Wayne on TSOM v's Mish
Posted: 26 Jul 2008, 18:54
Wayne has just posted this on MWIS. It's his thoughts on the TSOM v's Mish thread that's been running over there and I thought some of you might like a read....
"Well, I haven't been on here for a while and having a spare hour or so this morning I've just read through this thread. It's certainly sparked a lively and interesting debate.
OK, Ramone asked for my take on this.
Firstly, I have no axe to grind with Andrew and haven't done for a long, long time. Wouldn't it be rather sad and pathetic if either of us was to still harbour any bad feelings towards the other? It's 23 years since I last worked with Andrew and that is a long time by any definition. I wouldn't be averse to getting together with Andrew, if the situation was to suit us both, and seeing if we could work together again, maybe to write a couple of tunes. But because it worked 23 years ago doesn't mean that it would work now. I'm sure we have both changed considerably in that time. As for a Sisters reformation, I can't see any point in that at all. But if we were to try and do something new then, yes, I could well be up for that.
As for Andrew not being able to sing, well, that's totally subjective. For me, Andrew is a totally unique and superb vocalist that has spawned a million imitators. I can sing, in the traditional sense, very well or rather I have learn't to sing very well but I have never felt that I had a particularly unique voice. For me, there is a fundamental difference. Again, Ramone hit the nail on the head when he made the observation that Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, & Leonard Cohen couldn't sing particularly well but have become icons because of their uniqueness. There are loads more I could think of too - Siouxsie, Robert Smith, Morrissey, Brian Molko, Marc Bolan, Bjork, Kate Bush - to name just a few. How do you think any of these people would fare if they were to appear on that tv show, X-factor is it called? They'd be laughed off the screen. By the same token the people that do appear on these shows are inane and characterless, much like most music is these days to my ancient ears. It seems to me to be more about conformity rather than being unique. Anyway, I digress. My point is this - if I had the choice of having a unique voice or the voice that I do have I would wish for something a little more unique. And I don't think it's something you can particularly cultivate or develop. It just is. And I'm sorry, Blue Jo, but I see a contradiction in your argument when you say that you think Andrew is talentless and tuneless and can't sing and that you prefer people who can actually sing and then you go onto say that you hate Frank Sinatra who is quite possibly technically the best singer I have ever heard. You also say that you like Joy Division because they are unique but let's face it, Ian Curtis couldn't sing in the traditional sense, could he? But he was unique, just as Bernard Sumner is. And that makes both Joy Division and New Order unique bands. I mention the two bands because they share a history, much like TSOM and The m*****n do. It boils down to this in the end. Music is subjective and it's only good if we like it and no one is right and no one is wrong.
The same goes for lyric writing. I would concede that Andrew is a more 'intelligent' lyricist than I am but I have had my (good) moments, I think. My lyric writing tends to be more visceral compared to Andrew's more deliberate and academic approach. Both ways of working are valid. When I was in TSOM that pretty much summed up the way that Andrew and I worked musically too. The two can work in tandem. It worked for us. The results bore that out. MGT is right when he said that I do have a great deal of pride in being involved in FALAA. I think it's a great album. I had occasion to play 'Marian' recently and that still sounds great. As do some of the 'old' m*****n records in my opinion. Again, it's subjective though. No opinion is right or wrong.
Maybe because of the way I work my output over the years has been been more prolific than Andrew's. I tend to 'just do things' and put them out and move onto the next thing. We all live and die by our deeds, don't we?
I do think that lyrically I have become more able to articulate myself over the years and I have become able to say what I want to say within the strictures of a song lyric. That being said GIAB was largely a work of 'stream of consciousness' and, neither rightly or wrongly, not too much time was spent in the writing. Quite often I would write a lyric in the morning and then go and vocal it in the afternoon. No, or very little, time was spent deliberating or editing. I have seen the criticisms here on MWIS regarding GIAB lyrics and all I would say is it was a work of the moment. Take it or leave it. It either 'talks' to you or it doesn't. That was the way I chose to work for that album. Regarding my early lyrics, yes, I did recycle. Still do. It's difficult when you've written 200+ songs not to feel that in some ways you are repeating something you've already once said. In my defense when I started writing lyrics for The m*****n it was fairly new to me and something that was thrust upon me by circumstance and I had to learn the 'art' as I went along, and publicly, and I didn't have the luxury of developing that skill in private beforehand as most people do. Anyway, for me, lyric writing is not a 'natural' talent of mine, it s something I have really had to work at. Unlike making music. I can pick up a guitar pretty much anytime and knock out a new tune or sit at a piano and put a few chords together. That's easy to me. Always has been.
