Morrissey & Marr/The Severed Alliance

[MuteWitness616]

Ive been reading this book, and it is BORING. Hopefully somebody else agrees with me. The book is full of names and little facts on music in the 80s. Very very boring.

[dizzywhore_1804]

I skipped over most of the opening chapters.

Agree that in some places it's one of those books that's in-depth to the point of irrelevance.

[Jukebox Jury]

Yes the first section is hard going. The whole history of Ireland bit was unneccessary - (not saying that as an Englishman who doesn't want to read about his nations shameful past:thumb:) - it was an excellent account, but not needed at that length on the subject matter of the book.

The rest of it - I thought - was fascinating. I once spoke to Mike Joyce about it and he said he didn't know whether the info about Morrissey pre Smiths was accurate or not, but from his day one of being in The Smiths to the final day, it was a very accurate account especially as it was written by someone who was not around the band in anyway.

Jukebox Jury

[jamescagney]

I once spoke to Mike Joyce about it and he said he didn't know whether the info about Morrissey pre Smiths was accurate or not, but from his day one of being in The Smiths to the final day, it was a very accurate account especially as it was written by someone who was not around the band in anyway.

Well yeah, of course he'd agree, wasn't he one of the main sources interviewed for that time period? And might he have personal motives for spinning certain events a certain way? This is the book that repeated the story about Andy supposedly being fired by a note on his car, right?

[hand in glove]

I'm very much against burning books, but that one you should burn to a cinder.

[hand in glove]

Well yeah, of course he'd agree, wasn't he one of the main sources interviewed for that time period? And might he have personal motives for spinning certain events a certain way? This is the book that repeated the story about Andy supposedly being fired by a note on his car, right?

agreed:thumb:

The book is full of lies according to Morrissey, and I'd believe him before I'd believe Joyce.

[hand in glove]

well, with jj around thems ar fight'n' words.

I'm not trying to start any kind of fight. Just expressing my opinion, that's all...

[hand in glove]

where is the fun in that then?

Well, bring it on, I guess. But I have work in a couple of hours, so lets get started. :D

[MuteWitness616]

I want to read a book on Morrissey and his personal life, not toooo personal ;p

but I heard Morrissey got really pissed at Johnny Rogan so last year I got hold of the book, the hardcover edition for 7 dollars.

And it's such a boring book. I have finished dozens of books but still cannot finish this Moz/Marr book. Soo boring

[VacancyForABackscrubber]

Songs that saved your life is worse. He keeps dissing the Smiths lesser known songs - what's that all about.

The only Moz related book I have liked so far is Morrissey Shot.

[Jukebox Jury]

Well yeah, of course he'd agree, wasn't he one of the main sources interviewed for that time period? And might he have personal motives for spinning certain events a certain way? This is the book that repeated the story about Andy supposedly being fired by a note on his car, right?

:rolleyes: Not worth an answer


agreed:thumb:

The book is full of lies according to Morrissey, and I'd believe him before I'd believe Joyce.

And which one of the two was branded in court as being devious, truculant and unreliable:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

[Jukebox Jury]

well, with jj around thems ar fight'n' words.

:boxing::thumb:

Jukebox Jury

[hand in glove]

:rolleyes: Not worth an answer


And which one of the two was branded in court as being devious, truculant and unreliable:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

Obviously, you have no answer to the first reply...

as for your second to me:

Unjustly by a lawyer (LIAR) who's senile and VILE.

[hand in glove]

:boxing::thumb:

Jukebox Jury

LOL! :rolleyes: You're older than me - grow up! :lbf:

[Jukebox Jury]

Unjustly by a lawyer (LIAR) who's senile and VILE.

Obviously:rolleyes:

Jukebox Jury

[snowfallsoon]

agreed:thumb:

The book is full of lies according to Morrissey, and I'd believe him before I'd believe Joyce.

I'm curious, what do you base this opinion on? As JC says, 'of course he would say that'....

[lainey]

Morrissey was visibly worn down by cross-examination, and during a break in proceedings told me,"I feel like I'm aging 10 years by the hour."
Deciding which party to believe was part of the fun. Marr insisted that Joyce knew he was on 10 per cent, and had mentioned improving that percentage while they were watching Top Of The Pops at the drummer's home. Indeed, Marr recalled phoning Morrissey on the subject that same evening. Unfortunately, Morrissey had no recollection of this call, while Joyce denied that Marr had even watched the programme at his house. On the penultimate day of the hearing, Judge Weeks told Marr's Counsel, "It's Top Of The Pops, or nothing." Later that afternoon, His Lordship announced, much to everyone's surprise, that he would give his judgement the following morning.

Morrissey was conspicuous by his absence, which was probably just as well. Judge Weeks described the plaintiffs Joyce and Rourke as "straightforward and honest", but damned Morrissey as "devious, truculent and unreliable when his own interests were at stake." Marr, despite his "engaging personality", fared little better in the Judge's summation and was said "to be willing to embroider his evidence to a point where he became less credible." Outside court 62, Marr left hurriedly, flanked by his solicitors, while Joyce was pinned against a window by a posse of press people. "This was never about money," he protested. "It will not change my lifestyle but it will secure the future for my wife and children." His solicitor Liam McNeill estimated the judgement was worth around £1 million, while the costs awarded against Morrissey and Marr were thought to be about £250,000.


It remains to be seen whether Andy Rourke will decide to follow Joyce's action by attempting to reopen a claim that he previously settled by accepting £83,000 already owed and 10 per cent of all future royalties, bar publishing. "I can't live with it," he told me during the lead-up to the case. "It needs sorting out. It's just something that as I get older I can't live with. Maybe it was Morrissey's idea, but Johnny went along with it. It's alright blaming it on Moz, but Johnny's made fortunes from it. Me and Mike never begrudged them the publishing. We at least deserved a quarter of the performing royalties."

Johnny Rogan

[hand in glove]

I'm curious, what do you base this opinion on? As JC says, 'of course he would say that'....

Well, I base my opinion on the trial and what Joyce put Morrissey and his family through. He should have accepted the percentage he agreed to when he signed the contract, and not come back and say Morrissey and Marr owed him much more years later. Joyce was sneaky and nasty about the whole thing.

I think JC was referring to Mike Joyce when he said "Of course he would say that"

[lainey]

, Rogan described an exchange between Morrissey and himself in the foyer of the courthouse during a recess:

Morrissey: "So this is where all things ends"
J. Rogan: "Yes, but do you still wish me to perish in an M3 pile up?"
Morrissey: "No, I don't"
J. Rogan: "Well that's good, that's something"
Morrissey: "No... the M63"



and from the transcript of the court case
[when asked about his business arrangements with Johnny Marr]

M: Could you define partnership?
QC: There are a number of books which do that Mr Morrissey, but I don’t intend to go into that now.
M: I haven’t read them.


QC: I don’t want you to think I’m tricking you.
M: I think you are.


QC: Could I finish my question please?
M: It’s too time-consuming.
QC: It’s more time consuming if you don’t allow me to finish the question.
M: I don’t agree.

The last one actually elicited chuckles from various parts of the court room;

[Jukebox Jury]

Well, I base my opinion on the trial and what Joyce put Morrissey and his family through. He should have accepted the percentage he agreed to when he signed the contract, and not come back and say Morrissey and Marr owed him much more years later. Joyce was sneaky and nasty about the whole thing.


Oh dear.....here we go again.....
what contract are you talking about? Mike and Andy NEVER signed a contract...that was the whole point!

Jukebox Jury

[snowfallsoon]

Well, I base my opinion on the trial and what Joyce put Morrissey and his family through. He should have accepted the percentage he agreed to when he signed the contract, and not come back and say Morrissey and Marr owed him much more years later. Joyce was sneaky and nasty about the whole thing.

I think JC was referring to Mike Joyce when he said "Of course he would say that"

What contract?

[snowfallsoon]

, Rogan described an exchange between Morrissey and himself in the foyer of the courthouse during a recess:

Morrissey: "So this is where all things ends"
J. Rogan: "Yes, but do you still wish me to perish in an M3 pile up?"
Morrissey: "No, I don't"
J. Rogan: "Well that's good, that's something"
Morrissey: "No... the M63"



and from the transcript of the court case
[when asked about his business arrangements with Johnny Marr]

M: Could you define partnership?
QC: There are a number of books which do that Mr Morrissey, but I don’t intend to go into that now.
M: I haven’t read them.


QC: I don’t want you to think I’m tricking you.
M: I think you are.


QC: Could I finish my question please?
M: It’s too time-consuming.
QC: It’s more time consuming if you don’t allow me to finish the question.
M: I don’t agree.

The last one actually elicited chuckles from various parts of the court room;

hahahahahahahahaha

[Jukebox Jury]

Snowy, you fancy a cup of coffee? You put the kettle on and I'll sort the cups out. Looks like we're going to be here a while:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

[lainey]

Snowy, you fancy a cup of coffee? You put the kettle on and I'll sort the cups out. Looks like we're going to be here a while:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

I'd love a cuppa..

The point is it wasn't just Morrissey who said that Joyce and Rourke knew they were on a 10 per cent royalty as early as November 1983

nor was it just Morrissey that the judge spoke unkindly about.

" Marr, despite his "engaging personality", fared little better in the Judge's summation and was said "to be willing to embroider his evidence to a point where he became less credible."

[someofusisturningnasty]

I read it cuz it had been hyped up into something fantastic and revealing etc...but it was so DULL. I was truly disappointed with it.

[hand in glove]

Oh dear.....here we go again.....
what contract are you talking about? Mike and Andy NEVER signed a contract...that was the whole point!

Jukebox Jury

There WAS an agreement of sorts that implied that Mike and Andy would receive 10%.

[lainey]

There WAS an agreement of sorts that implied that Mike and Andy would receive 10%.

you tell them.

[hand in glove]

Snowy, you fancy a cup of coffee? You put the kettle on and I'll sort the cups out. Looks like we're going to be here a while:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

I would love a cup - so please don't rule me out. Sadly, I have to be off for work just now. However, I'll be back. Will you keep it warm for me? :)

[jamescagney]

, Rogan described an exchange between Morrissey and himself in the foyer of the courthouse during a recess:

Morrissey: "So this is where all things ends"
J. Rogan: "Yes, but do you still wish me to perish in an M3 pile up?"
Morrissey: "No, I don't"
J. Rogan: "Well that's good, that's something"
Morrissey: "No... the M63"



and from the transcript of the court case
[when asked about his business arrangements with Johnny Marr]

M: Could you define partnership?
QC: There are a number of books which do that Mr Morrissey, but I don’t intend to go into that now.
M: I haven’t read them.


QC: I don’t want you to think I’m tricking you.
M: I think you are.


QC: Could I finish my question please?
M: It’s too time-consuming.
QC: It’s more time consuming if you don’t allow me to finish the question.
M: I don’t agree.

The last one actually elicited chuckles from various parts of the court room;

None of which strikes me as being devious, truculent and unreliable. Seems to me it's honest to a fault, and sounds fairly polite, considering.

[MuteWitness616]

There WAS an agreement of sorts that implied that Mike and Andy would receive 10%.

F*** Mike & Andy

[Jukebox Jury]

There WAS an agreement of sorts that implied that Mike and Andy would receive 10%.

You know that as a fact, do you? I'm not saying there wasn't an agreement....(because I have no idea as to whether there was or not) all I'm saying is that you seem pretty convinced that there was an agreement, all based on the fact that Morrissey said so, therefore it MUST be right.

Jukebox Jury

[MuteWitness616]

, Rogan described an exchange between Morrissey and himself in the foyer of the courthouse during a recess:

Morrissey: "So this is where all things ends"
J. Rogan: "Yes, but do you still wish me to perish in an M3 pile up?"
Morrissey: "No, I don't"
J. Rogan: "Well that's good, that's something"
Morrissey: "No... the M63"



and from the transcript of the court case
[when asked about his business arrangements with Johnny Marr]

M: Could you define partnership?
QC: There are a number of books which do that Mr Morrissey, but I don’t intend to go into that now.
M: I haven’t read them.


QC: I don’t want you to think I’m tricking you.
M: I think you are.


QC: Could I finish my question please?
M: It’s too time-consuming.
QC: It’s more time consuming if you don’t allow me to finish the question.
M: I don’t agree.

The last one actually elicited chuckles from various parts of the court room;

This is why I love Morrissey

[hand in glove]

you tell them.

:thumb:

[hand in glove]

You know that as a fact, do you? I'm not saying there wasn't an agreement....(because I have no idea as to whether there was or not) all I'm saying is that you seem pretty convinced that there was an agreement, all based on the fact that Morrissey said so, therefore it MUST be right.

Jukebox Jury

I will get back to you...:) Work calls! Have a nice evening.

[jamescagney]

You know that as a fact, do you? I'm not saying there wasn't an agreement....(because I have no idea as to whether there was or not) all I'm saying is that you seem pretty convinced that there was an agreement, all based on the fact that Morrissey said so, therefore it MUST be right.

Jukebox Jury

Of course there was an agreement. You think Mike and Andy played with the Smiths for five years without some kind of agreement? That would make them idiots.

Of course Mike asked Johnny and Morrissey for more money.

The judge apparently believes that Mike and Andy were idiots who 1) played with no agreement (which would be stupid) and 2) never complained or asked for more money (which would also be stupid). And, assuming those two statements were true, then I can't see how any legal authority could decide they suddenly deserve more money after the fact. I also don't see them as deserving more money if any of those statements are untrue, either. I think the judge didn't like Morrissey and ruled against him on that, stretching to using a very old and irrelevant law.

Would YOU ever accept a job with no set salary? Would you not complain? And then would you sue for a raise after being fired? And would you expect to win?

[snowfallsoon]

Everyone is welcome for coffee :)

[jamescagney]

Everyone is welcome for coffee :)

Can I get that offer in writing first? :D

[lainey]

You know that as a fact, do you? I'm not saying there was an agreement.... all I'm saying is that you seem pretty convinced that there was an agreement, all based on the fact that Morrissey said so, therefore it MUST be right.

Jukebox Jury

and MARR! It was two against two not two against one.

Why does Marr never get mentioned? Is he this poor, innocent little lamb. Too cute and adorable to understand what was going on?

one last time, the judge said....(Marr)"to be willing to embroider his evidence to a point where he became less credible."

I really like Johnny Marr. I just want people to remember that he was involved in the court case too. Afer all he's forever mentioned with regard to his musical ability and held by some as Morrissey's greatest partner.

[snowfallsoon]

I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US, a verbal agreement is just as good
as a 'contract'....but seems nobody could agree on what that verbal agreement was...I would have hated to be the judge in that case!

[snowfallsoon]

Can I get that offer in writing first? :D

Sure! But you need to fill out a simple request form, just a few questions.

1. Do you like coffee?
2. Do you agree coffee is the greatest beverage, ever?
3. At what exact temperature is coffee best served?
4. What does coffee come from? A seeds
B beans
C barley
D cows
5. True or False: Caffeine boosts the female rat's sex drive.
6. True or False: Drinking coffee from an ugly cup/mug will affect the flavor.

[jamescagney]

Sure! But you need to fill out a simple request form, just a few questions.

1. Do you like coffee?
2. Do you agree coffee is the greatest beverage, ever?
3. At what exact temperature is coffee best served?
4. What does coffee come from? A seeds
B beans
C barley
D cows
5. True or False: Caffeine boosts the female rat's sex drive.
6. True or False: Drinking coffee from an ugly cup/mug will affect the flavor.

This is too time consuming.

Could you define "coffee?"

There are a number of books about coffee, but I haven’t read them.

You promised me coffee, don't you remember? We were at your flat watching Top of the Pops. You promised you'd make it with 50% decaf, and 2% milk.

[Jukebox Jury]

Of course there was an agreement. You think Mike and Andy played with the Smiths for five years without some kind of agreement? That would make them idiots.

Of course Mike asked Johnny and Morrissey for more money.

