The Times: Comedian Paul Black on his most memorable Scottish gig (October 2, 2024)

Paul Black: I need to say sorry to anyone who ever gave me a job​

The comedian on avoiding doing anything hard at all costs, his Smiths obsession and stealing his earliest memory from his sister​

What has been your most memorable Scottish gig?
We’re gonna have to separate the artist from the art here: it has to be when I saw Morrissey for the first time. I had been obsessed with the Smiths throughout my teens and had made it my whole identity, so it felt like a big deal. I went to see Johnny Marr when I was 18 too and that was maybe even better because I didn’t have to live in shame of being there.

Paul Black: I need to say sorry to anyone who ever gave me a job

The comedian on avoiding doing anything hard at all costs, his Smiths obsession and stealing his earliest memory from his sister

www.thetimes.com

 

[TheSmiths_1985]

Maybe - just maybe - the linking factor on why this keeps happening isn't some vast, shadowy, conspiracy by the 'mainstream media'

We all know it’s a stinking homophobic smear campaign by former NME journalists, and an estate agent. MOZI himself is blameless.

 

[Dorothy]

The sorrow of Salman Ramadan Abedi's bombing of Manchester Arena is that it wasn't a Morrissey concert.

That was the sorrow, not that 22 people died? That has to be one of the worst things I've ever read on here.

 

[Tampa Moz Fan]

Hasn't it always been done, though? It's not unique to totalitarian societies. Ezra Pound had Jewish admirers who made it clear they loathed his anti-Semitism; Roman Polanski films were often reviewed with a caveat of disgust about his being a fugitive from child-rape charges while remaining a talented filmmaker. Christopher Hitchens lamented the late-period conservatism of one of his favorite writers, Saul Bellow, and Martin Amis theorized that Vladimir Nabokov had an obsession with pubescent children that goes beyond just Lolita (and having read Ada, where there's a lot of it in an extremely difficult book that most people won't slog through, I'm inclined to agree). People will "separate the art from the artist" for as long as artists impress them with their talent and let them down with their views or behavior.

Those people deserved to be shunned altogether for their reprehensible behavior. What Morrissey did (or rather said) is nowhere near that level. The fact that these people still listen to his music is a tacit admission that what he said wasn't that bad. That is, if they even know what he said in the first place. Rarely do they get into the details and nuance of Morrissey's supposedly controversial comments. The "separating the art from the artist" disclaimers are just virtue signaling.

 

[Surface]

The sorrow of Salman Ramadan Abedi's bombing of Manchester Arena is that it wasn't a Morrissey concert.

Hope that's some sort of joke (that I don't get) I and some other folks on here would probably have been there if it had been a Morrissey gig. Some of my youngest daughter's school friends were at Ariana's gig including one who lost both her legs. My daughter (and her friends) didn't dare go into Manchester for 3 years after that event, thankfully she and the others are fine now.

 

[Anonymous]

That was the sorrow, not that 22 people died? That has to be one of the worst things I've ever read on here.

I presume it was satire, or a case of turning Morrissey's own comments back on him after he aid the same about the Brighton Bombing.

After all - really, every single day, worse things happen in Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonalds.

 

[new musings]

Just curious, since Morrissey (the lyrical writer for The Smiths) wrote and performed all of The Smiths songs he liked so much, did he not ever listen to those lyrics and understand what Morrissey (again the writer) was saying?
I’m just wondering because for myself, and probably many others, I related to Morrissey’s writings and even what he talked about and stood for in interviews since the beginning.
THIS IS WHY I STAND BY HIM.

My guess is this comedian, and other posers like him, never truly liked The Smiths and that’s why they easily jump jump jump on the new anti Morrissey bandwagon.

Ya’ll so fake. I totally get it now.

 

[No 27]

I presume it was satire, or a case of turning Morrissey's own comments back on him after he aid the same about the Brighton Bombing.

Thank you.

 

[new musings]

Why do so many of you go on the attack as soon as someone dares criticise MOZI?

Morrissey solo dot com

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Those people deserved to be shunned altogether for their reprehensible behavior. What Morrissey did (or rather said) is nowhere near that level. The fact that these people still listen to his music is a tacit admission that what he said wasn't that bad. That is, if they even know what he said in the first place. Rarely do they get into the details and nuance of Morrissey's supposedly controversial comments. The "separating the art from the artist" comments are just virtue signaling.