As for intelligence, well, again that's something that I don't think you can cultivate. You either are or you're not. Education is something else completely different. Anyone can be educated. Some of the most educated people I know have no or very little intelligence. I'm not particularly educated - normal secondary school education - and I don't think I'm particularly intelligent but I know I'm not stupid. What I do/have done and the way I work works for me and thankfully for some of you.
As for Weaver's argument that The m*****n wouldn't have been as successful without TSOM, well, maybe he's right. There certainly wouldn't have been The m*****n without TSOM. But I do think that if The m*****n had been a brand new band (no history) back in 1986 we still would have been successful. It may have taken a little longer and our TSOM history certainly accelerated the process but ultimately it was down to how good we were, the songs, the records, and the live shows. Again, we live or die by our deeds. If we'd have been crap then we wouldn't have enjoyed the success we did. We were right for the time. And I also believe our success accelerated TSOM success too. It worked in both our favours.
As for the mystique of TSOM, well, it wasn't particularly calculated or premeditated. It's just the way we were. And when Craig and I formed the m*****n we went in the opposite direction, we became the antithesis of what TSOM were. Again, it wasn't calculated. It just developed that way. For every action there is a reaction. We were a gang, we enjoyed a camaraderie within the band and with our audience, we were approachable, available, and human.
Anyway, it all boils down to music in the end. And we all have differing tastes. Thank God. Both bands made their mark and have contributed to the history of rock music. Long live TSOM and The m*****n.
And Ramone, I have no idea what you're referring to when you threaten to expose me and Ian Astbury unless it's the fact that we did use to shove our tongues down each other's throats but that's no news.....I've always been prone to that little adventure and I must surely have had my tongue down your throat at some point, or at least tried......"
Cheers
Snowey
"Well, I haven't been on here for a while and having a spare hour or so this morning I've just read through this thread. It's certainly sparked a lively and interesting debate.
OK, Ramone asked for my take on this.
Firstly, I have no axe to grind with Andrew and haven't done for a long, long time. Wouldn't it be rather sad and pathetic if either of us was to still harbour any bad feelings towards the other? It's 23 years since I last worked with Andrew and that is a long time by any definition. I wouldn't be averse to getting together with Andrew, if the situation was to suit us both, and seeing if we could work together again, maybe to write a couple of tunes. But because it worked 23 years ago doesn't mean that it would work now. I'm sure we have both changed considerably in that time. As for a Sisters reformation, I can't see any point in that at all. But if we were to try and do something new then, yes, I could well be up for that.
As for Andrew not being able to sing, well, that's totally subjective. For me, Andrew is a totally unique and superb vocalist that has spawned a million imitators. I can sing, in the traditional sense, very well or rather I have learn't to sing very well but I have never felt that I had a particularly unique voice. For me, there is a fundamental difference. Again, Ramone hit the nail on the head when he made the observation that Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, & Leonard Cohen couldn't sing particularly well but have become icons because of their uniqueness. There are loads more I could think of too - Siouxsie, Robert Smith, Morrissey, Brian Molko, Marc Bolan, Bjork, Kate Bush - to name just a few. How do you think any of these people would fare if they were to appear on that tv show, X-factor is it called? They'd be laughed off the screen. By the same token the people that do appear on these shows are inane and characterless, much like most music is these days to my ancient ears. It seems to me to be more about conformity rather than being unique. Anyway, I digress. My point is this - if I had the choice of having a unique voice or the voice that I do have I would wish for something a little more unique. And I don't think it's something you can particularly cultivate or develop. It just is. And I'm sorry, Blue Jo, but I see a contradiction in your argument when you say that you think Andrew is talentless and tuneless and can't sing and that you prefer people who can actually sing and then you go onto say that you hate Frank Sinatra who is quite possibly technically the best singer I have ever heard. You also say that you like Joy Division because they are unique but let's face it, Ian Curtis couldn't sing in the traditional sense, could he? But he was unique, just as Bernard Sumner is. And that makes both Joy Division and New Order unique bands. I mention the two bands because they share a history, much like TSOM and The m*****n do. It boils down to this in the end. Music is subjective and it's only good if we like it and no one is right and no one is wrong.