The judge apparently believes that Mike and Andy were idiots who 1) played with no agreement (which would be stupid) and 2) never complained or asked for more money (which would also be stupid). And, assuming those two statements were true, then I can't see how any legal authority could decide they suddenly deserve more money after the fact. I also don't see them as deserving more money if any of those statements are untrue, either. I think the judge didn't like Morrissey and ruled against him on that, stretching to using a very old and irrelevant law.

Would YOU ever accept a job with no set salary? Would you not complain? And then would you sue for a raise after being fired? And would you expect to win?

Yes there was an argreement (verbal) - and Andy & Mike presumed that after song royalties, they were receiving an equal share of performing royalties, but they then realised they were not, hence the court case.
You can call them stupid for not knowing or lying through their back teeth. You can equally call Morrissey and Marr stupid for not getting it in writing or lying through their back teeth. Two judges cast judgement, same decision each time.

The thing here is, no one on this messageboard knows the truth - yet a small number of people see the case as so clear cut in Morrissey's favour that I struggle to understand how two experienced judges chose to award the case to Mike. If only Morrissey had hired lainey, hand in glove and jamescagney to represent him, I'm positive he would have won his case (and I'm sure the three of you wouldn't even have charged him for your services:thumb:)

As for your last comment - no...I would have a written contract. I would expect my employer to provide one as a safe guard for their rights as well as mine. It works both ways:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

[lainey]

Yes there was an argreement (verbal) - and Andy & Mike presumed that after song royalties, they were receiving an equal share of performing royalties, but they then realised they were not, hence the court case.
You can call them stupid for not knowing or lying through their back teeth. You can equally call Morrissey and Marr stupid for not getting it in writing or lying through their back teeth. Two judges cast judgement, same decision each time.
:clap: It's about time you included Marr.


The thing here is, no one on this messageboard knows the truth - yet a small number of people see the case as so clear cut in Morrissey's favour that I struggle to understand how two experienced judges chose to award the case to Mike. If only Morrissey had hired lainey, hand in glove and jamescagney to represent him, I'm positive he would have won his case (and I'm sure the three of you wouldn't even have charged him for your services:thumb:)
Jukebox Jury

:DI agree

[Jukebox Jury]

:clap: It's about time you included Marr.


Johnny never gets mentioned as he knew the game was up after the first case and coughed up when asked. He did the right thing:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

[lainey]

Johnny never gets mentioned as he knew the game was up after the first case and coughed up when asked. He did the right thing:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

The Transcript was the previous page was from the first case.

[Jukebox Jury]

The Transcript was the previous page was from the first case.

Yes I know that.... seriously though (yeah, I was only joking before:thumb:) I think people do see it as a 'Morrissey only thing' because he took it to the appeal on his own and subsequantly (and frequently) brings it up whenever he can. Johnny simply coughed up and moved on. I'm not saying either of them was right or wrong in doing what they did, just saying that is how it is viewed by many I think.

Jukebox Jury

[Dave2006]

Is there still tea in the pot, or can someone stick the kettle on?

I imagine that if I joined a band with my mates, and made a record, and people bought it, and was asked to go on top of the pops, and we make another record, then another, and we tour around the world, and money goes into my bank account on a regular basis, more money than I ever dreamed about ... that I'd continue to turn up to work, and continue to enjoy being in a rock and roll band, and drink too much, take too many drugs... and the last thing on my mind would be the accounts, or contracts, or percentages... until the band split, and I realised I had no other income and no sign of a new job and my old mates from the band bought big houses in Cheshire, and London, then I'd start to try to remember what was said about money, and percentages, and royalties.

Artistically, as a band they created music that means the world to me. As businessmen... well, they're all numpties - some more than others. But then, if you want businessmen and accountants to make music, then we'd be on a Phil Collins' website.

I'd like to agree with Morrissey "The Smiths were a beautiful thing and Johnny left it, and Mike has destroyed it." But I think they hit the nail of the head with "Money Changes Everything"

Dave

[Jukebox Jury]

Is there still tea in the pot, or can someone stick the kettle on?

I imagine that if I joined a band with my mates, and made a record, and people bought it, and was asked to go on top of the pops, and we make another record, then another, and we tour around the world, and money goes into my bank account on a regular basis, more money than I ever dreamed about ... that I'd continue to turn up to work, and continue to enjoy being in a rock and roll band, and drink too much, take too many drugs... and the last thing on my mind would be the accounts, or contracts, or percentages... until the band split, and I realised I had no other income and no sign of a new job and my old mates from the band bought big houses in Cheshire, and London, then I'd start to try to remember what was said about money, and percentages, and royalties.

Artistically, as a band they created music that means the world to me. As businessmen... well, they're all numpties - some more than others. But then, if you want businessmen and accountants to make music, then we'd be on a Phil Collins' website.

I'd like to agree with Morrissey "The Smiths were a beautiful thing and Johnny left it, and Mike has destroyed it." But I think they hit the nail of the head with "Money Changes Everything"

Dave

What? I thought this was a Phil Collins website:lbf:
Good post Dave:guitar:

Jukebox Jury

[JD93]

In his new book Autofellatio, James Maker says:

"One particular book, which I will not name because I don’t want to give its author any publicity, is a fictional chronicle of poor construction that places me sliding down a banister in a ‘theatrical pub’ in Huddersfield in 1978. I have never visited Huddersfield: neither as a daytripper, a pop singer or as a door-to-door agent for Avon. Though, naturally, I am acquainted with the ‘Banister Technique’.
Johnny Rogan’s exhaustive, gumshoe detective story The Severed Appliance - for when, in 1987, The Smiths ended Morrissey felt as if disconnected from a kidney dialysis machine - interviewed everyone from the survivors of the Irish Diaspora to a girl sat on a wall at the local Arndale Centre eating a packet of crisps. It is unique in that by the time you have reached the conclusion of this tome, you know less about him than when you spyglassed its comprehensive acknowledgements page. He states authoritatively that Morrissey and Marr met in 1982. This is incorrect. They first met at a Patti Smith concert given at the Free Trade Hall in 1978."

[snowfallsoon]

This is too time consuming.

Could you define "coffee?"

There are a number of books about coffee, but I haven’t read them.

You promised me coffee, don't you remember? We were at your flat watching Top of the Pops. You promised you'd make it with 50% decaf, and 2% milk.

I'll do it, because you are the ONLY other person I have seen who also drinks
50% decaf. Even if you don't, the fact that you said it is enough. That's the
only reason you don't need to take the coffee test.

[Danny_]

In one of those Smiths documentaries there was an episode documented where Joyce explained how he and Andy came to agree to 10%. It was because Johnny Marr threatened to leave if they didn't.

So I don't know why everyone still claims that he and Andy didn't know what they were getting because he is on tape admitting that it was talked about and he and Andy agreed to it, no matter what he said in court previously.

[Kewpie]

In one of those Smiths documentaries there was an episode documented where Joyce explained how he and Andy came to agree to 10%. It was because Johnny Marr threatened to leave if they didn't.

So I don't know why everyone still claims that he and Andy didn't know what they were getting because he is on tape admitting that it was talked about and he and Andy agreed to it, no matter what he said in court previously.

Is it 'Inside The Smiths'?

If so, it's made after the court ruling, Mike Joyce knew that they couldn't reverse the verdict, felt safe to speak about it, I suppose.

[snowfallsoon]

Is it 'Inside The Smiths'?

If so, it's made after the court ruling, Mike Joyce knew that they couldn't reverse the verdict, felt safe to speak about it, I suppose.

In the US, when new evidence is discovered, cases can sometimes be
reopened.
Any UK lawyers here?

[Jukebox Jury]

In one of those Smiths documentaries there was an episode documented where Joyce explained how he and Andy came to agree to 10%. It was because Johnny Marr threatened to leave if they didn't.

So I don't know why everyone still claims that he and Andy didn't know what they were getting because he is on tape admitting that it was talked about and he and Andy agreed to it, no matter what he said in court previously.


Is it 'Inside The Smiths'?

If so, it's made after the court ruling, Mike Joyce knew that they couldn't reverse the verdict, felt safe to speak about it, I suppose.

I don't recall seeing a bit in 'Inside The Smiths' where they were discussing agreeing to 10%, (and I have to say I have never before heard of the threat of Johnny quitting if it was more than 10%) but they may have discussed how they thought they were being paid. But don't have the DVD with me to give it a quick view.

Kewpie, it doesn't matter how long after the case has ended, if Mike said anything that contradicts what he said on oath, he would be back in court and not only have to pay every penny back, he would be done for perjury too. I'm pretty sure if it was on the Inside The Smiths DVD, his legal eagles would have checked it before allowing it to be released.

Jukebox Jury

[oscillate wildly]

I know it's been a while but, uh, is that coffee date still on? I would like some but am too lazy to make it myself.

[Jukebox Jury]

In the US, when new evidence is discovered, cases can sometimes be
reopened.
Any UK lawyers here?

Yes, lainey:lbf:

Jukebox Jury

[Jukebox Jury]

I know it's been a while but, uh, is that coffee date still on? I would like some but am too lazy to make it myself.

Yes, but you'll have to wait a few minutes...Snowy has just nipped out to get more milk:guitar:

Jukebox Jury

[Danny_]

I think it was a BBC documentary, it wasn't Inside the Smiths. And Joyce definitely said that Johnny threatened to leave if they didn't agree to 10%.

By that time Morrissey would have lost his appeals and Joyce could always deny it again and say he was lying on the show to make the story more interesting.

[Jukebox Jury]

I think it was a BBC documentary, it wasn't Inside the Smiths. And Joyce definitely said that Johnny threatened to leave if they didn't agree to 10%.

By that time Morrissey would have lost his appeals and Joyce could always deny it again and say he was lying on the show to make the story more interesting.

Ok, nice one, new to me but hopefully someone can come up with this documentary and who knows, it may even be on youtube!

Jukebox Jury

[Danny_]

Looked on youtube. I don't think it's on there anymore. I think it was the BBC Young Guns documentary. There was quite a big bit on the court case.

[Kewpie]

It sounds like from 'Young Guns Go For It'.

I might have a VHS copy in somewhere, watch it again.

[Danny_]

OK, I found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRjv9v_m4uU

I misremembered it slightly. Joyce doesn't mention specific percentages but he says Johnny came to him and Andy and threatened to leave if he and Morrissey didn't get a bigger percentage.

[snowfallsoon]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html

http://www.cemetrygates.com/vault/news/court.html

[Jukebox Jury]

OK, I found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRjv9v_m4uU

I misremembered it slightly. Joyce doesn't mention specific percentages but he says Johnny came to him and Andy and threatened to leave if he and Morrissey didn't get a bigger percentage.

Wow, believe it or not I hadn't seen that - just watched it now.
Never seen Joe Moss before, had no idea what he looked like.

Yes saw the clip of Mike and Andy saying Johnny threatened to leave the band unless M&M received more. Of course, what we don't know from that clip, is more of what? We don't know what was in the original contract (does anyone have that info?) - could have said all were equal....just guessing, coz we don't know. And Mike does then say 'there was still no agreement discussed after that'' (and I know some of you will say 'well he would say that':thumb:

Another interesting bit was after the contract had been signed, and only two signatures were on it, Johnny said ''I didn't ring up Rough Trade and say 'only put two signatures on it' if you want to know who it was, you'll have to ask someone else''.:squiffy:

Jukebox Jury

[kissmyshadestoo]

F*** Mike & Andy

Nah, just Mike

[hand in glove]

You know that as a fact, do you? I'm not saying there wasn't an agreement....(because I have no idea as to whether there was or not) all I'm saying is that you seem pretty convinced that there was an agreement, all based on the fact that Morrissey said so, therefore it MUST be right.

Jukebox Jury

I do remember quite well that it was 10% and Mike came back and demanded from Morrissey and Marr 25% - No, I wasn't there, but I remember reading about and following the trial in depth and those numbers stand out to me. And, as you could see from what Mike was saying (after the fact - it's always after the fact that they'd release Mike's comment about Marr), it's true. You're standing there in that picture on myspace with Marr - Did you ask him about it? Do you think he would have answered your questions? I don't.

Also, it's not just about the trial. Joyce then turned around and tried to take Morrissey's Mothers house AND his sisters house - you don't find that kind of cold after he was rewarded quite a lot of money and to this day receives 25% royalties? He said it wasn't about the money - that it was more to support his family. Well, if that's so, why does he keep trying to get more? The man is greedy.

Look, JJ - I like your posts, and I respect your opinion, but I honestly don't think Morrissey is a liar and I believe with all of my heart that he was treated unfairly - by the judicial system AND his bandmate. My opinion is NOT based on what Morrissey says. I can think for myself. :straightface:

PS: And, yes. If he had hired me, he would not have been charged. :D

[Jukebox Jury]

I do remember quite well that it was 10% and Mike came back and demanded from Morrissey and Marr 25% - No, I wasn't there, but I remember reading about and following the trial in depth and those numbers stand out to me. And, as you could see from what Mike was saying (after the fact - it's always after the fact that they'd release Mike's comment about Marr), it's true. You're standing there in that picture on myspace with Marr - Did you ask him about it? Do you think he would have answered your questions? I don't.

Also, it's not just about the trial. Joyce then turned around and tried to take Morrissey's Mothers house AND his sisters house - you don't find that kind of cold after he was rewarded quite a lot of money and to this day receives 25% royalties? He said it wasn't about the money - that it was more to support his family. Well, if that's so, why does he keep trying to get more? The man is greedy.

Look, JJ - I like your posts, and I respect your opinion, but I honestly don't think Morrissey is a liar and I believe with all of my heart that he was treated unfairly - by the judicial system AND his bandmate. My opinion is NOT based on what Morrissey says. I can think for myself. :straightface:

PS: And, yes. If he had hired me, he would not have been charged. :D

No I didn't ask Johnny about it - when I met Mike (and it wasn't in a stalking capacity, honest!), it was just the two of us. With Johnny it was in a public place with other fans around us.

You say after Mike had been awarded the mony he then went after Morrissey's mum's AND his sister's house. Er, why did he do that? Because Morrissey refused to pay up - had he done so (like Marr did) then Mike wouldn't have had to do that.
What you also may not know, is that during all of this time over the court cases, (from the day it was instigated and the years it took to reach court) is that none of the band received ANY royalties as the courts froze all of the assets until it was sorted. I think it was also well over a year between the two court cases and even then, no one was receiving anything. So Mike had no source of income, including the undisputed 10%. Of course, you could say ''so what, he can go out and earn money like the rest of us do'', which he did, but during this time things would have got a bit desperate I can imagine when a source of income you are expecting on a regular basis is witheld for a long period of time.

Can I ask, if you were owed money by someone, as ordered by the courts, and they refused to pay, and you see that person who owes money living a luxurious lifestyle, would you not use any legal avenue available to you to get back what you were legally owned. Remove the Morrissey / Joyce aspect of this issue and answer the question as if it was you and some rich bloke who lives up the road from you.

Jukebox Jury

[Dave]

We actually had a really good discussion about this once. It stands out because it was one of many that didn't yield much. I think Mike Joyce is a leech, but I don't think there was a written agreement, or at least, one never turned up in court, and this means that they were forced to use a very old law which stated that they were equal partners.

Therefore, Joyce was legally right, since no evidence was produced to dispute his claims, but ethically wrong, because what he contributed was not 25% of The Smiths. That means it's okay to take Morrissey's side.

I remember what hand in glove was talking about though. I can't find it but I am sure I remember something about a discussion where Mike Joyce wanted more money, some time before the band dissolved. It seems I recall that Mike Joyce was with Johnny Marr somewhere and Morrissey was somewhere else, so that Johnny had to phone him. He refused to give more money, and Mike Joyce did not leave the band, which means that he accepted the situation as it was.

Did I dream that? I'm sure it isn't totally accurate, but I also know that I read something like that.

[hand in glove]

Can I ask, if you were owed money by someone, as ordered by the courts, and they refused to pay, and you see that person who owes money living a luxurious lifestyle, would you not use any legal avenue available to you to get back what you were legally owned. Remove the Morrissey / Joyce aspect of this issue and answer the question as if it was you and some rich bloke who lives up the road from you.

Jukebox Jury

Well, I wouldn't put this bloke's family on the street! I'd go about it in a different way. And that's ONLY IF I was honestly owed money.