In the case of Saul Bellow, it was actually similar to Morrissey. Hitchens was mostly let down by Bellow's late-life political turn into Norman Podhoretz territory and making controversial comments on race like, "how come the Zulus cannot produce a Tolstoy?" This isn't too different from calling the Chinese a sub-species and platforming Paul Joseph Watson. The only "virtue signaling" I see in Paul Black's comments is him saying he was ashamed to have been seen at a Morrissey concert (in which case, why did he go in the first place?)

Anyway, the comment I was responding to was someone suggesting the atmosphere in England is like North Korea now, which is patently absurd. In North Korea, you cannot "separate the art from the artist." The art itself is banned. Liking it gets you hard labor; possessing it gets you the death penalty.

 

[gordyboy9]

what a wank,scottish people seem to avoid the cancelled stuff but not this fanny.
oh the shame of being seen at a morrissey concert,the only shame i would feel is being in the same building as this tosser.

 

[gashonthenail]

Hasn't it always been done, though? It's not unique to totalitarian societies. Ezra Pound had Jewish admirers who made it clear they loathed his anti-Semitism; Roman Polanski films were often reviewed with a caveat of disgust about his being a fugitive from child-rape charges while remaining a talented filmmaker. Christopher Hitchens lamented the late-period conservatism of one of his favorite writers, Saul Bellow, and Martin Amis theorized that Vladimir Nabokov had an obsession with pubescent children that goes beyond just Lolita (and having read Ada, where there's a lot of it in an extremely difficult book that most people won't slog through, I'm inclined to agree). People will "separate the art from the artist" for as long as artists impress them with their talent and let them down with their views or behavior.

Perhaps 'twas ever so. But I do think there is a difference. The examples you give above are all people who chose to point out something about the particular artist that they found objectionable. There was no sense that they felt obliged to do so, for fear of losing work or being 'cancelled'. Whereas with this 'comedian', and many others who have used the same 'separate the artist from the art' mantra, you really do get the feeling they feel obliged to caveat their liking for Morrissey - for fear of the consequences if they don't. It doesn't feel like a mere casual choice to caveat their liking of him. That feels very different to the examples you give above.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

In the case of Saul Bellow, it was actually similar to Morrissey. Hitchens was mostly let down by Bellow's late-life political turn into Norman Podhoretz territory and making controversial comments on race like, "how come the Zulus cannot produce a Tolstoy?" This isn't too different from calling the Chinese a sub-species and platforming Paul Joseph Watson.

How’s that? Particularly his comments on the occurrence (tradition?) in China where people skin animals alive, dogs I believe? and then eat them.

Anyway, some of the people that you mentioned in your initial post would probably have thanked their lucky stars to not have been around now during the internet.

Then again what’s Morrissey guilty of? Is it that he doesn’t explain or defend what he clumsily says or has said and unfortunately leaves it open to (mis)interpretation? on the internet where someone from X to some business only wants to be ‘liked’, and they will do whatever is necessary to be ‘liked’?

The only "virtue signaling" I see in Paul Black's comments is him saying he was ashamed to have been seen at a Morrissey concert (in which case, why did he go in the first place?)

is the disclaimer necessary? And why? Is it out of laziness then? Because otherwise, they would need to go into it, and possibly admit that they don’t know exactly why Morrissey said what he said or know first hand what the context even was?

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Perhaps 'twas ever so. But I do think there is a difference. The examples you give above are all people who chose to point out something about the particular artist that they found objectionable. There was no sense that they felt obliged to do so, for fear of losing work or being 'cancelled'. Whereas with this 'comedian', and many others who have used the same 'separate the artist from the art' mantra, you really do get the feeling they feel obliged to caveat their liking for Morrissey - for fear of the consequences if they don't. It doesn't feel like a mere casual choice to caveat their liking of him. That feels very different to the examples you give above.

How do you determine who's choosing to point it out versus who feels obligated? It seems predicated on your own feeling that England is some kind of anti-Morrissey/Stasi state—which, I'm not there, but I'm pretty sure it's not. Chrissie Hynde has defended Morrissey, and she performed at Glastonbury last year and even has an art exhibit coming up in London next month. I don't think there's the penalty for liking Morrissey without apology that you think there is.

