well, i'm not one to know philosophy that well, so maybe i mean metaphysical thought.

upon reading Simon Goddard's analysis of "How Soon is now?" i was thinking back to something i once said around here and the similarities...as great minds do think alike...about how if there is no other Smiths song out there that the general populace knows and bedgrudgingly admits to liking, its this song.

it reminded me of a poser i thought about once and then forgotten. maybe forgotten for the right reasons, but anyhow...

that song is obviously regarded as one of their most critically and popularly liked songs. maybe not within the diehard regions, and please don't say, "what? its 'a light that never goes out'! how dare you say how soon is now is better!" because that's not my point.

let's say that if in some other universe, the band didn't sound like jingle jangle and they sounded more like this one song instead. what would that say about where they would be in the history books of music? if they are so upheld for a sound epitomized in songs like "this charming man" and "a light that never goes out", then why does the world at large embrace this one particular song?

and don't just say, "the world is dumb" because this song made itself known for originally being a b-side. obviously, it swayed someone with an ear over for it to be played to begin with because i don't think the Wham! crowd called up radio one and demanded that they play it. i just find it very strange that their most "un-smiths-like" song is regarded as their masterpiece.

this is a question that has plagued me for a long time too! it took me a long time to check out the smiths in earnest because i assumed all their songs would sound like "how soon is now?" this has never been one of my favorite songs, but the more i listen to it, the more i'm struck by its universality and its truth and its urgency. it really is a damn good song, dark but hopeful. i still don't know why it's as popular as it is, but it does deserve whatever accolades it gets.

I'm assuming your question is really about why "How Soon Is Now?" is popular in America, since in England the song would have been recognized instantly as a departure, and the band was well known long before it was released.

In that light, there's probably a very simple reason why "How Soon Is Now?" is the song that came to America's consciousness first and stayed longest-- unless I'm mistaken it was Sire Records' first single release here in the States (if not, it was at least the most hyped to that point, including that Sire-sired promo video that so many people revile). Also, it was added to "Meat Is Murder", which, I think, was the first real commercial success The Smiths had in America (relatively speaking of course).

Looking beyond that, I think you have to trace the spread of the song into the consciousness of non-fans by looking at two types of listener: "alternative/club" kids and more traditional pop/rock fans.

The first group liked the song because it was played in clubs a lot in the 80s, receiving a lot of promotion from Sire because that's how a lot of English bands first came to notoriety over here (see New Order). Though it sounds strange now, given the state of contemporary club music, back in the eighties the bands you'd find in the U.K. indie charts would show up on the U.S. club charts (and also that notorious beast 'college radio'). It was perfect alongside a lot of eighties stuff because to those ignorant of The Smiths' sound-- in other words, nearly all of America in 1984/85-- it fit that "British Mod/Romantic/Futuristic" stereotype (and it does, if you listen to it in a certain mood). More simply, for the D.J. it was a "cutting-edge" track that provided a nice, danceable shuffle (and you didn't even need an extended twelve-inch remix). A lot of non-Smiths fans who went to clubs were exposed to the song that way. While I find almost all Smiths songs incredibly suited for the dancefloor, there's no question that "How Soon Is Now?" might be the best of all of them-- at least for 80s "discos". If you've ever heard a club suddenly filled with Marr's epic wail of restrained fury, it's not hard to understand.

The second group, the more "traditional" or "mainstream" rock fans, found the song palatable, I think, because the music is steely and tough, in that regard acting as a counterpoint to the lyrics-- words we might call poignant and bravely vulnerable but which, to other, less sensitive souls, might seem, um, a bit too much on the whiny side. The most common invectives thrown at The Smiths (that I've heard) is that they made "faggy" or "pansy" music, and if that's your mindset then it's not surprising that the other "jingly-jangly" songs never made it big. "How Soon Is Now?", I think, was so blazingly great that the more mainstream audience "didn't mind" the words. I had numerous friends at school who hated Morrissey but liked a few Smiths songs-- namely "How Soon Is Now?"-- and when questioned would always sniff and say "I just like the music. Morrissey's lame." In other words, for uptight Card-Carrying Heterosexuals it was kind of like Nathan Lane-- the gay guy it's safe to like.