The point here is that even though the case was ruled in Mike's favour, it's not neccessarily true that he deserved the money. And had he left it as it should have been - to what he originally agreed to - his royalties would not have been frozen. Don't you think it's only fair that Mike and Andy received less than Morrissey and Marr? Neither one of them wrote music or lyrics. Their job was to play their instruments - which they did and quite well. At any rate, though, 10% would have been enough money out of Smiths royalties for Mike and his family to live comfortably. :blushing:

[Jukebox Jury]

Therefore, Joyce was legally right, since no evidence was produced to dispute his claims, but ethically wrong, because what he contributed was not 25% of The Smiths. That means it's okay to take Morrissey's side.




The point here is that even though the case was ruled in Mike's favour, it's not neccessarily true that he deserved the money. And had he left it as it should have been - to what he originally agreed to - his royalties would not have been frozen. Don't you think it's only fair that Mike and Andy received less than Morrissey and Marr? Neither one of them wrote music or lyrics. Their job was to play their instruments - which they did and quite well. At any rate, though, 10% would have been enough money out of Smiths royalties for Mike and his family to live comfortably. :blushing:

Mike and Andy did not receive 25% of The Smiths and yes, they didn't contribute 25% each. M&M received the royalties and rightly so.
What Mike and Andy felt they should have received was 25% of performance fees, either playing live or playing on records - so when a song is played on the radio or used in a film, they get 25% of the performance fees.
When the band played live, they all played. When they were in the studio, they all played. their names and pictures were on all records and gig programmes. They apeared on TOTP and any other programme.
Do you think it was fair for them to only receive 10% each for playing a gig and for M&M to receive 40% each?
It doesn't matter that 10% was enough for them to live on, they played the gigs! Would you earn less than a colleague at work if your boss said 'it doesn't matter what they are earning, you are earning enough to live on, be grateful for the job'.

And as I keep saying.... Mike didn't know he was on 10%, he never agreed to it and assumed he was getting an equal share throughout of the performing royalties.

Jukebox Jury

[sistasheila]

in the book" meetings with morrissey" len brown wrote that moz told him "its solved,ive paid mike"

[Mr Smith]

Yes saw the clip of Mike and Andy saying Johnny threatened to leave the band unless M&M received more. Of course, what we don't know from that clip, is more of what? We don't know what was in the original contract (does anyone have that info?) - could have said all were equal....just guessing, coz we don't know. And Mike does then say 'there was still no agreement discussed after that'' (and I know some of you will say 'well he would say that':thumb:


More of what? i think it's pretty obvious it's money, and it wouldn't have been songwriting royalties, as Rourke and Joyce wrote none of the songs, so it can only refer to the performance royalties. There was no original contract, written at least, maybe a verbal one. If the original verbal agreement was equal share, then Marr threatens to quit unless he and Morrissey receives more, then Rourke and Joyce can't argue that they should have got 25% from performance royalties. Seeing as Joyce confirmed that this ultimatum by Marr / Moz happen, they can't be surprised that they got less than 25% after the band split.



You say after Mike had been awarded the mony he then went after Morrissey's mum's AND his sister's house. Er, why did he do that? Because Morrissey refused to pay up - had he done so (like Marr did) then Mike wouldn't have had to do that.
What you also may not know, is that during all of this time over the court cases, (from the day it was instigated and the years it took to reach court) is that none of the band received ANY royalties as the courts froze all of the assets until it was sorted. I think it was also well over a year between the two court cases and even then, no one was receiving anything. So Mike had no source of income, including the undisputed 10%. Of course, you could say ''so what, he can go out and earn money like the rest of us do'', which he did, but during this time things would have got a bit desperate I can imagine when a source of income you are expecting on a regular basis is witheld for a long period of time.

Can I ask, if you were owed money by someone, as ordered by the courts, and they refused to pay, and you see that person who owes money living a luxurious lifestyle, would you not use any legal avenue available to you to get back what you were legally owned. Remove the Morrissey / Joyce aspect of this issue and answer the question as if it was you and some rich bloke who lives up the road from you.



Morrissey had a legal right to challenge the verdict, which he did.


Mike and Andy did not receive 25% of The Smiths and yes, they didn't contribute 25% each. M&M received the royalties and rightly so.
What Mike and Andy felt they should have received was 25% of performance fees, either playing live or playing on records - so when a song is played on the radio or used in a film, they get 25% of the performance fees.
When the band played live, they all played. When they were in the studio, they all played. their names and pictures were on all records and gig programmes. They apeared on TOTP and any other programme.
Do you think it was fair for them to only receive 10% each for playing a gig and for M&M to receive 40% each?
It doesn't matter that 10% was enough for them to live on, they played the gigs! Would you earn less than a colleague at work if your boss said 'it doesn't matter what they are earning, you are earning enough to live on, be grateful for the job'.

And as I keep saying.... Mike didn't know he was on 10%, he never agreed to it and assumed he was getting an equal share throughout of the performing royalties.



They may have played the gigs, played in the studio etc, but from all accounts, Morrissey & Marr seem to take on the bulk of other work attached to the band, especially in periods of self management.

Whether Mike knew he was on 10% or not, he did acknowledge that M&M wanted more from the start and that it would not be an equal share (from the young guns go for it documentary). I don't deny MJ his legacy as part of the Smiths, he was the drummer, not just a hired session musician, but from anecdotal pieces of evidence, he comes across as a bit money orientated. I also find it very odd that he wants a Smiths reunion, if he feels he has been cheated, financially, in the past from M&M.

[lainey]

And as I keep saying.... Mike didn't know he was on 10%, he never agreed to it and assumed he was getting an equal share throughout of the performing royalties.

Jukebox Jury

:crazy: well then, Morrissey, Marr, Ross, Mr Patrick Savage of O.J. Kilkenny & Co and Rourke are the liars. I'm not saying they don't deserve 25% but they knew they were getting 10%

Second, Mr Marr alleged that during a recording session at Pluto Studio in or around October 1983, he threatened to leave the band because Mr Morrissey was insisting on a 40/40/10/10 split. Mr Marr alleged that Mr Joyce persuaded him to stay and in the process accepted the stated division. (as confirmed in the video above)

Third, Mr Marr alleged that on the evening of “The Smiths” appearance on Top of the Pops on 26 January 1984, he watched television at Mr Joyce’s flat and Mr Joyce asked for an increase in his 10%. Mr Marr said that he spoke to Mr Morrissey, and that the idea was rejected.

Fourth, Mr Morrissey claimed that in or around early 1986 Mr Marr telephoned him to say that Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke were angry that they were only receiving 10% that Mr Marr had informed them that the 10% share would not be increased.

Fifth, Mr Morrissey claimed that in or around Spring of 1986 during a car journey from Manchester to London, Mr Joyce asked Mr Morrissey how he could earn a 25% share and offered to act as a manager for the band, but this suggestion was rejected. (my favourite part)

Sixth, Mr Morrissey claimed that shortly thereafter he and Mr Marr informed Mr Joyce that if he was not happy with his share he should leave the band, but Mr Joyce decided to remain.

Seventh, Mr Morrissey and Mr Marr relied upon the receipt by Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke of sums equivalent to 10% of the profits from the activities of the band.

Eighth, Mr Marr and Mr Morrissey relied upon the receipt by Mr Joyce of a set of 1983/84 accounts on or around 4 July 1986 and the fact that Mr Joyce did not mention the fact that the accounts showed the profits of the band being split 40/40/10/10.

Ninth, Mr Marr and Mr Morrissey each relied upon a conversation between an accountant Mr Patrick Savage of O.J. Kilkenny & Co recently appointed by Mr Marr and Mr Morrissey to act for “The Smiths”, which Mr Savage said he had with Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke, in the kitchen of the Woolhall Studio in or around May 1987. Mr Savage said that he asked on that occasion Messrs Rourke and Joyce as to their understanding of the percentage split, in response to which Mr Rourke said in the presence of Mr Joyce, “We get ten percent”. Mr Savage said that Mr Joyce made no comment or protest when Mr Rourke so stated.

[Jukebox Jury]

More of what? i think it's pretty obvious it's money, and it wouldn't have been songwriting royalties, as Rourke and Joyce wrote none of the songs, so it can only refer to the performance royalties. There was no original contract, written at least, maybe a verbal one. If the original verbal agreement was equal share, then Marr threatens to quit unless he and Morrissey receives more, then Rourke and Joyce can't argue that they should have got 25% from performance royalties. Seeing as Joyce confirmed that this ultimatum by Marr / Moz happen, they can't be surprised that they got less than 25% after the band split.



Morrissey had a legal right to challenge the verdict, which he did.



They may have played the gigs, played in the studio etc, but from all accounts, Morrissey & Marr seem to take on the bulk of other work attached to the band, especially in periods of self management.

Whether Mike knew he was on 10% or not, he did acknowledge that M&M wanted more from the start and that it would not be an equal share (from the young guns go for it documentary). I don't deny MJ his legacy as part of the Smiths, he was the drummer, not just a hired session musician, but from anecdotal pieces of evidence, he comes across as a bit money orientated. I also find it very odd that he wants a Smiths reunion, if he feels he has been cheated, financially, in the past from M&M.

When I meant more of what? I meant more of what percentage (obviously it was money!) We don't know what the original agreement was, including the royalties. All that clip said was M&M wanted more, but we weren't given the further details of what that breakdown was and as Mike said in the clip, after that it wasn't discussed in terms of what the offer then was.

I never said Morrissey wasn't entitled to appeal. Of course he was entitled to appeal.


:crazy: well then, Morrissey, Marr, Ross, Mr Patrick Savage of O.J. Kilkenny & Co and Rourke are the liars. I'm not saying they don't deserve 25% but they knew they were getting 10%

Second, Mr Marr alleged that during a recording session at Pluto Studio in or around October 1983, he threatened to leave the band because Mr Morrissey was insisting on a 40/40/10/10 split. Mr Marr alleged that Mr Joyce persuaded him to stay and in the process accepted the stated division. (as confirmed in the video above)

Third, Mr Marr alleged that on the evening of “The Smiths” appearance on Top of the Pops on 26 January 1984, he watched television at Mr Joyce’s flat and Mr Joyce asked for an increase in his 10%. Mr Marr said that he spoke to Mr Morrissey, and that the idea was rejected.

Fourth, Mr Morrissey claimed that in or around early 1986 Mr Marr telephoned him to say that Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke were angry that they were only receiving 10% that Mr Marr had informed them that the 10% share would not be increased.

Fifth, Mr Morrissey claimed that in or around Spring of 1986 during a car journey from Manchester to London, Mr Joyce asked Mr Morrissey how he could earn a 25% share and offered to act as a manager for the band, but this suggestion was rejected. (my favourite part)

Sixth, Mr Morrissey claimed that shortly thereafter he and Mr Marr informed Mr Joyce that if he was not happy with his share he should leave the band, but Mr Joyce decided to remain.

Seventh, Mr Morrissey and Mr Marr relied upon the receipt by Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke of sums equivalent to 10% of the profits from the activities of the band.

Eighth, Mr Marr and Mr Morrissey relied upon the receipt by Mr Joyce of a set of 1983/84 accounts on or around 4 July 1986 and the fact that Mr Joyce did not mention the fact that the accounts showed the profits of the band being split 40/40/10/10.

Ninth, Mr Marr and Mr Morrissey each relied upon a conversation between an accountant Mr Patrick Savage of O.J. Kilkenny & Co recently appointed by Mr Marr and Mr Morrissey to act for “The Smiths”, which Mr Savage said he had with Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke, in the kitchen of the Woolhall Studio in or around May 1987. Mr Savage said that he asked on that occasion Messrs Rourke and Joyce as to their understanding of the percentage split, in response to which Mr Rourke said in the presence of Mr Joyce, “We get ten percent”. Mr Savage said that Mr Joyce made no comment or protest when Mr Rourke so stated.

That's Morrissey's statement (and Marr's?)
Why don't you put Mike's up there and his counter arguement?
The judge weighed both up and awarded to Mike.

I repeat what I said earlier. If the case for Morrissey was so clear (in the eyes of lainey, hand in glove and jamescagney) then why didn't M&M win? How could two experienced judges both give the same verdict?
I don't know the answer to that one as I'm not in the legal profession....like lainey, hand in glove and jamescagney:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

[lainey]

Hi JJ, I'm having a snowday.

that was Marr's statement too. I was trying to say it's Joyce word against Marr(did most of the hands on stuff), Morrissey, Rourke, Moss and Mr Patrick Savage of O.J. Kilkenny & Co.

[jamescagney]

I'm amazed at the number of people who, when meeting ex-Smiths, have the cheek to ask them about the court case. I would assume this is a sensitive issue and one that isn't any of our business. I mean, when you get a rare chance to meet someone you admire, why take the risk of upsetting them, possibly causing a less than satisfactory experience for both yourself and them? Johnny for example couldn't be a nicer person to his fans, and it makes me cringe to think of him enduring all sorts of upsetting questions.

[Mr Smith]

When I meant more of what? I meant more of what percentage (obviously it was money!) We don't know what the original agreement was, including the royalties. All that clip said was M&M wanted more, but we weren't given the further details of what that breakdown was and as Mike said in the clip, after that it wasn't discussed in terms of what the offer then was.

I never said Morrissey wasn't entitled to appeal. Of course he was entitled to appeal.



Regardless on whether an actual percentage of performance royalties was agreed between all four members of the Smiths, either verbally or written, is a moot point as the legal battle was based on equal four way share of such profits. As Joyce pointed out in the documentary, he acknowledged a conversation with Marr, in which it wouldn't be an equal four way split (as M&M wanted more, therefore making it mathematically impossible to be 25% each). I think its this that makes the whole episode a bit unsavoury in the mouth for people.

[hand in glove]

:crazy: Well then, morrissey, marr, ross, mr patrick savage of o.j. Kilkenny & co and rourke are the liars. I'm not saying they don't deserve 25% but they knew they were getting 10%

second, mr marr alleged that during a recording session at pluto studio in or around october 1983, he threatened to leave the band because mr morrissey was insisting on a 40/40/10/10 split. Mr marr alleged that mr joyce persuaded him to stay and in the process accepted the stated division. (as confirmed in the video above)

third, mr marr alleged that on the evening of “the smiths” appearance on top of the pops on 26 january 1984, he watched television at mr joyce’s flat and mr joyce asked for an increase in his 10%. mr marr said that he spoke to mr morrissey, and that the idea was rejected.

fourth, mr morrissey claimed that in or around early 1986 mr marr telephoned him to say that mr joyce and mr rourke were angry that they were only receiving 10% that mr marr had informed them that the 10% share would not be increased.

fifth, mr morrissey claimed that in or around spring of 1986 during a car journey from manchester to london, mr joyce asked mr morrissey how he could earn a 25% share and offered to act as a manager for the band, but this suggestion was rejected. (my favourite part)

sixth, mr morrissey claimed that shortly thereafter he and mr marr informed mr joyce that if he was not happy with his share he should leave the band, but mr joyce decided to remain.

seventh, mr morrissey and mr marr relied upon the receipt by mr joyce and mr rourke of sums equivalent to 10% of the profits from the activities of the band.

eighth, mr marr and mr morrissey relied upon the receipt by mr joyce of a set of 1983/84 accounts on or around 4 july 1986 and the fact that mr joyce did not mention the fact that the accounts showed the profits of the band being split 40/40/10/10.

ninth, mr marr and mr morrissey each relied upon a conversation between an accountant mr patrick savage of o.j. Kilkenny & co recently appointed by mr marr and mr morrissey to act for “the smiths”, which mr savage said he had with mr joyce and mr rourke, in the kitchen of the woolhall studio in or around may 1987. Mr savage said that he asked on that occasion messrs rourke and joyce as to their understanding of the percentage split, in response to which mr rourke said in the presence of mr joyce, “we get ten percent”. mr savage said that mr joyce made no comment or protest when mr rourke so stated.

THANK YOU :thumb:

[Worm]

:rolleyes:

The court case is officially elevated to the status of "Who's Julia?"