Now, someone like Sarah Wilkinson, her case definitely says something about what kind of speech is actually verboten and might get you raided by the authorities, but that one might not bother you as much.

 

[gordyboy9]

This guy must be a comedian.

evrybodies a comedian these days,when i was growing up there were very few comedians now there are literally thousands and thousands and lets face it nearly all of them are very unfunny.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

evrybodies a comedian these days,when i was growing up there were very few comedians now there are literally thousands and thousands and lets face it nearly all of them are very unfunny.

Actually, I use to love Paul Black, but now, I guess I’ll have to separate the comedian from the jokes.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

How’s that? Particularly his comments on the occurrence (tradition?) in China where people skin animals alive, dogs I believe? and then eat them.

Yes, and there's currently a trend in China where people are torturing cats and posting the videos for internet likes. But I'm not sure this tells us anything special about the Chinese other than that they have the universal human tendency for animal cruelty. Long before the internet, the French used to burn cats alive as public entertainment. Being a sub-species does not seem to depend on being a particular nationality. And you and I both know the same kinds of cruelties go on in U.S. factory farms as go on at Yulin; our animals selected for their meat simply have the misfortune of not being as cuddly and beloved as dogs. I can understand what Morrissey was getting at, but he did not phrase it well and never qualified it (something Bellow bothered to do).

is the disclaimer necessary? And why? Is it out of laziness then? Because otherwise, they would need to go into it, and possibly admit that they don’t know exactly why Morrissey said what he said or know first hand what the context even was?

I guess they find the disclaimer necessary for the same reason anyone else says the same thing about separating the art from the artist. I don't know what precise problems Paul Black has with Morrissey; he didn't get into specifics. But I don't think the context saves the sub-species comment, for the reasons given above.

That said, if that's the one that bothers him, then I wonder if he's vegan.

 

[gashonthenail]

How do you determine who's choosing to point it out versus who feels obligated? It seems predicated on your own feeling that England is some kind of anti-Morrissey/Stasi state—which, I'm not there, but I'm pretty sure it's not. Chrissie Hynde has defended Morrissey, and she performed at Glastonbury last year and even has an art exhibit coming up in London next month. I don't think there's the penalty for liking Morrissey without apology that you think there is.

Now, someone like Sarah Wilkinson, her case definitely says something about what kind of speech is actually verboten and might get you raided by the authorities, but that one might not bother you as much.

Because he uses the words, We’re gonna have to separate the artist from the art here. Why do we have to?
Chrissie Hynde is an internationally famous established artist. She's also 73.
This guy is a 'jobbing' comedian who relies on his next booking. The comedy circuit is notorious for 'cancelling' comics whose values don't align with the venue's values. This is the case across the English-speaking world. Not just in the UK.

 

[Dorothy]

If he is so concerned then why mention Morrissey at all , he should have gone with another gig choice to guarantee his next job.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Because he uses the words, We’re gonna have to separate the artist from the art here. Why do we have to?

I think you're taking this way too literally. That's just something people say. The Office Space movie popularized the line, "I'm gonna go ahead and [x]." Do you really think he is deliberately coding his words in fear of some shadowy cultural overseer?

Chrissie Hynde is an internationally famous established artist. She's also 73.
This guy is a 'jobbing' comedian who relies on his next booking. The comedy circuit is notorious for 'cancelling' comics whose values don't align with the venue's values. This is the case across the English-speaking world. Not just in the UK.

Yes, and I'm sure the "anti-woke" comedian Dave Chappelle will never find another venue to play in. Please don't say he has the benefit of status or f*ck-you money. "Anti-woke" is a mainstream trend in comedy, with plenty of new takers and endless Joe Rogan clones. You don't have the enduring and annoying popularity of "bro"/"barstool" shit in the UK?

 

[DET]

If he is so fallen and career over then why can’t I ever go to a show that isn’t a completely packed large venue? So many other artists I loved that were huge just play tiny clubs I can walk right up to the stage now . I would love if his popularity actually fell that far and could enjoy an intimate club date. But still sooo many people go to multi night events. Narratives from poisters here completely evaporate every show of his i go to these days.