Assuming I'm in the ballpark with my generalizations, it's interesting to note that the club kids liked the song for almost exactly the opposite reasons than the rock fans did-- to the former it was a "modern"-sounding song (smacking of technology and alienation) while the latter probably regarded its full immersion into scything guitars as more "traditional", perhaps vaguely psychedelic, but above all comfortingly backward-looking. The difference in the song's appeal is probably the surest sign of its genius.

Unraveling that reactionary strand a bit further, the most commonly-floated description of "How Soon Is Now?" made by critics is that it's "the 80s generation's 'Stairway To Heaven'", which I've always taken to mean that it's acceptable to them because it carries on the tradition of guitar-heavy crotch rock-- stack the Marshalls as high as you can, turn on the atmospheric effects, and let 'er rip. "Soulful and heavy", I can hear them say; there was a time when any pop album that wasn't drowning in guitars wouldn't earn more than a dismissive chuckle and a paltry two stars in Rolling Stone magazine-- Depeche Mode only got a good review and a feature story when (phew!) they used some more noticeable guitar riffs on "Violator". This is a critical stab at legitimizing the band in the most preposterous way imaginable. To paraphrase something an NME writer once said of another lazy comparison between an extinct rock dinosaur and a Manchester band, "The difference between Led Zeppelin and The Smiths is like the difference between a cardboard box and a dream."

It's just one of those things. Certainly in the States, most of the "alternative" bands in the eighties are remembered for one or two tracks that are not definitive records of the group's sound. Joy Division are always remembered for "Love Will Tear Us Apart", which, while a great song, isn't, I don't think, emblematic of the band, either in sound or lyrics (of course, it's hardly an anomaly either). To many people, New Order are known as an anonymous club band that produced "one-hit wonders" like "Blue Monday" and "Bizarre Love Triangle" (in fact they have produced a mind-boggling number of great songs that seamlessly combine acoustic instruments with their trademark computers). The Cure were known primarily for "Just Like Heaven", Love and Rockets for "So Alive", R.E.M. (for a year or two at least) for "The One I Love", The Clash for "Rock The Casbah", and on and on. And the 80s compilations don't help matters, thrusting Echo And The Bunnymen, for example, alongside Kajagoogoo and Cyndi Lauper. To the outsider it's all a confused mess-- but that's how a lot of fans like it. There are insiders, and then there are outsiders-- and the outsiders didn't get it then, and they certainly won't get it now.

[Okay. No more caffeine for me.]

> well, i'm not one to know philosophy that well, so maybe i mean
> metaphysical thought.

> upon reading Simon Goddard's analysis of "How Soon is now?" i
> was thinking back to something i once said around here and the
> similarities...as great minds do think alike...about how if there is no
> other Smiths song out there that the general populace knows and
> bedgrudgingly admits to liking, its this song.

> it reminded me of a poser i thought about once and then forgotten. maybe
> forgotten for the right reasons, but anyhow...

> that song is obviously regarded as one of their most critically and
> popularly liked songs. maybe not within the diehard regions, and please
> don't say, "what? its 'a light that never goes out'! how dare you say
> how soon is now is better!" because that's not my point.

> let's say that if in some other universe, the band didn't sound like
> jingle jangle and they sounded more like this one song instead. what would
> that say about where they would be in the history books of music? if they
> are so upheld for a sound epitomized in songs like "this charming
> man" and "a light that never goes out", then why does the
> world at large embrace this one particular song?

> and don't just say, "the world is dumb" because this song made
> itself known for originally being a b-side. obviously, it swayed someone
> with an ear over for it to be played to begin with because i don't think
> the Wham! crowd called up radio one and demanded that they play it. i just
> find it very strange that their most "un-smiths-like" song is
> regarded as their masterpiece.

Enjoying the book then ?

Surely a tennis-philosopher knows her metaphysics from her metatarsils?

Well, for one the ultra-reverb thing is pretty damn unique and ear-catching. It stands out becuase it's most distinctive. I think for non-Moz people it's probably more the song they remember than the one they truly love.
Oh, and it had a good video. You know what people are like.

> Enjoying the book then ?

it isn't too bad, but thank god i know something about the mechanics of music or i would be lost.

> it isn't too bad, but thank god i know something about the mechanics of
> music or i would be lost.