Regardless on whether an actual percentage of performance royalties was agreed between all four members of the Smiths, either verbally or written, is a moot point as the legal battle was based on equal four way share of such profits. As Joyce pointed out in the documentary, he acknowledged a conversation with Marr, in which it wouldn't be an equal four way split (as M&M wanted more, therefore making it mathematically impossible to be 25% each). I think its this that makes the whole episode a bit unsavoury in the mouth for people.

"Unsavory" might also be defined as knowingly entering into a partnership with two friends without a clear and equitable legal contract defining your business arrangement. As the two principal members of the legal entity, the burden was on Morrissey and Marr to get everything put down on paper, in black and white, from the very first day they employed Joyce and Rourke. They didn't do that and they paid for their mistake. Joyce probably lied or exaggerated his claims, but nobody came out clean in the whole affair, least of all Morrissey and Marr.

They were four young kids with no business savvy who were unwittingly caught up in a situation they didn't understand. Oldest story in the music business. I don't know why people are still debating this issue as if there are good guys and bad guys.

[hand in glove]

:rolleyes:

"Unsavory" might also be defined as knowingly entering into a partnership with two friends without a clear and equitable legal contract defining your business arrangement. As the two principal members of the legal entity, the burden was on Morrissey and Marr to get everything put down on paper, in black and white, from the very first day they employed Joyce and Rourke. They didn't do that and they paid for their mistake. Joyce probably lied or exaggerated his claims, but nobody came out clean in the whole affair, least of all Morrissey and Marr.

They were four young kids with no business savvy who were unwittingly caught up in a situation they didn't understand. Oldest story in the music business. I don't know why people are still debating this issue as if there are good guys and bad guys.

Because they weren't kids when this trial started, and Mike still continues to try and drain Morrissey for more money. I see your point, but it's, for me, more about Mike's character.

[Mr Smith]

:rolleyes:

The court case is officially elevated to the status of "Who's Julia?"



"Unsavory" might also be defined as knowingly entering into a partnership with two friends without a clear and equitable legal contract defining your business arrangement. As the two principal members of the legal entity, the burden was on Morrissey and Marr to get everything put down on paper, in black and white, from the very first day they employed Joyce and Rourke. They didn't do that and they paid for their mistake. Joyce probably lied or exaggerated his claims, but nobody came out clean in the whole affair, least of all Morrissey and Marr.

They were four young kids with no business savvy who were unwittingly caught up in a situation they didn't understand. Oldest story in the music business. I don't know why people are still debating this issue as if there are good guys and bad guys.

I'm not trying to paint good or bad guys really, at least not on a conscious level. All parties were at fault to varying degrees on going about the business in a professional manner. However, regardless of being savvy or not, or at whatever age, it has been established that the issue of performance royalties split was brought up by M&M with an ultimatum over Morrissey / Marr disbanding the band (the principal creative forces behind the music), to which Joyce / Rourke agreed to by staying in the band. Notions of being duped or not having business smarts goes out of the window from that point on, in my opinion.

I can understand why MJ / AR submitted to M&M demands over performance royalties - they were young and eager for fame, and on the cusp of producing / releasing their first album. May MJ thought he could change their minds at a later date (which he allegedly try to do Re: court transcripts). However, whether it was fair or not, or M&M were morally / ethically wrong to do so, is a completely different argument.

[Worm]

I'm not trying to paint good or bad guys really, at least not on a conscious level. All parties were at fault to varying degrees on going about the business in a professional manner. However, regardless of being savvy or not, or at whatever age, it has been established that the issue of performance royalties split was brought up by M&M with an ultimatum over Morrissey / Marr disbanding the band (the principal creative forces behind the music), to which Joyce / Rourke agreed to by staying in the band. Notions of being duped or not having business smarts goes out of the window from that point on, in my opinion.

Kewpie might be good enough to link to an old thread in which several of us wrote about the case-- IIRC it is in doubt as to what was decided, by whom, and when. Your statement seems to indicate that Joyce and Rourke knew The Smiths would end if they made a fuss. The problem with that inference is that Joyce did in fact rock the boat by asking to see the accounting books in 1986. His purpose in asking was to see how much money had come in and to determine if he was getting his proper split. If your statement was correct, Morrissey and Marr would simply have said, "Mike, never mind about the accounting. If you keep this up we'll sack you". Instead they complied. It was one of the more amusing details of the case, actually. Joyce was given the financial information about the band and apparently couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Joyce would indeed have shown "poor character" if he'd kept quiet during The Smiths and only afterward, when the gravy train had stopped, tried to chisel more money out of M & M. Instead there is evidence that there was only a murky understanding among them and Joyce actually did attempt to speak up and collect his due while the band existed. I realize there is a strong suspicion that Joyce embellished or lied on his side, but there also has to be some suspicion that Morrissey and Marr did, too. I think it was essentially a coin flip, and the judge went with Joyce.

The bottom line is this. The correct action, legally and ethically, would have been for Morrissey & Marr to lay down in clear terms what Joyce and Rourke were due to receive as "hired guns" for The Smiths. It should have been done before they made their first pound off a gig or a record. Why they didn't do it is a mystery, but it doesn't reflect well on them. I just wish Morrissey had paid Joyce right away, as Marr did, so we wouldn't have to talk about it anymore. The case always reminds me of the galling fact that this nonsense happened because The Smiths did not have a proper manager, and when that fact comes to the surface, you can't help immediately drawing the conclusion that The Smiths might never have split up if they'd had a proper manager. Sour thought, that.

[Mr Smith]

Kewpie might be good enough to link to an old thread in which several of us wrote about the case-- IIRC it is in doubt as to what was decided, by whom, and when. Your statement seems to indicate that Joyce and Rourke knew The Smiths would end if they made a fuss. The problem with that inference is that Joyce did in fact rock the boat by asking to see the accounting books in 1986. His purpose in asking was to see how much money had come in and to determine if he was getting his proper split. If your statement was correct, Morrissey and Marr would simply have said, "Mike, never mind about the accounting. If you keep this up we'll sack you". Instead they complied. It was one of the more amusing details of the case, actually. Joyce was given the financial information about the band and apparently couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Joyce would indeed have shown "poor character" if he'd kept quiet during The Smiths and only afterward, when the gravy train had stopped, tried to chisel more money out of M & M. Instead there is evidence that there was only a murky understanding among them and Joyce actually did attempt to speak up and collect his due while the band existed. I realize there is a strong suspicion that Joyce embellished or lied on his side, but there also has to be some suspicion that Morrissey and Marr did, too. I think it was essentially a coin flip, and the judge went with Joyce.

The bottom line is this. The correct action, legally and ethically, would have been for Morrissey & Marr to lay down in clear terms what Joyce and Rourke were due to receive as "hired guns" for The Smiths. It should have been done before they made their first pound off a gig or a record. Why they didn't do it is a mystery, but it doesn't reflect well on them. I just wish Morrissey had paid Joyce right away, as Marr did, so we wouldn't have to talk about it anymore. The case always reminds me of the galling fact that this nonsense happened because The Smiths did not have a proper manager, and when that fact comes to the surface, you can't help immediately drawing the conclusion that The Smiths might never have split up if they'd had a proper manager. Sour thought, that.

From what you said, re: the fact that Morrissey and Marr complied when asked by Joyce to see the accouts etc, for me, I find that this highlights that M&M had little to hide to the two other members. If Morrissey and Marr were acting nefariously with the payments, then such a line of 'if you ask, you're fired' would be the more obvious response to such a request. Maybe I'm biased, being a Morrssey fan, although I don't think I am. I don't feel I hold any enmity towards MJ or AR. I don't see them as hired guns. For me they were part of the Smiths, and they should just be proud of the legacy they created with two extremely gifted people - however, not all partnerships are equal, whether it be financial renumeration / creative control / or who has management power etc.

I do agree that it would have been much more sensible for M&M to legally get this all down, in B&W before the first pound was gained, and that they would have benefited from stable management, but if that was the case, maybe the Smith wouldn't have been as special as they were. It was a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants adventure, inspired by the DIY nature of punk, a constant stream of singles and tours. They did things their way, even if it pissed people off i.e cancelled tours etc. Imagine if they never split up and were still going now? Playing massive arena all over the world or featuring on adverts for Microsoft or whoever. Worse still, they could have been the next U2 *shudders*

[Jukebox Jury]

:rolleyes:

The court case is officially elevated to the status of "Who's Julia?"



"Unsavory" might also be defined as knowingly entering into a partnership with two friends without a clear and equitable legal contract defining your business arrangement. As the two principal members of the legal entity, the burden was on Morrissey and Marr to get everything put down on paper, in black and white, from the very first day they employed Joyce and Rourke. They didn't do that and they paid for their mistake. Joyce probably lied or exaggerated his claims, but nobody came out clean in the whole affair, least of all Morrissey and Marr.

They were four young kids with no business savvy who were unwittingly caught up in a situation they didn't understand. Oldest story in the music business. I don't know why people are still debating this issue as if there are good guys and bad guys.


Kewpie might be good enough to link to an old thread in which several of us wrote about the case-- IIRC it is in doubt as to what was decided, by whom, and when. Your statement seems to indicate that Joyce and Rourke knew The Smiths would end if they made a fuss. The problem with that inference is that Joyce did in fact rock the boat by asking to see the accounting books in 1986. His purpose in asking was to see how much money had come in and to determine if he was getting his proper split. If your statement was correct, Morrissey and Marr would simply have said, "Mike, never mind about the accounting. If you keep this up we'll sack you". Instead they complied. It was one of the more amusing details of the case, actually. Joyce was given the financial information about the band and apparently couldn't make heads or tails of it.

Joyce would indeed have shown "poor character" if he'd kept quiet during The Smiths and only afterward, when the gravy train had stopped, tried to chisel more money out of M & M. Instead there is evidence that there was only a murky understanding among them and Joyce actually did attempt to speak up and collect his due while the band existed. I realize there is a strong suspicion that Joyce embellished or lied on his side, but there also has to be some suspicion that Morrissey and Marr did, too. I think it was essentially a coin flip, and the judge went with Joyce.

The bottom line is this. The correct action, legally and ethically, would have been for Morrissey & Marr to lay down in clear terms what Joyce and Rourke were due to receive as "hired guns" for The Smiths. It should have been done before they made their first pound off a gig or a record. Why they didn't do it is a mystery, but it doesn't reflect well on them. I just wish Morrissey had paid Joyce right away, as Marr did, so we wouldn't have to talk about it anymore. The case always reminds me of the galling fact that this nonsense happened because The Smiths did not have a proper manager, and when that fact comes to the surface, you can't help immediately drawing the conclusion that The Smiths might never have split up if they'd had a proper manager. Sour thought, that.

:clap::clap:
And there was I thinking I was on my own:bow:

Jukebox Jury

[lainey]

:clap::clap:
And there was I thinking I was on my own:bow:

Jukebox Jury

you'll never be on your own, I have another snowday tomorrow.:lbf:

[Jukebox Jury]

and Mike still continues to try and drain Morrissey for more money. I see your point, but it's, for me, more about Mike's character.

Mike isn't trying to drain Morrissey for more money. He is trying to obtain what a court decided he was entitled too. If that is costing Morrissey more money it is because he stubbornly refused to pay up - don't blame that on Mike.
Why isn't he trying to drain Johnny for more? Could it be because he stumped up when instructed first time?
Tells me more about Morrissey's character in that it has cost him around three times more the initial amount, than had he paid up first time around.
I'm all for principals.... but not when it costs me a shed load of money.
Morrissey fought the law and the law won. Twice.

Jukebox Jury

[Jukebox Jury]

you'll never be on your own, I have another snowday tomorrow.:lbf:

I shall be here tomorrow too...... was planning a big day in a pub for the 2.45pm kick off..... now the bloody games postponed....I shall be right here where I always was:cool:

Jukebox Jury

[lainey]

I shall be here tomorrow too...... was planning a big day in a pub for the 2.45pm kick off..... now the bloody games postponed....I shall be right here where I always was:cool:

Jukebox Jury

forced agoraphobia gives me cabin fever.

[Worm]

From what you said, re: the fact that Morrissey and Marr complied when asked by Joyce to see the accouts etc, for me, I find that this highlights that M&M had little to hide to the two other members. If Morrissey and Marr were acting nefariously with the payments, then such a line of 'if you ask, you're fired' would be the more obvious response to such a request.

No. Believe me, I've dealt with accountants. The more insidious course-- BY FAR-- was releasing the paperwork to Joyce. :lbf:

In any case the point about the accountant's paperwork isn't Morrissey and Marr's real intentions. By asking for the numbers to review Joyce was clearly not settling for less and believed he was owed more money, putting to rest any notion that he shut his mouth for the duration to soak up the money, fame, sex, and booze while he could.

I'll say this, though. Given the sorry state of the band's business affairs it is entirely possible that Morrissey and Marr did not knowingly act nefariously toward Andy and Mike because they probably didn't know what percentage they were paying them, either! When considering the question of who was the secret brains behind The Smiths' operations, I'll quote Benicio Del Toro in "The Way of The Gun": "To tell you the truth, this isn't really a 'brains' kind of operation".


Worse still, they could have been the next U2 *shudders*

You've got me here. I prefer Morrissey as a solo artist, now at any rate. But I could have gone for maybe 2-3 more Smiths studio albums, if for no other reason than saving Bernard Sumner from the humiliation of publicly attempting to rap.

[hand in glove]

Mike isn't trying to drain Morrissey for more money. He is trying to obtain what a court decided he was entitled too. If that is costing Morrissey more money it is because he stubbornly refused to pay up - don't blame that on Mike.
Why isn't he trying to drain Johnny for more? Could it be because he stumped up when instructed first time?
Tells me more about Morrissey's character in that it has cost him around three times more the initial amount, than had he paid up first time around.
I'm all for principals.... but not when it costs me a shed load of money.
Morrissey fought the law and the law won. Twice.

Jukebox Jury
I kept this statement and feel it should be reposted. Don't tell me that Morrissey never paid Joyce a thing or that Mike is not a greedy little man. Obviously you value Joyce over Morrissey - but these are the facts. Like it or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

30 November 2005

Statement from Morrissey:

The latest statements from M Joyce on a BBC 6 radio interview as faithfully reported on the MorrisseySoLow site have been brought to my attention and I feel I should make this reply as an attempt to put the matter straight.

1. From '83 to '87 M Joyce happily and willingly received 10% of Smiths recording royalties.

2. In '89, as is documented, Joyce sued Morrissey & Marr for 25% of Smiths recording royalties.

3. In '96, Joyce took his claim to court - and on the basis of the 1890 Partnership Act the judge awarded Joyce 25%.

4. In '97, M Joyce was paid 215 thousand pounds from me, and 215 thousand pounds from Johnny Marr.

5. In '99, Joyce appeared on British television and made the statement: "There was no contract saying we were gonna get 25%."

6. In 2001, as a final payment of back royalties, Johnny Marr paid Joyce 260 thousand pounds, plus "costs." At this time I was in the US and was not served with court proceedings, so Joyce obtained a Default Judgment. He then put forward a claim from me for 688 thousand pounds - well above and beyond the amount Johnny Marr was ordered to pay. In my absence, the figure was not contested.

7. Since 2001, and because of the Default Judgment against me, Joyce has taken out Third Party Orders against the following societies: my personal bank account in England, Smiths royalties from Warner Music, my personal PRS royalties, my personal PPL royalties, and he has attempted to seize UK concert fees from venue to venue. This money, to date, totals 700 thousand pounds. This figure is in addition to the figures mentioned above.

8. By grabbing the full total of Smiths royalties from Warner Music (and this means that when the public buy a Smiths CD in the UK, the royalties go to Joyce, and have done so since 2001) Joyce has knowingly deprived Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and has deprived producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements. Joyce did not declare to the courts that others - namely, the above - were also beneficiaries to the Warner Music royalties.

