Johnny Marr Quashes Smiths Reunion Rumor

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


mojo-photo-oldsmiths.jpgOr, “William, It Was Really Nothing.” Ahem. Reports emerged late last week that The Smiths were possibly maybe “on the verge” of a reunion, after lead singer Morrissey and guitarist Johnny Marr “settled their differences.” The UK Telegraph was reporting that “industry sources believe that a comeback could be imminent.” While just about every other band who ever broke up has already reunited, long-suffering Smiths fans likely didn’t get their hopes up (mostly because Smiths fans don’t really have any hopes to get up) and our abject cynicism and unfettered pessimism was proven right once again, as Marr has forcefully denied the rumors of a reunion to NME:

Marr issued a statement to NME.COM saying that rumours floating around that the band were reuniting were “untrue”. He declared: “The stories circulating about a Smiths reunion are, as usual, untrue.” Marr added he was committed to his current band The Cribs. “I’m currently very excited about writing and recording with The Cribs for a new album to be released next summer and we’re playing shows in February, so going back in time isn’t in my plans,” he said.

Considering your musical promiscuousness post-Smiths, I’m sure The Cribs totally believe you.

If you remember back to mid-2007, Morrissey reportedly turned down a £40 million (about $900 quadrillion US) (not really) offer to reunite for a Smiths tour, the only requirement being the presence of both himself and Marr on the same stage at the same time. Jeez, guys, you’d think it would be Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke who would hold the biggest grudges, but I guess Moz wanting to do Cilla Black covers really, really pissed Johnny off. Well, I’d say something like “heaven knows I’m miserable now,” but we all know I was already miserable.

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate