· Information regarding boxed sets of Morrissey singles, reissued Smiths CDs and LPs
· More Morrissey stories
· More Index stories
· Also by davidt
Morrissey-solo
Archive
|
|
|||||||||
posted by
davidt
on Saturday August 08 2009, @08:30AM
goinghome sends the link:
Information regarding boxed sets of Morrissey singles, reissued Smiths CDs and LPs - true-to-you.net 8 August 2009 Morrissey would like it to be known that he has not been consulted by EMI/HMV/Parlophone with regards to two forthcoming boxed sets of Morrissey singles. Morrissey does not approve such releases and would ask people not to bother buying them. Morrissey receives no royalty payments from EMI for any back catalogue, and has not received a royalty from EMI since 1992. Morrissey also does not approve of, and was not consulted on, the Rhino box of Smiths CDs, or the Warner releases of Smiths LPs on 180 gramme vinyl. Morrissey last received a royalty payment from Warners ten years ago, and, once again, he would ask people not to bother buying the reissued LPs or CDs.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Morrissey refuses new singles sets - statement at true-to-you.net
| Top
| 144 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|||||||||
|
Vauxhall and I? (Score:0)
"What a big surprise" (Score:0)
Just glad to get it confirmed.
Morrissey has still not let me down once.
Something doesn't make sense (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a reason Morrissey is not getting royalties. I don't know what it is but it could be because he sold ownership of the catalog or it could be that the contract with the record company stated that after a certain amount of time they would become the full owners of the music or some other event happened.
If EMI and Warner are legally re-releasing songs that he legally does not own it's really none of his business. He should have planned better to always be the owner of his own works.
(User #8415 Info)
Re:Mike Joyce is the reason (Score:2, Informative)
The question was raised why Morrissey approves of Swords if it was about Mike Joyce getting Royalties. The difference could be Swords is being released by Polyvinyl, an American company and therefore not subject to any UK judgment.
EMI is a British company and therefore subjected to the UK default judgment against Morrissey.
Parent
imo (Score:1, Insightful)
Morrissey is sucha tit. (Score:1, Troll)
(User #9259 Info)
Re:Morrissey is sucha tit. (Score:2, Insightful)
(User #16308 Info)
Parent
Still gonna buy it (Score:0)
a)They are a wonderful collection of singles
b) He's very very rich anyway
LOVE YOU MOZ
I don't mind him saying so (Score:1)
(User #10663 Info)
A Reason to Buy It (Score:0)
Morrissey's Statement. (Score:1)
(User #13105 Info)
but they were supervised by Marr right? (Score:1, Insightful)
damn.. (Score:0)
Morrissey, don't worry (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm buying them because I want to have them, give them away, look at them or even listen to them.
Thanks for your warning, but don't worry. I won't be offended if Lino, EMO/HMV/Persephone and Whiner will keep the money just to themselves.
I'm looking forward to Swords, by the way.
(User #12729 Info)
Artist royalties . . . (Score:1)
Some monies may have gone into everyone else's bank accounts other than the bands' own.
Being young and hungry, the painful memory of such financial vunerability never goes away.
Art and passion stay with you, this is not about money, more about pride in your work; as an aritist, your work is absolutely part of you.
No, am not buying them - not unsigned by the artist himself . . .
(User #22795 Info)
I'd much rather buy the boxed re-releases than... (Score:0)
This is why no royalties. (Score:0)
Re:Grotesque (Score:2, Informative)
PPL (Phonographic Performance Limited) is another collection organisation dealing with a separate copyright, that of the sound recording. in the UK a royalty is payable by broadcasters for plays of a track, to both performers on a recording (ie Morrissey and musicians) and the owner of the copyright in that recording (usually the record company). the royalty is collected by PPL and distributed 50/50 between performers and record company.
"How could there be any justification for Joyce to try to seek current fees from UK concerts?"
The answer i think, based on Moz's 2005 statement, is that Joyce's 2001 Default Judgment allows Joyce to collect Moz's debt to him via all revenue streams mentioned by Moz.
there's a lot of idle comment on these pages re Joyce and Moz. i don't think anyone here knows exactly what's happened. Apparently, contrary to Moz's 2005 statement, Len Brown has written that Moz told him in 2003 that he'd settled with Joyce.
it just makes me sad to see Joyce (who was an important part of the Smiths) endlessly hated for going after his money, and Morrissey apparently endlessly persecuted by lawyers. financial disputes are self-feeding since new complaints and counter complaints keep arising. the only beneficiaries are lawyers.
assuming this is all still going on, can Joyce still be getting legal aid? according to the government 'legal aid calculator':
http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/en/legalaid/calculator.jsp
you need to have savings under £10k.
the unfortunate part for Morrissey, if this really is still going on, and Joyce is still getting legal aid, is that Joyce has nothing to lose.
(User #12826 Info)
Parent
Greedy Boy! (Score:1, Insightful)
I hate to say it, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Well..... (Score:0)
I'm going to buy these just to piss Morrissey off. (Score:0)
RE: royalties (Score:0)
sorry morrissey (Score:0)
you don't get royalties from it? Yeah, well I don't either. boo hoo
from truetoyou. link above. (Score:2, Informative)
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
A real investment for the future (Score:0)
dont do it illegally (Score:1)
(User #20895 Info)
Previously released on CD (Score:1)
(User #17812 Info)
Well done Morrissey (Score:2, Insightful)
He doent want people to think that he is going against what he wrote about in Paint a Vulgar picture
well done MOZ
(User #18054 Info)
Re:Well done Morrissey (Score:3, Insightful)
(User #18054 Info)
Parent
Greedy (Score:1)
but why should that give someone an excuse to use his work to put money in THERE pocket?
the money should go to him, its his work
atleast he is being honest to what he thinks
most artists just wouldn't bother saying anything cause there bothered all people are gonna think all there interested in is the money.
like all they royaltys lark with Joyce, because Marr just give up it made loads people think M was lying, was only bothered about the money, but that was never the point on that one, Joyce might as well have just gone up to him and said oh im going to court to get money off you, and then M saying it doesn't matter heres the money now, he was only standing his ground, he hat to, he's wasn't just gonna let it pass and let him get away with it.