9. In 2001, Joyce attempted to seize both my mother's house and my sister's house by claiming that I had taken my assets out of the UK; he made this claim even though he had direct access to all of the above – which are in the UK. Joyce eventually dropped both of these claims due to lack of evidence, and he refused to pay the 150 thousand pounds that it had cost me to defend his groundless claims. Joyce also dropped his claim as co-composer with Johnny M on Smiths compositions, and Joyce also dropped his claim for Producer royalties on Smiths recordings, and Joyce also dropped his claim for a share of Artwork payments given to me for providing Smiths record sleeves. There were, in fact, no payments to me for Smiths Artwork. Joyce made a further claim for 25% of all Smiths t-shirts sold during the '83 to '87 period, even though there was no evidence that any royalty for t-shirts had been received by either myself or Johnny Marr.

10. In legal fees alone, Joyce has cost me 600 thousand pounds - this is quite apart from any payments made to him, and is quite apart from any money seized by him. In total, Joyce has cost me 1 million, 515 thousand pounds. This is an approximate figure - it could even be higher.

11. The Joyce action is continuous. Because of his Default Judgment he continues to take my royalties, and the royalties of others mentioned above, from Warner Music - consequently I have not received record royalties since 2001.

12. Since 2001, the money claimed by Joyce is charged, to me, at 100 pounds a day in interest.

13. During the Smiths' lifetime, when Joyce willingly took a 10% royalty, he did not contribute towards any expenses of any kind, did not take on any Partnership duties or responsibilities, and he received his 10% as gross earnings.

The point I wish to make is this: Joyce is not poor, unless, living as he does in the Cheshire green-belt, he lives beyond his means. Somehow, he appears to believe that he should have equal financial status to both myself and to Johnny Marr, even though Joyce has done dramatically less than Johnny and I to attain the positions we now have.

Joyce is not poor because of one reason - me. His career now is the fictitious position of an unpaid ex-member of the Smiths. He has also pursued all of his claims on Legal Aid.

I don't make this statement in search of sympathy from anyone, but I wish that the people at MorrisseySoLow who support Joyce would at least get their facts right before they say anything. Even with his 10% share, Joyce was wealthy. Now, he is extremely wealthy.

What more does he want?

I have fought the Joyce action as much as I could over the years, but the simple truth is that, under British law, the word of a judge will not be overturned. In the absence of any evidence from the 1980s, the judge in this case relied upon the Partnership Act of 1890 to help Joyce win his claim. Joyce has exploited the judge's final verdict in order to get as much as he can from me, from Johnny Marr, and also from Andy Rourke.

Finally, Joyce does not have the legal right to sell unreleased Smiths material - it belongs to Warner Music. Joyce did not pay for the recording time under which any demo material was recorded. Furthermore, Joyce cannot sell any unreleased work by Johnny Marr or Andy Rourke without, at very least, their permission.

Thanks for reading this,
MORRISSEY.

[Dave]

Tells me more about Morrissey's character in that it has cost him around three times more the initial amount, than had he paid up first time around.
I'm all for principals.... but not when it costs me a shed load of money.
Morrissey fought the law and the law won. Twice.
Jukebox Jury

This is not inconsistent with Morrissey's character, and since he can afford it I think it's really hard to fault him for it. It doesn't make sense financially, but if Morrissey really believes that he is being cheated, I can see how the spitefulness of his actions might be justifiable, or more clearly, how they might seem to be justifiable.

He should have just paid, though, and avoided the stress. But maybe it's less stressful to fight it than to give in. And it's not ALL on Morrissey, either. The same finger points at Joyce. Why doesn't he drop it? Same exact reason. He believes he is in the right.

I doubt either of them cares about judges but only about judgments.

[Jukebox Jury]

I kept this statement and feel it should be reposted. Don't tell me that Morrissey never paid Joyce a thing or that Mike is not a greedy little man. Obviously you value Joyce over Morrissey - but these are the facts. Like it or not.

.

I do not value either one over the other - I see it how I see it. I am able to remove my emotional attachments to either of them and see it as 'Man A' and 'Man B'.
Man A owed money to Man B. Man A didn't cough up, Man B excercised his legal rights to get money off Man A.
The whole thing starts here (number 6 below)

Why was he not served with court proceedings? So he was in the USA? big deal?
I am a UK subject and am currently in the USA and very contactable by people who I know want to contact me. Was his solicitor in the USA (or even if he was, surely he / she has an office)? With the involvement of this kind of case involving this kind of money, you would think that he would say ''here is my address / fax number in USA or here is my solicitors address, he / she has my number''. Easy thing to do - stupid thing not to do.

''In my absence''..... why was he absent? he doesn't say. Between obtaining the default judgement and the hearing, it would have been a good time gap - again, no one contacted Morrissey about this hearing? See above. Stupid thing to do and costly. The rest of what Mike followed up with may in the eyes of some be despicable but it is all perfectly legal otherwise the courts / law would not let him do it. And if the law didn't protect Man B, then Man A would never pay Man B because Man A would know if he doesn't pay up, Man B could do nothing about it legally.
Man A tried it on, Man B took him on and won.

Jukebox Jury

6. In 2001, as a final payment of back royalties, Johnny Marr paid Joyce 260 thousand pounds, plus "costs." At this time I was in the US and was not served with court proceedings, so Joyce obtained a Default Judgment. He then put forward a claim from me for 688 thousand pounds - well above and beyond the amount Johnny Marr was ordered to pay. In my absence, the figure was not contested.

[Worm]

I guess one side of the story's enough when that side is Morrissey's.

The thing I've always loved about Morrissey's 2005 statement is his rather interesting portrayal of himself as a man totally without assistance from any quarter whatsoever. He'd have us believe that nobody (Ian Mill for example) sat him down and explained what would happen if he didn't pay the money he owed Joyce the first time around. Despite how it looks on a smoggy day, Los Angeles is not the far side of the moon: Joyce's attorney no doubt submitted the proper paperwork to Morrissey's attorney in London and Morrissey's answer was probably "He can go to hell". There is simply no way a man of Morrissey's stature, with his money, especially after going through a hellish legal entanglement, lacked one or two clued-in people telling him (a) about Joyce's claim (b) the consequences of a Default Judgment (c) the exposure of his mother's and sister's houses to Joyce's claims and (d) the other complications involved with the Smiths' royalties. I just don't believe it. Either his accountant or his attorney laid out the facts and Morrissey ignored them out of sheer defiance.

[Worm]

I am a UK subject and am currently in the USA and very contactable by people who I know want to contact me. Was his solicitor in the USA (or even if he was, surely he / she has an office)? With the involvement of this kind of case involving this kind of money, you would think that he would say ''here is my address / fax number in USA or here is my solicitors address, he / she has my number. Easy thing to do - stupid thing not to do.

Yes, and the claim is even more monstrously laughable when you consider that the location of Morrissey's residence in L.A. was well known to just about everyone on this site, a free Internet venue even a lawyer could find-- and a site occasionally visited by none other than Mike Joyce himself.

[Jukebox Jury]

I guess one side of the story's enough when that side is Morrissey's.

The thing I've always loved about Morrissey's 2005 statement is his rather interesting portrayal of himself as man totally without assistance from any quarter whatsoever. He'd have us believe that nobody (Ian Mill for example) sat him down and explained what would happen if he didn't pay the money he owed Joyce the first time around. Despite how it looks on a smoggy day, Los Angeles is not the far side of the moon: Joyce's attorney no doubt submitted the proper paperwork to Morrissey's attorney in London and Morrissey's answer was probably "He can go to hell". There is simply no way a man of Morrissey's stature, with his money, especially after going through a hellish legal entanglement, lacked one or two clued-in people telling him (a) about Joyce's claim (b) the consequences of a Default Judgment (c) the exposure of his mother's and sister's houses to Joyce's claims and (d) the other complications involved with the Smiths' royalties. I just don't believe it. Either his accountant or his attorney laid out the facts and Morrissey ignored them out of sheer defiance.

:clap::clap::clap::bow::clap:

Jukebox Jury

[Worm]

Actually, to follow up on my post above, not only would a man of Morrissey's stature receive adequate legal advice, even a man of Steven Morrissey's stature-- that is, a rising star 25 years ago-- would have gotten the straight dope.

And you know what? He did.


Mr Bowen was a solicitor consulted by Mr Morrissey and Mr Marr on 25 January 1984 and he wrote two letters, one dated 6 February 1984 to Mr Scott Piering and another dated 10 February 1984 to Mrs Dwyer Mr Morrissey’s mother, both of which letters Mr Morrissey accepted he saw at the time and discussed with Mr Marr (D3-65 & 74). In the letter of 6 February Mr Bowen suggested the setting up of two companies, one relating to publishing income and the other relating to recording income and said in relation to the latter - “with regard to the recording company, Messrs Morrissey and Marr will be its shareholders and directors. The other two band members will become employees of the company. It is proposed that they all draw a salary out of the company at a rate which will have to be agreed, but in principle they will be equally entitled to the net profits of the business.”

In the letter of 10 February 1984 to Mrs Dwyer he said amongst other things “Towards the end of last year when it became clear that The Smiths were going to be successful, I discussed with Geoff Travis my concerns about the constitution of the band. He in turn discussed this with Morrissey and Johnny Marr both in England and whilst they were in New York. I was concerned that no agreement appeared to have been reached between the band and Joe Moss either financially or legally. [Joe Moss was the then manager.] I was also concerned that there was no agreement between the individual members of the band. I took the view that as a matter of law the members of The Smiths were all equal partners although I was of course aware that this kind of arrangement was not acceptable to Morrissey or Johnny Marr.”

[jamescagney]

Actually, to follow up on my post above, not only would a man of Morrissey's stature receive adequate legal advice, even a man of Steven Morrissey's stature-- that is, a rising star 25 years ago-- would have gotten the straight dope.

And you know what? He did.


Mr Bowen was a solicitor consulted by Mr Morrissey and Mr Marr on 25 January 1984 and he wrote two letters, one dated 6 February 1984 to Mr Scott Piering and another dated 10 February 1984 to Mrs Dwyer Mr Morrissey’s mother, both of which letters Mr Morrissey accepted he saw at the time and discussed with Mr Marr (D3-65 & 74). In the letter of 6 February Mr Bowen suggested the setting up of two companies, one relating to publishing income and the other relating to recording income and said in relation to the latter - “with regard to the recording company, Messrs Morrissey and Marr will be its shareholders and directors. The other two band members will become employees of the company. It is proposed that they all draw a salary out of the company at a rate which will have to be agreed, but in principle they will be equally entitled to the net profits of the business.”

In the letter of 10 February 1984 to Mrs Dwyer he said amongst other things “Towards the end of last year when it became clear that The Smiths were going to be successful, I discussed with Geoff Travis my concerns about the constitution of the band. He in turn discussed this with Morrissey and Johnny Marr both in England and whilst they were in New York. I was concerned that no agreement appeared to have been reached between the band and Joe Moss either financially or legally. [Joe Moss was the then manager.] I was also concerned that there was no agreement between the individual members of the band. I took the view that as a matter of law the members of The Smiths were all equal partners although I was of course aware that this kind of arrangement was not acceptable to Morrissey or Johnny Marr.”

Meh. None of which proves that Mike was entitled to 25%. When you're a rising star, everyone wants a piece of you, and it's hard to know who to trust. No doubt they also got advice from other parties.

[Jukebox Jury]

Actually, to follow up on my post above, not only would a man of Morrissey's stature receive adequate legal advice, even a man of Steven Morrissey's stature-- that is, a rising star 25 years ago-- would have gotten the straight dope.

And you know what? He did.


Mr Bowen was a solicitor consulted by Mr Morrissey and Mr Marr on 25 January 1984 and he wrote two letters, one dated 6 February 1984 to Mr Scott Piering and another dated 10 February 1984 to Mrs Dwyer Mr Morrissey’s mother, both of which letters Mr Morrissey accepted he saw at the time and discussed with Mr Marr (D3-65 & 74). In the letter of 6 February Mr Bowen suggested the setting up of two companies, one relating to publishing income and the other relating to recording income and said in relation to the latter - “with regard to the recording company, Messrs Morrissey and Marr will be its shareholders and directors. The other two band members will become employees of the company. It is proposed that they all draw a salary out of the company at a rate which will have to be agreed, but in principle they will be equally entitled to the net profits of the business.”

In the letter of 10 February 1984 to Mrs Dwyer he said amongst other things “Towards the end of last year when it became clear that The Smiths were going to be successful, I discussed with Geoff Travis my concerns about the constitution of the band. He in turn discussed this with Morrissey and Johnny Marr both in England and whilst they were in New York. I was concerned that no agreement appeared to have been reached between the band and Joe Moss either financially or legally. [Joe Moss was the then manager.] I was also concerned that there was no agreement between the individual members of the band. I took the view that as a matter of law the members of The Smiths were all equal partners although I was of course aware that this kind of arrangement was not acceptable to Morrissey or Johnny Marr.”

Game, set & match:guitar::guitar:

Jukebox Jury

[hand in glove]

Actually, to follow up on my post above, not only would a man of Morrissey's stature receive adequate legal advice, even a man of Steven Morrissey's stature-- that is, a rising star 25 years ago-- would have gotten the straight dope.

And you know what? He did.


Mr Bowen was a solicitor consulted by Mr Morrissey and Mr Marr on 25 January 1984 and he wrote two letters, one dated 6 February 1984 to Mr Scott Piering and another dated 10 February 1984 to Mrs Dwyer Mr Morrissey’s mother, both of which letters Mr Morrissey accepted he saw at the time and discussed with Mr Marr (D3-65 & 74). In the letter of 6 February Mr Bowen suggested the setting up of two companies, one relating to publishing income and the other relating to recording income and said in relation to the latter - “with regard to the recording company, Messrs Morrissey and Marr will be its shareholders and directors. The other two band members will become employees of the company. It is proposed that they all draw a salary out of the company at a rate which will have to be agreed, but in principle they will be equally entitled to the net profits of the business.”

In the letter of 10 February 1984 to Mrs Dwyer he said amongst other things “Towards the end of last year when it became clear that The Smiths were going to be successful, I discussed with Geoff Travis my concerns about the constitution of the band. He in turn discussed this with Morrissey and Johnny Marr both in England and whilst they were in New York. I was concerned that no agreement appeared to have been reached between the band and Joe Moss either financially or legally. [Joe Moss was the then manager.] I was also concerned that there was no agreement between the individual members of the band. I took the view that as a matter of law the members of The Smiths were all equal partners although I was of course aware that this kind of arrangement was not acceptable to Morrissey or Johnny Marr.”

Where does this come from? And also, the ending brings us back to the beginning - "I was of course aware that this kind of arrangement was not acceptable to Morrissey or Johnny Marr"

JJ - Game, set and match? Oh no...

[Jukebox Jury]

Where does this come from? And also, the ending brings us back to the beginning - "I was of course aware that this kind of arrangement was not acceptable to Morrissey or Johnny Marr"

JJ - Game, set and match? Oh no...

Read it and weep baby....read it and weep:lbf:
It was up to M&M to prove there was an agreement / arrangement in place, they tried and they failed:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

[hand in glove]

Read it and weep baby....read it and weep:lbf:
It was up to M&M to prove there was an agreement / arrangement in place, they tried and they failed:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

You're silly. :lbf:

Actually, my question was never answered as to where that statement came from, so it says nothing to me, really. I still stand strongly by what I've posted and believe Morrissey's statement above all else. And, yes, before you say it, of course I would.

You say you can separate the trial from the individuals, but I find that so hard to believe. Why else would you even care? The very reason why it's such a hot topic is because of who it involves...You vote Joyce - I vote Morrissey. It's a subject you and I will never agree on. :flowers:

[Jukebox Jury]

You're silly. :lbf:
I still stand strongly by what I've posted and believe Morrissey's statement above all else. And, yes, before you say it, of course I would.

Based on fact or based on ''Morrissey said it, so it must be right'':rolleyes:


You say you can separate the trial from the individuals, but I find that so hard to believe. Why else would you even care?

So you are saying you cannot seperate the trial from the individuals? You are saying ''I love Morrissey 100% no matter what he does, even if he is in the wrong, he is right'':rolleyes:
It's not about 'why else would I even care', I believe that every man (women) should have a fair trial and the right to a fair hearing. Morrissey had TWO trials / TWO hearings and lost both - yet you are SO convinced he was wronged...what do YOU know that Morrissey's lawyers couldn't convince TWO judges to rule on his side?