The same goes for lyric writing. I would concede that Andrew is a more 'intelligent' lyricist than I am but I have had my (good) moments, I think. My lyric writing tends to be more visceral compared to Andrew's more deliberate and academic approach. Both ways of working are valid. When I was in TSOM that pretty much summed up the way that Andrew and I worked musically too. The two can work in tandem. It worked for us. The results bore that out. MGT is right when he said that I do have a great deal of pride in being involved in FALAA. I think it's a great album. I had occasion to play 'Marian' recently and that still sounds great. As do some of the 'old' m*****n records in my opinion. Again, it's subjective though. No opinion is right or wrong.
Maybe because of the way I work my output over the years has been been more prolific than Andrew's. I tend to 'just do things' and put them out and move onto the next thing. We all live and die by our deeds, don't we?
I do think that lyrically I have become more able to articulate myself over the years and I have become able to say what I want to say within the strictures of a song lyric. That being said GIAB was largely a work of 'stream of consciousness' and, neither rightly or wrongly, not too much time was spent in the writing. Quite often I would write a lyric in the morning and then go and vocal it in the afternoon. No, or very little, time was spent deliberating or editing. I have seen the criticisms here on MWIS regarding GIAB lyrics and all I would say is it was a work of the moment. Take it or leave it. It either 'talks' to you or it doesn't. That was the way I chose to work for that album. Regarding my early lyrics, yes, I did recycle. Still do. It's difficult when you've written 200+ songs not to feel that in some ways you are repeating something you've already once said. In my defense when I started writing lyrics for The m*****n it was fairly new to me and something that was thrust upon me by circumstance and I had to learn the 'art' as I went along, and publicly, and I didn't have the luxury of developing that skill in private beforehand as most people do. Anyway, for me, lyric writing is not a 'natural' talent of mine, it s something I have really had to work at. Unlike making music. I can pick up a guitar pretty much anytime and knock out a new tune or sit at a piano and put a few chords together. That's easy to me. Always has been.
As for intelligence, well, again that's something that I don't think you can cultivate. You either are or you're not. Education is something else completely different. Anyone can be educated. Some of the most educated people I know have no or very little intelligence. I'm not particularly educated - normal secondary school education - and I don't think I'm particularly intelligent but I know I'm not stupid. What I do/have done and the way I work works for me and thankfully for some of you.
As for Weaver's argument that The m*****n wouldn't have been as successful without TSOM, well, maybe he's right. There certainly wouldn't have been The m*****n without TSOM. But I do think that if The m*****n had been a brand new band (no history) back in 1986 we still would have been successful. It may have taken a little longer and our TSOM history certainly accelerated the process but ultimately it was down to how good we were, the songs, the records, and the live shows. Again, we live or die by our deeds. If we'd have been crap then we wouldn't have enjoyed the success we did. We were right for the time. And I also believe our success accelerated TSOM success too. It worked in both our favours.
As for the mystique of TSOM, well, it wasn't particularly calculated or premeditated. It's just the way we were. And when Craig and I formed the m*****n we went in the opposite direction, we became the antithesis of what TSOM were. Again, it wasn't calculated. It just developed that way. For every action there is a reaction. We were a gang, we enjoyed a camaraderie within the band and with our audience, we were approachable, available, and human.
Anyway, it all boils down to music in the end. And we all have differing tastes. Thank God. Both bands made their mark and have contributed to the history of rock music. Long live TSOM and The m*****n.
And Ramone, I have no idea what you're referring to when you threaten to expose me and Ian Astbury unless it's the fact that we did use to shove our tongues down each other's throats but that's no news.....I've always been prone to that little adventure and I must surely have had my tongue down your throat at some point, or at least tried......"
Cheers
Snowey
, he is wanking around now and wish to get back with the sisters, don't think they need him, ben & chris can do better work, they just prouve it at tienen gig.