than crackpot and fringe as you suggest. For make no mistake, what happened in France is coming to a country near you next.
Moz is trying to warn us. But who is listening?

 

[Amy]

Ah yes, Europe 2023 - nothing to see here, united in love, diversity is strength. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
And after recent events in France, maybe being concerned about such issues seems rational and common sense, rather than crackpot and fringe as you suggest. For make no mistake, what happened in France is coming to a country near you next.
Moz is trying to warn us. But who is listening?

But groups like For Britain, UKIP, EDL etc don’t have rational or common sense approaches at all.

Take their mutual crusade against Islam, for example. It is not difficult to recognise that the people who are most at risk from the truly harmful effects of extreme ideology are vulnerable people within Muslim communities. LGBT teenagers who can’t come out, school pupils being withdrawn from sex education, women and girls facing tremendous pressure to get married, married women unable to leave abusive relationships, people at risk of honour violence, people who don’t practice to a level that the wider community accepts or have lost their faith, recent converts… it goes on and on.

Islam is an incredibly dogmatic religion where questioning anything at all is equated with unbelief, and that makes it hugely difficult for people who don't 'fit in' to ask for help. If Anne-Marie W, Tommy Robinson etc really cared about others, they’d be actively working to help people in those situations. Working to support education and integration, interfaith dialogue, tolerance, tackling homophobia etc, etc. But they don’t – and it’s not just because Tommy Robinson & his ilk are thicker than pigshit. It’s because it’s easier and more expedient for them to convince Dave down the pub that “they’re taking over” or persuade Grandma Betty that she can’t say “Merry Christmas” anymore than it is to actually deal with the real issues.

There is no f***ing “they”. Some Muslims are completely irreligious, some are lax “weddings and funerals” types, many many are second and third-generation children of migrants who are struggling with their identity and the conflict between their traditions and the ‘typical’ British lifestyle. Fringe groups aren’t prepared to acknowledge the nuance of those challenges because in their head it’s still 1952 - they are useless.

 

[Crisstti]

But groups like For Britain, UKIP, EDL etc don’t have rational or common sense approaches at all.

Take their mutual crusade against Islam, for example. It is not difficult to recognise that the people who are most at risk from the truly harmful effects of extreme ideology are vulnerable people within Muslim communities. LGBT teenagers who can’t come out, school pupils being withdrawn from sex education, women and girls facing tremendous pressure to get married, married women unable to leave abusive relationships, people at risk of honour violence, people who don’t practice to a level that the wider community accepts or have lost their faith, recent converts… it goes on and on.

Islam is an incredibly dogmatic religion where questioning anything at all is equated with unbelief, and that makes it hugely difficult for people who don't 'fit in' to ask for help. If Anne-Marie W, Tommy Robinson etc really cared about others, they’d be actively working to help people in those situations. Working to support education and integration, interfaith dialogue, tolerance, tackling homophobia etc, etc. But they don’t – and it’s not just because Tommy Robinson & his ilk are thicker than pigshit. It’s because it’s easier and more expedient for them to convince Dave down the pub that “they’re taking over” or persuade Grandma Betty that she can’t say “Merry Christmas” anymore than it is to actually deal with the real issues.

There is no f***ing “they”. Some Muslims are completely irreligious, some are lax “weddings and funerals” types, many many are second and third-generation children of migrants who are struggling with their identity and the conflict between their traditions and the ‘typical’ British lifestyle. Fringe groups aren’t prepared to acknowledge the nuance of those challenges because in their head it’s still 1952 - they are useless.

Seems to me you are equating Islam with Muslims.
The fact that Islam is an extremely dogmatic (and illiberal) religion is precisely the problem, and people within the Muslim community are indeed the first victims (not the only ones though)

And maybe these groups don't have a good approach to the issue, but surely it doesn't make them racist to say Islam is a problem?

 

[Amy]

Seems to me you are equating Islam with Muslims.
The fact that Islam is an extremely dogmatic (and illiberal) religion is precisely the problem, and people within the Muslim community are indeed the first victims (not the only ones though)

And maybe these groups don't have a good approach to the issue, but it's surely they're not racist because they say Islam is a problem?

No, that is what groups like the EDL and FB do - and anyone who believes in some imagined monolithic "they".
As for "they're not racist because..." - look. Please go and read about these groups and their views. They don't just "say Islam is a problem", they stir up hatred, they do not deal with the real issues, they stoke up a mindless 'them and us' mentality that is more likely to lead to hate crimes against Muslims than to tackle the effects of extremism.

 

[BurgerButt]

Another thick has been wanker, that can't read beyond the headline.

 

[Requiescant]

Agreed, in 73 i was 6 years old and i didn't know anything about Bowie, loved The Sweets Blockbuster and Metal Guru but only cos it was on one of those awful Top of the Pops albums with session musicians, but i was absolutely aware along with everyone else my age of Glitter. He was massive, i was God (i swear) in my primary schools christmas play and the teacher thought it would be a good idea if dressed up in tin foil so i looked like Glitter
You'd get arrested for that now lol

Ha...so we are approximately the same age then, that makes sense. I think Glam Rock appealed to kids because it was bright, shiny, colourful and pantomimic. The 'brickies-in-lipstick' end of the spectrum seemed more palatable than the art-rock of Bowie and Bolan, though obviously that would change with time. I'm sure we've got close of 30 of those Top Of The Pops albums at my folks' home. It was years before it dawned on me they weren't the original artists
It's strange to think there's only 10 years between Glam Rock and 'This Charming Man'....that's absolutely mental! And within those 10 years there was Disco, Punk, New Wave, Two-Tone, and the New Romantics. Music movements don't seem to exist anymore, everyone wants to be a Tik-Tok influencer. There'll never be another occasion when a rock band will change the course of music or culture, or in the case of Elvis, The Beatles or The Sex Pistols, the world! Ah well

 

[DagenhamDan]

1

Ha...so we are approximately the same age then, that makes sense. I think Glam Rock appealed to kids because it was bright, shiny, colourful and pantomimic. The 'brickies-in-lipstick' end of the spectrum seemed more palatable than the art-rock of Bowie and Bolan, though obviously that would change with time. I'm sure we've got close of 30 of those Top Of The Pops albums at my folks' home. It was years before it dawned on me they weren't the original artists
It's strange to think there's only 10 years between Glam Rock and 'This Charming Man'....that's absolutely mental! And within those 10 years there was Disco, Punk, New Wave, Two-Tone, and the New Romantics. Music movements don't seem to exist anymore, everyone wants to be a Tik-Tok influencer. There'll never be another occasion when a rock band will change the course of music or culture, or in the case of Elvis, The Beatles or The Sex Pistols, the world! Ah well

Totally agree Requiescant, only 10 years when youre 16 is a lifetime, but looking back now its nothing, the older you get the quicker it goes. I still consider Suede a newish band but theyre effin ancient lol. I dont think there will be another music movement, just popular bands and singers, some belonging to a certain genre that people like.
There seems to be at the moment a fondness for the mid 90s indie bands, i dont like the word britpop, its silly.
But Pulp and Blur are proving great music sticks around.
You have to just enjoy your advancing old age and just be thankful that we experienced and lived through probably the best time for music and bands

 

[Seymour Glass]

Muslims account for about 1% of the USA's population.

Thank God