Jukebox Jury

[Dave]

They can smell people like Morrissey. It's likely they knew his reputation as the moping minstrel with the flowers shoved down his pants, and it's also likely that he was not successful at hiding his contempt for the authorities of the courts. Above somewhere in there someone has stated that the judges in these trials had to choose who to believe. It's possible that they chose that based on sympathy for Joyce, or out of spite at Morrissey's attitude.

[lainey]

This is not inconsistent with Morrissey's character, and since he can afford it I think it's really hard to fault him for it. It doesn't make sense financially, but if Morrissey really believes that he is being cheated, I can see how the spitefulness of his actions might be justifiable, or more clearly, how they might seem to be justifiable.
He should have just paid, though, and avoided the stress. But maybe it's less stressful to fight it than to give in. And it's not ALL on Morrissey, either. The same finger points at Joyce. Why doesn't he drop it? Same exact reason. He believes he is in the right.

I doubt either of them cares about judges but only about judgments.

yes, standing up for your principles

[lainey]

They can smell people like Morrissey. It's likely they knew his reputation as the moping minstrel with the flowers shoved down his pants, and it's also likely that he was not successful at hiding his contempt for the authorities of the courts. Above somewhere in there someone has stated that the judges in these trials had to choose who to believe. It's possible that they chose that based on sympathy for Joyce, or out of spite at Morrissey's attitude. yes

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html

I have already sought to explain my firm opinion that that was not the judge’s meaning. I am quite clear that the judge was expressing no more than an impression of the value of Mr Morrissey’s oral evidence. Ordinarily speaking it is an adjective reserved for a witness who has deliberately sought to mislead the court either by untruthful statements or by suppression of the truth. As Mr Davis QC made plain Mr Morrissey was not such a witness. Mr Davis told us that in many instances Mr Morrissey was candid to his own disadvantage. What the transcripts reveal to me is that Mr Morrissey was a litigant who fell into the common trap of understanding the adversarial process as either obliging him or alternatively presenting him with the opportunity to fight a war of words with his cross examiner. As many famous trials have demonstrated however intelligent and gifted the litigant the ground upon which the contest takes place is so uneven that he is inevitably worsted. By misinterpreting his role Mr Morrissey clearly forfeited the judge’s sympathy and I suspect that the judge intended to convey no more than that Mr Morrissey’s first priority had been to fence with Mr Davis rather than to concentrate on giving answers that were clear, relevant and helpful to the judge in carrying out his difficult task. It is unfortunate that the adjective selected does not clearly convey that meaning and clearly conveys other meanings. It also has the disadvantage of providing the press with an easy headline.

[Bluebirds]

Snow news day ref: old ground and the court case?

Anyway were do all these transcripts/ evidence etc come from in this thread as I've never seen them before in such detail.

That exchange in the court between Morrissey and Joyce's QC was amusing but the High Court is not a place to show your wit.


As for the book the Severed Alliance when the book was released in 1992 to those fans about at the time (and not to be snotty but I guess a few of you weren't) it was like a godsend despite Morrissey (and Marr's) protestations as it was the first tome that detailed The Smiths history in all its messy glory, and actually gave some of us some insight into why they split up. So I would not bother reading until Morrissey and Marr meet. I found the book (I haven't read it since '92 mind) had quite a good narrative from that point onwards.

A lot of the book pre-Smiths was idle gossip which Mr Rogan decided was worthy of inclusion eg the comment about Pakistanis.

(Oh shit have I started is Morrissey a racist debate now?)

Subsequent Rogan books about Morrissey have been complete crap only worthy of reading on the toilet.

A little known fact about The Severed Alliance and Johnny Rogan. The book had been used in a court case before when Mr Rogan sued Julie Burchill/ News INternational for lifting wholesale passages from the book during her assassination of Morrissey in The Sunday Times c 1994. I believe they call it plagiarism. I don't know the outcome of this case, does anyone?

[Bluebirds]

They were found in breach of the Partnership Act 189x. Judge Weekes did not know who the plaintiffs or defendants were previously.

To put things in perspective in my book these are example of miscarriages of justice The Birmingham 6, The Guildford Four, Stefan Kisko, Cardiff Three, Darvell Brothers, PAtrick Nicholls and Derek Bentley

Not Morrissey being the millionaire victim of a crappy conspiracy theory. IN his head.

[Worm]

Where does this come from?

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html


And also, the ending brings us back to the beginning - "I was of course aware that this kind of arrangement was not acceptable to Morrissey or Johnny Marr"

That Morrissey and Marr disapproved of the arrangement was never in question.

[dunya]

It's apparent that it has cost Morrissey a lot in terms of legal fees and lost royalties over the years for refusing to pay up initially.

I'm not well up on legal issues, but once the amount owed had been recovered through the legal judgements refered to, wouldn't they then stop? Having got all he was entitled to, according to the judgement.
So what is the current state of affairs? Is it all done and dusted, or is Joyce still receiving more than his share of the appropriate royalties? If so, why?

:confused:

[Bluebirds]

I kept this statement and feel it should be reposted. Don't tell me that Morrissey never paid Joyce a thing or that Mike is not a greedy little man. Obviously you value Joyce over Morrissey - but these are the facts. Like it or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

30 November 2005

Statement from Morrissey:

The latest statements from M Joyce on a BBC 6 radio interview as faithfully reported on the MorrisseySoLow site have been brought to my attention and I feel I should make this reply as an attempt to put the matter straight.

1. From '83 to '87 M Joyce happily and willingly received 10% of Smiths recording royalties.

2. In '89, as is documented, Joyce sued Morrissey & Marr for 25% of Smiths recording royalties.

3. In '96, Joyce took his claim to court - and on the basis of the 1890 Partnership Act the judge awarded Joyce 25%.

4. In '97, M Joyce was paid 215 thousand pounds from me, and 215 thousand pounds from Johnny Marr.

5. In '99, Joyce appeared on British television and made the statement: "There was no contract saying we were gonna get 25%."

6. In 2001, as a final payment of back royalties, Johnny Marr paid Joyce 260 thousand pounds, plus "costs." At this time I was in the US and was not served with court proceedings, so Joyce obtained a Default Judgment. He then put forward a claim from me for 688 thousand pounds - well above and beyond the amount Johnny Marr was ordered to pay. In my absence, the figure was not contested.

7. Since 2001, and because of the Default Judgment against me, Joyce has taken out Third Party Orders against the following societies: my personal bank account in England, Smiths royalties from Warner Music, my personal PRS royalties, my personal PPL royalties, and he has attempted to seize UK concert fees from venue to venue. This money, to date, totals 700 thousand pounds. This figure is in addition to the figures mentioned above.

8. By grabbing the full total of Smiths royalties from Warner Music (and this means that when the public buy a Smiths CD in the UK, the royalties go to Joyce, and have done so since 2001) Joyce has knowingly deprived Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and has deprived producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements. Joyce did not declare to the courts that others - namely, the above - were also beneficiaries to the Warner Music royalties.

9. In 2001, Joyce attempted to seize both my mother's house and my sister's house by claiming that I had taken my assets out of the UK; he made this claim even though he had direct access to all of the above – which are in the UK. Joyce eventually dropped both of these claims due to lack of evidence, and he refused to pay the 150 thousand pounds that it had cost me to defend his groundless claims. Joyce also dropped his claim as co-composer with Johnny M on Smiths compositions, and Joyce also dropped his claim for Producer royalties on Smiths recordings, and Joyce also dropped his claim for a share of Artwork payments given to me for providing Smiths record sleeves. There were, in fact, no payments to me for Smiths Artwork. Joyce made a further claim for 25% of all Smiths t-shirts sold during the '83 to '87 period, even though there was no evidence that any royalty for t-shirts had been received by either myself or Johnny Marr.

10. In legal fees alone, Joyce has cost me 600 thousand pounds - this is quite apart from any payments made to him, and is quite apart from any money seized by him. In total, Joyce has cost me 1 million, 515 thousand pounds. This is an approximate figure - it could even be higher.

11. The Joyce action is continuous. Because of his Default Judgment he continues to take my royalties, and the royalties of others mentioned above, from Warner Music - consequently I have not received record royalties since 2001.

12. Since 2001, the money claimed by Joyce is charged, to me, at 100 pounds a day in interest.

13. During the Smiths' lifetime, when Joyce willingly took a 10% royalty, he did not contribute towards any expenses of any kind, did not take on any Partnership duties or responsibilities, and he received his 10% as gross earnings.

The point I wish to make is this: Joyce is not poor, unless, living as he does in the Cheshire green-belt, he lives beyond his means. Somehow, he appears to believe that he should have equal financial status to both myself and to Johnny Marr, even though Joyce has done dramatically less than Johnny and I to attain the positions we now have.

Joyce is not poor because of one reason - me. His career now is the fictitious position of an unpaid ex-member of the Smiths. He has also pursued all of his claims on Legal Aid.

I don't make this statement in search of sympathy from anyone, but I wish that the people at MorrisseySoLow who support Joyce would at least get their facts right before they say anything. Even with his 10% share, Joyce was wealthy. Now, he is extremely wealthy.

What more does he want?

I have fought the Joyce action as much as I could over the years, but the simple truth is that, under British law, the word of a judge will not be overturned. In the absence of any evidence from the 1980s, the judge in this case relied upon the Partnership Act of 1890 to help Joyce win his claim. Joyce has exploited the judge's final verdict in order to get as much as he can from me, from Johnny Marr, and also from Andy Rourke.

Finally, Joyce does not have the legal right to sell unreleased Smiths material - it belongs to Warner Music. Joyce did not pay for the recording time under which any demo material was recorded. Furthermore, Joyce cannot sell any unreleased work by Johnny Marr or Andy Rourke without, at very least, their permission.

Thanks for reading this,
MORRISSEY.

These are NOT the facts. These are Morrissey's (and his solicitors) version of the facts. I'm sure Mike Joyce and his lawyer have a different versionof the facts.

"The law is an ass."

[Worm]

[/B] yes

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html

I have already sought to explain my firm opinion that that was not the judge’s meaning. I am quite clear that the judge was expressing no more than an impression of the value of Mr Morrissey’s oral evidence. Ordinarily speaking it is an adjective reserved for a witness who has deliberately sought to mislead the court either by untruthful statements or by suppression of the truth. As Mr Davis QC made plain Mr Morrissey was not such a witness. Mr Davis told us that in many instances Mr Morrissey was candid to his own disadvantage. What the transcripts reveal to me is that Mr Morrissey was a litigant who fell into the common trap of understanding the adversarial process as either obliging him or alternatively presenting him with the opportunity to fight a war of words with his cross examiner. As many famous trials have demonstrated however intelligent and gifted the litigant the ground upon which the contest takes place is so uneven that he is inevitably worsted. By misinterpreting his role Mr Morrissey clearly forfeited the judge’s sympathy and I suspect that the judge intended to convey no more than that Mr Morrissey’s first priority had been to fence with Mr Davis rather than to concentrate on giving answers that were clear, relevant and helpful to the judge in carrying out his difficult task. It is unfortunate that the adjective selected does not clearly convey that meaning and clearly conveys other meanings. It also has the disadvantage of providing the press with an easy headline.

What this excerpt doesn't make clear is that in the absence of legal contracts the judge was forced to make a decision about the quality of testimony given by the various parties. The case pushed him into forming an opinion about Morrissey. He didn't just interject his personal feelings in the case. Because neither side presented ironclad evidence in support of their claims, their credibility as witnesses became a proper and perfectly reasonable element to consider in the final judgment. This is exactly what Morrissey should have been made to understand by his legal counsel: do not fight a war of words, say your bit, smile, and then go back to your seat and shut up. I think we all know how Morrissey would respond to such advice, but that doesn't make it wrong.

[Worm]

It's apparent that it has cost Morrissey a lot in terms of legal fees and lost royalties over the years for refusing to pay up initially.

I'm not well up on legal issues, but once the amount owed had been recovered through the legal judgements refered to, wouldn't they then stop? Having got all he was entitled to, according to the judgement.
So what is the current state of affairs? Is it all done and dusted, or is Joyce still receiving more than his share of the appropriate royalties? If so, why?

:confused:

It's the glaring absence in the public record, isn't it? Morrissey and Marr were sued as equal partners, and hence, in the eyes of the law, considered a single defendant. And yet only one of them is being 'persecuted' by Joyce.

[Dave]

Because the other one paid?

[Dave]

I get it now. Morrissey is bad because he broke up the Smiths over money, or because his actions have ensured that they will never reform. Or maybe because it's less embarrassing not to support a sometimes spiteful and vindictive pop star against an average guy that happened to be part of something historical.

Who you think is right might depend on whether you think Morrissey's career peaked on The Queen Is Dead.

[lainey]

morrissey quote....

S: And then all of a sudden you have... the wealth of the world at your feet... there is a certain guilt that comes with that, surely?
M: Yeah, there is working-class guilt, and erm... yeah, I do still have that. And I am very nervous about money, it's like Kirk Douglas saying that he always expects his money to be taken away from him, even now, because he was born in extreme poverty... y'know, when you're working-class, you're... drilled with the belief that there are... governing classes elsewhere who know better than you, and who know what's best for you. And er... I fight with that.

S: So is that one of the reasons why you're continuing with the court case?
M: Well I'm continuing with the court case because it was very unjust, it was severely unjust to me, and the Judge John Weeks was appalling, very injudicious and very unintelligent and very, very rude... but the whole judicial system in England is under incredible review now, people are criticising it, people are sick to death of these old judges, who don't know what they're talking about, effectively destroying people's lives... and it really has to come to an end because it's the old England. And there is no governing body in England whereby you can complain about judges. Because the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irving, who professes to take on complaints about judges - they don't do anything of the kind. They just collect your complaints and give them to the judge and protect the judge

S: But you could just save yourself bother, all this angst, - and you're going to have to go through it again now - by just saying "Look, take this money..."
M: The appeal system in England is no good because you simply go before three... white male individuals who are the same age and the same background of the judge who you're fighting against... so there's absolutely no point with the appeal system, it's absolutely ludicrous. So you have to find a barrister who is prepared to fight a judge, and that's very very difficult because they all... they're all a member of the same club, they all have this code of conduct and silence where they protect each other against... the peasants like me, who nonetheless dish out the money all the time. It's an astonishing political system that really is so old and has to end.

[lainey]

continued......

S: Yeah, they should make them just box each other...
M: Well... that would be much more interesting, but, unfortunately, what they're really doing is just wreaking havoc on people's lives, and I think of this Judge John Weeks, and every single day of his life he's passing judgement over other people and I think it's tragic.

S: You know this guy's name, he's obviously gnawing at the back of your head... why don't you just say "Let's leave it, I'm gonna live in LA", and revenge.. have your own revenge by... living healthily?
M: Because this judge is a menace... and he's a social menace, and he's still going on. And he's wreaking havoc everywhere with other people, and I don't see why these people, this judge should be protected. Because he's very very dangerous to society.

S: Well, er, obviously I don't know as much about it, but you're definitely, er, he's, he's got you... he's making you angry...
M: Well...

S: Is there a song about him on the next album?
M: Well I, I'd never please him that much, because, y'know judges, they want to be remembered. And they will be outrageous so that we'll all remember them forever. No, I'd never... I'd never give him that much satisfaction.

[Jukebox Jury]

morrissey quote....

S: But you could just save yourself bother, all this angst, - and you're going to have to go through it again now - by just saying "Look, take this money..."
M: The appeal system in England is no good because you simply go before three... white male individuals who are the same age and the same background of the judge who you're fighting against... so there's absolutely no point with the appeal system, it's absolutely ludicrous. So you have to find a barrister who is prepared to fight a judge, and that's very very difficult because they all... they're all a member of the same club, they all have this code of conduct and silence where they protect each other against... the peasants like me, who nonetheless dish out the money all the time. It's an astonishing political system that really is so old and has to end.