Good . I don't think it's a book for the casual fan but one for the diehards.

but I think maybe it's because that one song is actually a good rock song whereas for the rest of the Smiths/Morrissey work you need to like typical whiny British indy pop?

> Good . I don't think it's a book for the casual fan but one for the
> diehards.

uh...so all die hards understand what he means by minor and major keys?

> uh...so all die hards understand what he means by minor and major keys?

You are only picking out a tiny element of the book.What I mean is it goes to the very bones of how the songs were constructed which may not appeal to a casual fan in the way that "The Severed Alliance" would.
I was merely hoping you enjoyed the book but i know light hearted banter...or even agreeing with me on ny point,is not in your nature.Sigh...I'm sure I'll survice though.

i don't think it makes anyone less of a fan if the technical aspects of music go over their heads.

> i don't think it makes anyone less of a fan if the technical aspects of
> music go over their heads.

I agree. The Beatles book "Revolution In The Head" on which The Smiths book "borrows" heavily goes into much more technical aspects of the making of the music yet is still fascinating.

> You are only picking out a tiny element of the book.What I mean is it goes
> to the very bones of how the songs were constructed which may not appeal
> to a casual fan in the way that "The Severed Alliance" would.

well i don't agree with that either because i think it takes someone who knows all the albums, who cares to know enough about irish immigration policy, and who cares about the genealogy of every project that every producer they've worked with to read Rogan's book....so that's obviously a dedicated fan's book. just because it doesn't go into what sort of key changes every song underwent doesn't mean its not heavily detailed oriented as i know i can't buy it for someone who only has Bona Drag and expect they will go "yay!".

you'd do better comparing this book to David Bret's which is 3/4 fluff.

in a way, Goddard's book seems almost lighter than Rogan's because it gets right down to it. strip out what effects peddles they used, and you still aren't getting too heavily detailed information because neither morrissey nor marr gave an interview and he was left either getting impressions from joyce or rourke or going to look for interviews in magazines and reflecting upon books and movies that morrissey is known to have read and seen or asking people who were in the studio and drawing conclusions upon it.

> I was merely hoping you enjoyed the book but i know light hearted
> banter...or even agreeing with me on ny point,is not in your
> nature.Sigh...I'm sure I'll survice though.

i didn't say i hated it, and i'm obviously still reading it, so that says something.

> Surely a tennis-philosopher knows her metaphysics from her metatarsils?

its all one. i am the ball.

> Well, for one the ultra-reverb thing is pretty damn unique and
> ear-catching. It stands out becuase it's most distinctive. I think for
> non-Moz people it's probably more the song they remember than the one they
> truly love.
> Oh, and it had a good video. You know what people are like.

yeah but most people haven't seen the video unless they own The Complete Collection.

but i guess my point is that was there potential for the band to be even better than it was? that they could have veered off into this other direction and be both accessible to the public (moreso than what they were) and yet, achieve this level of art?

they would have been forgotten by 1990

.

> upon reading Simon Goddard's analysis of "How Soon is now?" i
> was thinking back to something i once said around here and the
> similarities...as great minds do think alike...about how if there is no
> other Smiths song out there that the general populace knows and
> bedgrudgingly admits to liking, its this song.

The song isn't that popular. Most people havent heard of The Smiths, never mind How soon is now.

> well i don't agree with that either because i think it takes someone who
> knows all the albums, who cares to know enough about irish immigration
> policy, and who cares about the genealogy of every project that every
> producer they've worked with to read Rogan's book....so that's obviously a
> dedicated fan's book. just because it doesn't go into what sort of key
> changes every song underwent doesn't mean its not heavily detailed
> oriented as i know i can't buy it for someone who only has Bona Drag and
> expect they will go "yay!".

> you'd do better comparing this book to David Bret's which is 3/4 fluff.

> in a way, Goddard's book seems almost lighter than Rogan's because it gets
> right down to it. strip out what effects peddles they used, and you still
> aren't getting too heavily detailed information because neither morrissey
> nor marr gave an interview and he was left either getting impressions from
> joyce or rourke or going to look for interviews in magazines and
> reflecting upon books and movies that morrissey is known to have read and
> seen or asking people who were in the studio and drawing conclusions upon
> it.

> i didn't say i hated it, and i'm obviously still reading it, so that says
> something.

Classic ! Only read the first line "I don't agree with that either"!. Well there's a surprise.ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