(User #22638 Info)
see an ebay add as advertising banner on this site (Score:1)
so there's a market for it
[not for me]
(User #220 Info)
OK Moz.. (Score:0)
Now, lets get The Smiths back catalogue digitally re-mastered and re-released on 'CD' along with some decent live recordings such as Oxford 85. You can get some of your early solo work done too if you like. Just get on with it before we all die!
Now, crack on..
(User #15089 Info)
If Morrissey wants this, then he gets it (Score:0, Troll)
Soooo absolutely. I don’t think anyone should buy them because that’s what you do for somebody you -- Love. But you things don’t know what love is. Or respect. Whatever they want -- case in point Morrissey here, you just jump and respect what they desire.
In conclusion, if Morrissey wants this, then he got it.
The end. That’s it. I’m not buying anything Morrissey doesn’t desire me to have. I can. I must. I will. I do.
But I won’t buy them. No, No, No, No, No.
I just don’t understand how some of you realistically don’t know how to treat or handle Morrissey. After everything he has done for you undelightful, ungrateful “fans”. You should jump to his side, no matter what. And, more importantly in this case -- Morrissey, as usual, is completely Right. Because, they have no business, not giving him his well deserved royalties. I mean, after all -- he wrote the beautiful genius songs. Of course, he should be entitled to the royalties. What’s the matter with you people -- if you indeed buy them, then, you are just being hypocrites and validating once again that you creatures are just Mike Joyce aka Mike Gross clones. Morrissey doesn’t deserve any of this.
When you love somebody like I love Morrissey -- there is absolutely nothing -- Nothing that I wouldn’t do for him. No matter what is involved, I just jump and help him with anything he requires, needs, desires, or wants. But you “fans” -- you just don’t understand this concept. Isn’t it
(User #12664 Info | http://www.morrissey-solo.com/)
cds (Score:1)
(User #17417 Info)
Consumers (Score:0)
http://www.allmylittlewordsonline.com [allmylittl...online.com]
Thanks Morrissey (Score:1)
(User #827 Info)
So.... (Score:0)
I ain't buying it (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm also not buying any books which attempt to interpret the material for me, because I don't think that's relevant to my experience, either.
Morrissey's still interesting though. Him I'll pay.
What utter nonsense! (Score:1)
(User #4409 Info)
Re:MORRISSEY's Best Work . . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
(User #22795 Info)
Parent
Re:MORRISSEY's Best Work . . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't know if you go to any opera or classical music concerts but . . . from the few I have been to . . . the primarly 'goal' of any conductor - is to 'mesmerise the audience to hypnotic silence'.
This is the true 'victory' of any music.
This happened to me at Birmingham Symphony Hall, when the Irish Youth Orchestra played, over 4 nights, The Ring by Wagner.
One the last night, the story came to a dramatic end, the orchestra pit painted a ball of flames with their music & talent . . . as the end and the silence came . . . the audience were 'entranced' for at least 10 minutes there was no applause, for I was, along with those at Symphony Hall, not in Birmigham but on the edge of lake at night watching a funeral pyre floating down stream. It was the most amazing work of art I have ever experienced.
I mention this because I believe contemporary music and not just opera can achieve this. Am expecting M to be the first.
If a singer with his band can silence the mass of the crowd with his voice - then he has achieved 'nirvana'.
Close now is the day this will happen for Morrissey.
(User #22795 Info)
Parent
OK then (Score:1)
(User #14252 Info | http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=473903&id=622820624#/group.php?gid=74725266851&ref=mf)
No royalties from EMI since 1992? (Score:0)
So sad (Score:0)
Maybe Morrisssey is getting paid? (Score:1)
Maybe he knows that his wish for people to not make the purchases will be granted by a very small minority of people thinking of buying them.
By putting out this statement it attempts to tell Mike Joyce that he does not get any royalties anymore. However, the money is going somewhere and no doubt filters back to Morrissey through some other channel.
It is good business by Morrissey, whether you agree with his motives or not. Richard Branson and many of the richest people in the country do not pay tax, but does that mean their incomes are less than £5750 per year? No, it means that money is shifted around and arrives to them in non-direct ways.
Why pay the tax man if Branson can legally avoid it? Why pay Mike Joyce if Morrissey can legally avoid it?
Personally. I think Mike Joyce deserved something, probably 10% from the start of The Smiths for recordings and 25% from performances. This should have been in place from day one, you have to put yourself in Joyce's position and consider how you would feel.
If Morrissey would have been fair enough to do this, then his solo records and performances would have been nothing to do with Joyce, with Johnny Marr picking up a royalty for The Smiths songs performed live.
The ruling of the court was a joke because it included the solo activities and business of Morrissey after The Smiths, but Joyce should have been awarded 10%-15% of The Smiths royalties. If this would have happened, these box sets would probably have been fully endorsed.
At least the situation means The Smiths will never reform and I am thankful for that at least. Twenty five years on, it would be a completely different band, brutally tarnishing possibly the greatest legend of all.
(User #12307 Info)
It makes you wonder.... (Score:1)
(User #9752 Info | http://www.stanleymchale.merseyblogs.co.uk/)
I call Bullshit (Score:0)
Shame on him! (Score:0)