Yes, there is absolutely no point with the appeal system so I shall go right ahead and appeal:rolleyes:

Jukebox Jury

[Worm]

lainey, I'm sympathetic to Morrissey's wounds-- I am-- but those comments are absolutely ridiculous. A very wealthy, undereducated, middle-aged white man born into a working class home complaining that the judicial system doesn't work because another wealthy (Morrissey's own term), undereducated, middle-aged white man born into a working class home sued him and won, while somewhere else in the world a very wealthy, undereducated, middle-aged white man born into a working class home who was also sued and also lost is completely free of the whole entanglement-- well, it's just a bit rich, that's all. :lbf:


M: Well I, I'd never please him that much, because, y'know judges, they want to be remembered. And they will be outrageous so that we'll all remember them forever. No, I'd never... I'd never give him that much satisfaction.

Oopsie.

[hand in glove]

Based on fact or based on ''Morrissey said it, so it must be right'':rolleyes:



So you are saying you cannot seperate the trial from the individuals? You are saying ''I love Morrissey 100% no matter what he does, even if he is in the wrong, he is right'':rolleyes:
It's not about 'why else would I even care', I believe that every man (women) should have a fair trial and the right to a fair hearing. Morrissey had TWO trials / TWO hearings and lost both - yet you are SO convinced he was wronged...what do YOU know that Morrissey's lawyers couldn't convince TWO judges to rule on his side?

Jukebox Jury

Okay - first, why do you feel like you must belittle me for feeling so strongly about the trial and siding with Morrissey? You're doing that, whether you know it not, by putting quotation marks around sentences that never fell from my mouth...

Second, I sincerely do believe Morrissey was "wronged". I sincerely do believe that Mike knew he was getting 10% and was happy with it. He realized that because there was no contract he could sue for more money. And, he did. That's fact. He won, but I feel it was only because Morrissey was doomed before he set foot in the courtroom.

Third, I can separate the individuals from the trial - and even when I do, I still side with the one who lost. Why? Because he and the other unfortunate mate that was wronged, are the ones who made it all work. The one suing contributed very little, so why should he get an equal part?

:rolleyes: It doesn't matter what I say...you're set. And, frankly, I'm bored with this conversation now.

[Jukebox Jury]

Okay - first, why do you feel like you must belittle me for feeling so strongly about the trial and siding with Morrissey? You're doing that, whether you know it not, by putting quotation marks around sentences that never fell from my mouth...

Second, I sincerely do believe Morrissey was "wronged". I sincerely do believe that Mike knew he was getting 10% and was happy with it. He realized that because there was no contract he could sue for more money. And, he did. That's fact. He won, but I feel it was only because Morrissey was doomed before he set foot in the courtroom.

Third, I can separate the individuals from the trial - and even when I do, I still side with the one who lost. Why? Because he and the other unfortunate mate that was wronged, are the ones who made it all work. The one suing contributed very little, so why should he get an equal part?

:rolleyes: It doesn't matter what I say...you're set. And, frankly, I'm bored with this conversation now.

If I belittle you (which has never been my intention) it is because you make daft comments that make me laugh and that call for a response.
It doesn't matter what I say, you too are all set, so lets leave this post whilst I'm ahead and we'll say no more:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

[hand in glove]

If I belittle you (which has never been my intention) it is because you make daft comments that make me laugh and that call for a response.
It doesn't matter what I say, you too are all set, so lets leave this post whilst I'm ahead and we'll say no more:thumb:

Jukebox Jury

Well, I'm glad I amuse you with my "daft comments"...Here's another one to make you smile.

And, No one is ahead here, by the way...

Mike won the case - nothing can change that. And, I agree they should have put the percentages down in writing, but this debate is not based on WHY he won; it's based on HOW he won. Morrissey stood up for what he believed was right and the judge found him to be complicated. I mean, how frustrating it must be that someone like Morrissey, who is quite intelligent, would possibly question their authority. My, my, can't have that, can we? Mike was there, tail (tale) between legs, yet sharpened teeth - deceptive by all means.

Chuckle away, dear.

[Jukebox Jury]

So anyone could have played drum and bass for The Smiths:rolleyes:

This from Simon Goddard's 'Songs That Saved Your Life'

''Barbarism Begins At Home''
(Johnny Marr) 'There was no drums there, it was just me and Andy jamming like we used to when we was 14 / 15.'
For Marr and Rourke, it was essentially a pre Smiths nostalgic throwback to their days in the instrumental funk ensemble 'Freak Party' with drummer Simon Wolstencroft.
If ever there was a case to challenge the Morrissey / Marr composer credit, Rourke's bass line in BBAH is surely such a nominee.
(Johnny Marr) ''I know such a lot of fuss has been made and Andy is quite rightly proud of his bass line, but personally, harmonically I don't think that bass line comes anywhere near Andy's other stuff: 'Nowhere Fast', 'That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore' and 'Headmaster Ritual' all tower above it'

'The Headmaster Ritual'
Rourke & Joyce had never rehearsed the song until arriving at Amazon, where it was swiftly jammed into shape. Upon hearing Marr's opening, staccato chords, Joyce instinctively followed suit; thus creating the the compelling rat-a-tat intro that would lead the track's eventual placing as the album's suitably forceful opener.

Jukebox Jury

[hand in glove]

So anyone could have played drum and bass for The Smiths:rolleyes:



I never said that...and I haven't even mentioned Andy. :squiffy:

Oh wait - I see, now. You're asking that question because I said "they" were the only one who made it work (I was separating the individuals from the trial at the time, you see)...No, I do not believe that just anyone could have played bass for The Smiths. I like Andy - I have nothing against him. Um, I WISH someone else would have played drums for The Smiths, it's true. I ADORE Johnny Marr, but that bit you posted really doesn't change my mind at all.

[Jukebox Jury]

I never said that...and I haven't even mentioned Andy. :squiffy:

Oh wait - I see, now. You're asking that question because I said "they" were the only one who made it work (I was separating the individuals from the trial at the time, you see)...No, I do not believe that just anyone could have played bass for The Smiths. I like Andy - I have nothing against him. Um, I WISH someone else would have played drums for The Smiths, it's true. I ADORE Johnny Marr, but that bit you posted really doesn't change my mind at all.

You are getting paranoid now;) I didn't say you (or quote you) had said that. It was a general message to a few people who have either on this thread or other threads implied that the duo were session musicians:rolleyes:
I wasn't expecting the post to change your mind.

So you wished someone else would have drummed for The Smiths. Presumably you mean someone (anyone) who wouldn't have the audacity to ask for a fair days pay for a fair days work.......

Jukebox Jury

[hand in glove]

So you wished someone else would have drummed for The Smiths. Presumably you mean someone (anyone) who wouldn't have the audacity to ask for a fair days pay for a fair days work.......

Jukebox Jury

Well, just an honest drummer would have been nice... :thumb:

I'm sleepy. Nite, nite, JJ! :)

[Dave]

Imagine you are whisked back in time to a Smiths concert, then told that Morrissey won't be there. Some guy called Spider will be filling in. :eek: :mad: :( Wait, Morrissey will be there, but Mike Joyce has fallen down a very deep well, and some guy called Spider will be drumming. The show must go on. :thumb: :guitar:

Was Mike Joyce 25% of the draw?

That's a whole different issue, and probably best for Joyce defenders to avoid. Stick with, "That Morrissey! He is such a vindictive cheapskate!"

[Jukebox Jury]

Imagine you are whisked back in time to a Smiths concert, then told that Morrissey won't be there. Some guy called Spider will be filling in. :eek: :mad: :( Wait, Morrissey will be there, but Mike Joyce has fallen down a very deep well, and some guy called Spider will be drumming. The show must go on. :thumb: :guitar:

Was Mike Joyce 25% of the draw?

That's a whole different issue, and probably best for Joyce defenders to avoid. Stick with, "That Morrissey! He is such a vindictive cheapskate!"

OK, I turn up for the gig and Mike has fallen down the stairs on the way to the stage (or was he pushed:D).
Will the gig go ahead without him or will it be cancelled there and then?
All four of the band played the gig (or five if Craig Gannon was on stage:thumb:) so why not 25% for the gig? Why should two members get 40% and two members 10% for performing on the same stage, sound checking and playing the tunes to the same songs as the other two?

Jukebox Jury

[Mr Smith]

OK, I turn up for the gig and Mike has fallen down the stairs on the way to the stage (or was he pushed:D).
Will the gig go ahead without him or will it be cancelled there and then?
All four of the band played the gig (or five if Craig Gannon was on stage:thumb:) so why not 25% for the gig? Why should two members get 40% and two members 10% for performing on the same stage, sound checking and playing the tunes to the same songs as the other two?

Jukebox Jury

Because playing a gig is not just about turning up and playing - there's a lot of behind the scene work that goes on i.e arranging transport, food, liasing with the promoters, press etc. There's also the case of who is liable if a concert is cancelled etc.

[Jukebox Jury]

Because playing a gig is not just about turning up and playing - there's a lot of behind the scene work that goes on i.e arranging transport, food, liasing with the promoters, press etc. There's also the case of who is liable if a concert is cancelled etc.

Of course there is, without a doubt, I was inferring that just say the band 'made' (for simple maths) £10,000 from a gig and it cost £5000 for the venue hire, roadies, transport, hotels, insurance, managers cut etc etc etc and there is £5000 profit, then each band member gets £1250 each, not two members get £2000 and two get £500.

Jukebox Jury

[Worm]

Because playing a gig is not just about turning up and playing - there's a lot of behind the scene work that goes on i.e arranging transport, food, liasing with the promoters, press etc.

Things a manager takes care of.

[Je Suis Julie]

The world of law and the world of art are two very separate, diametrically opposed entities. The former is a necessary evil to the later, but as we've seen, it seldom ends well.

It's the ultimate dysfunctional relationship, and it has to be, if the artist is anything more than a corporate shill. Join an "artist" with a "head for business" and what do you get??? STING! :sick:

I stumbled upon this clip on YouTube this morning. The MC5's Wayne Kramar talks about the dynamics of a band, and how those lines need to be clearly defined because...

"Almost never are bands true democracies. They're more like benign dictatorships. Somebody is the guy that's got the ideas and the vision, and the other guys are guys that are helping him do that."

tdNabFHhlcU

So what did we learn from this?
Get it all in writing, young bandlings.

And because even THAT is subject to misinterpretation, at the inevitable court hearing hope for a judge with an ounce of understanding of the creative process. And because THAT will prove impossible, hope for an appeals judge who won't snarkily support his buddy's decision to put this arrogant, wordy pop star in his place.

[Mr Smith]

Of course there is, without a doubt, I was inferring that just say the band 'made' (for simple maths) £10,000 from a gig and it cost £5000 for the venue hire, roadies, transport, hotels, insurance, managers cut etc etc etc and there is £5000 profit, then each band member gets £1250 each, not two members get £2000 and two get £500.



Even if the two other members organised everything? Is it fair for the other two to do less (in the overall sense) yet still receive the same amount? While other bands do, on the whole, split things equally, that wasn't the case with the Smiths - and that's the crux of the argument running throughout this thread, is that Joyce knew of the inequality, yet willing stayed as a member (even if AR / MJ claim they did not know what the percentage split was, it was agreed - by their concession to Marr's threat of leaving and disbanding the band - that it wouldn't be an equal share). An equally simple analogy would be that all eleven members of a football team should be paid the same wage, but they're not.


Things a manager takes care of.

Agreed, a manager would have made things easier, but that wasn't the Smiths style. Morrissey had very clear plans on what the Smith was meant to be, one of which was everything would be done on his (or to a degree, Marr's) terms.

[Jukebox Jury]

Even if the two other members organised everything? Is it fair for the other two to do less (in the overall sense) yet still receive the same amount? While other bands do, on the whole, split things equally, that wasn't the case with the Smiths - and that's the crux of the argument running throughout this thread, is that Joyce knew of the inequality, yet willing stayed as a member (even if AR / MJ claim they did not know what the percentage split was, it was agreed - by their concession to Marr's threat of leaving and disbanding the band - that it wouldn't be an equal share). An equally simple analogy would be that all eleven members of a football team should be paid the same wage, but they're not.



Agreed, a manager would have made things easier, but that wasn't the Smiths style. Morrissey had very clear plans on what the Smith was meant to be, one of which was everything would be done on his (or to a degree, Marr's) terms.

The football anology is a good one though of course, whilst clubs stay the same, players come and go within the club and also money causes a lot of rifts in the dressing room.
Imagine the band are paid to do a photo shoot (Hello magazine:D) and all four members appear in every single picture, should two members receive 30% more for doing that than two other members?
M&M received their completely deserved fair share for writing the tunes and words - that (to me) was their reward. After that, everything equal after expenses and other fees to whatever have been dealt with. Maybe I am just being to idealistic......

Morrissey was happy for everything to be done on his and Johnny's terms - as long as it was Johnny that was doing all the work:lbf:

Jukebox Jury

[Worm]

"Almost never are bands true democracies. They're more like benign dictatorships. Somebody is the guy that's got the ideas and the vision, and the other guys are guys that are helping him do that."

If he means from a business or organizational standpoint, he's right.

If he means creatively, this quote is an instance of probably one of the most prevalent lines of thinking in the history of rock bands-- and one of the most wrongheaded. The one thing all good bands have is chemistry. "Chemistry" is a cliche, too, but history is littered with bands whose "masterminds" laughed at the notion that somehow the idiot bass player with the $10,000-a-night coke habit and a fourth-grade reading level could somehow be integral to the band's success.

Well, surprise surprise: they are integral. Back in 1982 Morrissey didn't team up with the three best musicians in Manchester; no, not even the best guitarist in Johnny Marr. Morrissey happened to team up with three guys who could best play off each other's talents and abilities to form a single cohesive sound. The combination of so many different elements to allow such a sound to emerge borders on the miraculous. Bands that make it are bands who enjoy a hell of a lot of luck, and that's even before they "make it" with a record label or a hit single.

With maybe a few exceptions, bands are great for a handful of albums and then the magic disappears-- either they break up or they simply put themselves in "repeat" mode and carry on like song factories. Once the magic goes, it never comes back. This seems like such an obvious fact, and yet there are still lead singers scratching their heads as to why one "lawnmower part" isn't as good as another and fans who think band members can be mixed and matched like a deck of Yu-Gi-Oh cards. It doesn't work that way.

And no, I'm not saying that Morrissey "lost his magic" with Andy, Mike and Johnny in 1987. You can see it with his solo bands, too. Some of his lineups are better than others, even when all the players were more or less equally talented. Chemistry matters. You can run the band like a company, with one or two guys in charge, but the attitude ought to be completely democratic and always, always respectful of the "non-essential" guys. The Bruces and Ricks of the world often have their revenge in the long run.

[Worm]

Agreed, a manager would have made things easier, but that wasn't the Smiths style. Morrissey had very clear plans on what the Smith was meant to be, one of which was everything would be done on his (or to a degree, Marr's) terms.

ROFL

"That wasn't The Smiths' style"?

You seem to think The Smiths were some beautiful disaster, doomed to fail right from the start. Too clever, too smart, too divine to make it the stinky commerce-stained world of rock and roll. "The occasion of the glorious defeat" etc. You know what? You may be right. I understand business and art don't often mix. I love the fact that "Blue Monday" was a hit single that was a financial loss for Factory because of the expensive sleeve etc. I get it.

Me, I can't help but wonder what The Smiths could have been with proper management. I don't mean a ruthless taskmaster who dressed Morrissey up in a bear suit and forced Johnny to incorporate drum machines into their sound to reach a wider audience. There might have been a guy fiercely protective of Morrissey and Marr's vision and capable of paying the van driver, organizing gigs, and dealing with the other "non-genius" band and crew members. Such a manager was probably out there. If there was, and for whatever reason he wasn't allowed to help The Smiths, that isn't "the band's style", that's the band's stupidity.

[Black Cloud]

Ive been reading this book, and it is BORING. Hopefully somebody else agrees with me. The book is full of names and little facts on music in the 80s. Very very boring.

I'm waiting for the PD James version.

[Jukebox Jury]

Me, I can't help but wonder what The Smiths could have been with proper management. I don't mean a ruthless taskmaster who dressed Morrissey up in a bear suit and forced Johnny to incorporate drum machines into their sound to reach a wider audience. There might have been a guy fiercely protective of Morrissey and Marr's vision and capable of paying the van driver, organizing gigs, and dealing with the other "non-genius" band and crew members. Such a manager was probably out there. If there was, and for whatever reason he wasn't allowed to help The Smiths, that isn't "the band's style", that's the band's stupidity.

:clap::clap:
The reason Johnny was knackered was because on top of doing all the band stuff he was having to be interupted to pay a cheque to Salford Van Hire because they were threatening to take them to court over an unpaid bill.
If only Joe Moss had stayed the distance..... he was probably one of a very few people who could have done all you say above..... he said as much in that 'Young Guns' show... but once he found out Morrissey was asking Johnny to do what he should have been doing, then he knew that there was no going back from that point:tears:

Jukebox Jury

[Mr Smith]

ROFL

"That wasn't The Smiths' style"?

You seem to think The Smiths were some beautiful disaster, doomed to fail right from the start. Too clever, too smart, too divine to make it the stinky commerce-stained world of rock and roll. "The occasion of the glorious defeat" etc. You know what? You may be right. I understand business and art don't often mix. I love the fact that "Blue Monday" was a hit single that was a financial loss for Factory because of the expensive sleeve etc. I get it.

Me, I can't help but wonder what The Smiths could have been with proper management. I don't mean a ruthless taskmaster who dressed Morrissey up in a bear suit and forced Johnny to incorporate drum machines into their sound to reach a wider audience. There might have been a guy fiercely protective of Morrissey and Marr's vision and capable of paying the van driver, organizing gigs, and dealing with the other "non-genius" band and crew members. Such a manager was probably out there. If there was, and for whatever reason he wasn't allowed to help The Smiths, that isn't "the band's style", that's the band's stupidity.

I can use another word if you find the word 'style' laughable. Let's call it Morrissey's 'character'. He seems to like control and is very sure of what he wants, and how things should be, which is evident in what has passed in both the Smiths and in his solo career. You could also include Marr into that equation as well, as is documented, he admired people on the hussle, and was described as someone as a hustler, they (M&M and Moss were 'ready to take on the word'). I don't view the Smiths as a self fulfilling tragedy.

I don't think like that, as if the Smiths was some kind of 'lost potential'. A manager of the ilk you described, would have made things easier, that is true. There probably won't have been a court case, nor a split up, but would the music been any better during those four years together? Would a long band life resulted in a bigger catelogue of musical excellence or would it have diluted it in the same way as in Bowie's career? The latter is hypothetical of course. Besides, from what I gather, the Smiths were surrounded by supportive people, the likes of Grant Showbiz, Scott Piering, Gill Smith etc.

[Worm]

I can use another word if you find the word 'style' laughable. Let's call it Morrissey's 'character'. He seems to like control and is very sure of what he wants, and how things should be, which is evident in what has passed in both the Smiths and in his solo career. You could also include Marr into that equation as well, as is documented, he admired people on the hussle, and was described as someone as a hustler, they (M&M and Moss were 'ready to take on the word'). I don't view the Smiths as a self fulfilling tragedy.

I think great artists are measured by different standards, let's put it that way. Morrissey is one. I'm giving him a hard time about the court case, but in the end I give him a pass because Morrissey wouldn't be Morrissey if he were a mere mortal like the guy on the corner who sells oranges.

If Morrissey were not a great artist, believe me, I wouldn't be nearly as kind as you are in finding the right words to characterize some of his reported dealings with people. I'll just confess to a double standard and leave it at that. :rolleyes:


There probably won't have been a court case, nor a split up

Your next word is 'but'. I had to interrupt. Not going through the court case would've been a big deal. Not splitting-up would've been a big deal.

You ask if they'd made better music during those few years, or if their run of great records would have continued after 1987. The truth is, I don't know, and I'm probably a little skeptical, too. You are absolutely correct to suggest The Smiths might have followed Bowie's tragic trajectory. Some people felt they were already at the beginning of their creative death spiral with "Strangeways", so it's possible. Believe me, I am thrilled to have the music we do have from The Smiths, and I'm equally thrilled at Morrissey's occasionally patchy but mostly stellar solo career. Things happen as they should happen, and The Smiths' demise is nothing to weep about.

Still, there is that potential, isn't there? That The Smiths could have recorded two or three more albums? Played a few more years' worth of gigs? Found a second wind creatively and released yet another brace of fine albums into the 90s?

I mean, never mind about The Smiths. I'm even a little bugged by the fact that the court case meant Mike and Andy had to stop playing with Morrissey after he'd recorded two of my favorite singles with the sans-Marr Smiths line-up intact. (Never a Gannon fan, but can you imagine a line-up of Alain Whyte, Boz Boorer, Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce, with Stephen Street producing?) Maybe he would've avoided some of the "wilderness years" in the 90s and early 00s with a great manager behind him, too.

I'm content not to know, because what did transpire was plenty good on its own, but I can't help feeling irritated that we'll never know because-- for "mysterious reasons"-- The Smiths never had a strong, long-term manager. It just seems like such a stupid waste.

[bhops]

OK, I turn up for the gig and Mike has fallen down the stairs on the way to the stage (or was he pushed:D).
Will the gig go ahead without him or will it be cancelled there and then?
All four of the band played the gig (or five if Craig Gannon was on stage:thumb:) so why not 25% for the gig? Why should two members get 40% and two members 10% for performing on the same stage, sound checking and playing the tunes to the same songs as the other two?

Jukebox Jury

This is an easy one to answer. Yes the immediate gig would be cancelled but they would quickly hire a temp drummer and the tour would continue.

Now if it's Morrissey that falls down those stairs (or was he pushed? LOL) the gig is cancelled and so is the ENTIRE tour.

See the difference?

I actually went to quite a bit of this trial (surprisingly not many others were there) and you are right it basically came down to a he said/she said situation and the judge sided with Joyce.

For me it felt like Mike and Andy were happy just to be in the band and didn't want to rock the boat and 'hoped' that one day it would all be sorted. I'm pretty sure tbhey knew it was 10% but hey that's just what I got from watching their various testimonies.

It was their tough luck that they didn't have the balls to stand up to M&M and demand something on paper, but truth is I think they feared that M&M would simply sack them and get someone else in coz frankly they were The Smiths.

As for M&M yeah Moz did not help the situation by winding up the judge. My impression of those 2 was that Moz didn't want any confrontation and left it to Marr to negotiate the situation from their perspective.

Marr too I think hoped that if they just put their heads in the sand long enough it would all go away. So really they left themselves wide open to this kind of situation.

Who wins?

Well I guess in 99% of the times it's the guy on legal aid. LOL

I'm really surprised that Marr came out of this as 'clean' as he did. Rourke and Joyce took their concerns to Marr not to Moz and Moz took his concerns to Marr not Rourke and Joyce so in my mind if there was a lot of mis-communication involved then I'd say Marr should shoulder a fair portion of the blame. He was the one guy that each side was talking to and somehow nothing got resolved.

I guess they were all young, nieve and that's how people grow up, ha ha!!

[Jukebox Jury]

This is an easy one to answer. Yes the immediate gig would be cancelled but they would quickly hire a temp drummer and the tour would continue.

Now if it's Morrissey that falls down those stairs (or was he pushed? LOL) the gig is cancelled and so is the ENTIRE tour.

See the difference?

I actually went to quite a bit of this trial (surprisingly not many others were there) and you are right it basically came down to a he said/she said situation and the judge sided with Joyce.

For me it felt like Mike and Andy were happy just to be in the band and didn't want to rock the boat and 'hoped' that one day it would all be sorted. I'm pretty sure tbhey knew it was 10% but hey that's just what I got from watching their various testimonies.

It was their tough luck that they didn't have the balls to stand up to M&M and demand something on paper, but truth is I think they feared that M&M would simply sack them and get someone else in coz frankly they were The Smiths.

As for M&M yeah Moz did not help the situation by winding up the judge. My impression of those 2 was that Moz didn't want any confrontation and left it to Marr to negotiate the situation from their perspective.

Marr too I think hoped that if they just put their heads in the sand long enough it would all go away. So really they left themselves wide open to this kind of situation.

Who wins?

Well I guess in 99% of the times it's the guy on legal aid. LOL

I'm really surprised that Marr came out of this as 'clean' as he did. Rourke and Joyce took their concerns to Marr not to Moz and Moz took his concerns to Marr not Rourke and Joyce so in my mind if there was a lot of mis-communication involved then I'd say Marr should shoulder a fair portion of the blame. He was the one guy that each side was talking to and somehow nothing got resolved.

I guess they were all young, nieve and that's how people grow up, ha ha!!

Very good post..... apart from one small point.... how long do you think it would take to employ a temp (that Morrissey would get on with) to learn all the tunes (or whatever a drummer does!) It was tried with Craig Gannon ( a rhythm guitarist, not a bass player) replacing Andy - in the end, Andy came back and Gannon was kept on.

Jukebox Jury

[snowfallsoon]

This is an easy one to answer. Yes the immediate gig would be cancelled but they would quickly hire a temp drummer and the tour would continue.

Now if it's Morrissey that falls down those stairs (or was he pushed? LOL) the gig is cancelled and so is the ENTIRE tour.

See the difference?

I actually went to quite a bit of this trial (surprisingly not many others were there) and you are right it basically came down to a he said/she said situation and the judge sided with Joyce.

For me it felt like Mike and Andy were happy just to be in the band and didn't want to rock the boat and 'hoped' that one day it would all be sorted. I'm pretty sure tbhey knew it was 10% but hey that's just what I got from watching their various testimonies.

It was their tough luck that they didn't have the balls to stand up to M&M and demand something on paper, but truth is I think they feared that M&M would simply sack them and get someone else in coz frankly they were The Smiths.

As for M&M yeah Moz did not help the situation by winding up the judge. My impression of those 2 was that Moz didn't want any confrontation and left it to Marr to negotiate the situation from their perspective.

Marr too I think hoped that if they just put their heads in the sand long enough it would all go away. So really they left themselves wide open to this kind of situation.

Who wins?

Well I guess in 99% of the times it's the guy on legal aid. LOL

I'm really surprised that Marr came out of this as 'clean' as he did. Rourke and Joyce took their concerns to Marr not to Moz and Moz took his concerns to Marr not Rourke and Joyce so in my mind if there was a lot of mis-communication involved then I'd say Marr should shoulder a fair portion of the blame. He was the one guy that each side was talking to and somehow nothing got resolved.

I guess they were all young, nieve and that's how people grow up, ha ha!!

I wonder how the drummers who post here would feel about this? All
drummers are the same?
Who would join a band where 2 people get 40% and the other 2 get 10%?
As far as bands are concerned, Moz isn't so special...some of you act like
he's some type of God. He eats, shits & fucks(?) just like everyone else.
And WHY is he regarded so highly? Because you can relate to his songs?
So that means he's the most talented lyricist in the world? He isn't.

[bhops]

Very good post..... apart from one small point.... how long do you think it would take to employ a temp (that Morrissey would get on with) to learn all the tunes (or whatever a drummer does!) It was tried with Craig Gannon ( a rhythm guitarist, not a bass player) replacing Andy - in the end, Andy came back and Gannon was kept on.

Jukebox Jury

Oh I'm not saying it would be easy and perhaps the tour dates would be postponed but ultimately the gigs could be done yeah?

It has been done for other bands. I'm pretty sure REM used a temp drummer to honour dates when Bill Berry first suffered those brain problems in 95.

Point is if Moz had gone down (so to speak) for any length of time the tour gets stopped and doesn't proceed, ever.

[bhops]

I wonder how the drummers who post here would feel about this? All
drummers are the same?
Who would join a band where 2 people get 40% and the other 2 get 10%?
As far as bands are concerned, Moz isn't so special...some of you act like
he's some type of God. He eats, shits & fucks(?) just like everyone else.
And WHY is he regarded so highly? Because you can relate to his songs?
So that means he's the most talented lyricist in the world? He isn't.

Are all drummers the same?

Nope of course they're not.

I'm not sure what your rant about him being a talented lyricist has come from? I don't remember mentioning his lyrical abilities anywhere in my previous post, so take a chill pill and calm the fuck down.

Was the 40/40/10/10 deal fair? Maybe, maybe not that's not really the point but it is what M&M believed that Andy and mike agreed to.

Mike and Andy say they had agreed to a different deal, the 'fairness' of it actually has nothing to do with the argument.

nd my last point since you seem determined to go there is this. You were around when The Smiths were still together? I was and if you were then i'm usre you'll remember that the focus of the group was Morrissey and to some extent Marr.

I think back to when Andy was briefly sacked and replaced by Gannon. To be frank it didn't ceate much of a ripple in Smiths fandom.

However when Johnny left..........................

You see my point? Forgetting the court case for a second, because I don't think it has much bearing on the outcome but for all intensive purposes The Smiths really were Morrissey and Marr. It would be silly to argue otherwise.

In much the same way that Noel and Liam were Oasis (and please don't try to think I'm comparing them musically merely just using them for illustrative purposes.)

[snowfallsoon]

Are all drummers the same?

Nope of course they're not.

I'm not sure what your rant about him being a talented lyricist has come from? I don't remember mentioning his lyrical abilities anywhere in my previous post, so take a chill pill and calm the fuck down.

Sorry, the rant about his lyrical abilities really had nothing to do with what you were saying. I was more responding to other posters who seem to worship Morrissey and every song he ever wrote, as if that makes it impossible for him to do any wrong. You don't need to swear at me.

Was the 40/40/10/10 deal fair? Maybe, maybe not that's not really the point but it is what M&M believed that Andy and mike agreed to.

But it isn't what Andy & Mike say they agreed to. I think it seems unlikely that Andy & Mike would agree to 10% while the others got 40%. They attended the recording sessions, they performed, they did more than 10% of the work didn't they?


Mike and Andy say they had agreed to a different deal, the 'fairness' of it actually has nothing to do with the argument.

Why would they agree to something that was unfair though? It doesn't make
sense.

nd my last point since you seem determined to go there is this. You were around when The Smiths were still together? I was and if you were then i'm usre you'll remember that the focus of the group was Morrissey and to some extent Marr.

Yes, I was around, and yes the focus was always on Morrissey but the fact remains that there were 4 people in the band and 2 of them didn't show up
only 10% of the time.


I think back to when Andy was briefly sacked and replaced by Gannon. To be frank it didn't ceate much of a ripple in Smiths fandom.

However when Johnny left..........................

You see my point? Forgetting the court case for a second, because I don't think it has much bearing on the outcome but for all intensive purposes The Smiths really were Morrissey and Marr. It would be silly to argue otherwise.

In much the same way that Noel and Liam were Oasis (and please don't try to think I'm comparing them musically merely just using them for illustrative purposes.)

So the more popular members should get paid more? Would the Smiths have been the same if it was just Morrissey and Marr?

[brutalityobscene]

huh?!

[snowfallsoon]

Nevermind. I am sure I will read this in the morning and wonder what the hell I am talking about.

[Dave]

Nevermind. I am sure I will read this in the morning and wonder what the hell I am talking about.

Never admit it. :thumb:

[bhops]

So the more popular members should get paid more? Would the Smiths have been the same if it was just Morrissey and Marr?

Again it is hard to speculate to what was agreed. If I was either the drummer or the bassist and I was around 2 charismatic guys like Morrissey and Johnny and I have the possibility to be in the greatest band of all time then yeah maybe I would agree to it.

You argue that why would they do something so stupid yet we can all agree that they were never clever enough to get M&M to commit it to a legal document.

I would also say that M&M were pretty dumb not to lock it down on paper as well, so again we end up back at square one. It comes down to who you believe.

From what I understand with The Stones, the rythym section have a very different deal to Jagger and Richards except that it works for them due to the sheer volume of money that The Stones generate they all still do very well. But I understand that Watts, Wood etc get a vastly smaller amount than Jagger and Richards.

Ultimately all 4 band members created the mess that The Smiths have become.