• Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce interviews in The Guardian

    The Guardian has a little article where Andy and Mike reminisce about the early days of the band.

    How we made: Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce on the Smiths' first gig - The Guardian
    'Morrissey was yodelling with his legs in the air. There was shock in the front row'

    Interviews by Dave Simpson
    This article was originally published in forum thread: andy and mike article in the guardian started by chris View original post
    Comments 129 Comments
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Quote Originally Posted by Peterb View Post
      Whoops! Sorry, you're talking about Dashboard. I misunderstood your point. You can still check out the thread though as it appears to have gone very quiet.
      You keep doing this. Why don't you just edit/delete your posts when you realise you've made a mistake?

      0 Not allowed!
    1. nozmuppet's Avatar
      nozmuppet -
      Morrissey described Andy Rourke & Mike Joyce as the most capable musicians in Manchester ( David Kid Jensen radio shows 1980s).

      Anomosity about lost court cases & performance royalties is all about the money. chnng chnng ching.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Stephen Morris was always better (and not just a one trick pny, either)...

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      Stephen Morris was always better (and not just a one trick pny, either)...
      Stephen Morris is a shite drummer. Seems like a pretty decent bloke, though.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      the smiths just wouldn't have been the same without mike and andy... amazing players and nice guys both. do i think they deserve the same cut as steven and johnny? nope. because even though the smiths wouldn't have been the same without their rhythm section - they wouldn't have happened at all without those songs, those lyrics, that voice, and that guitar.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Peterb's Avatar
      Peterb -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      You keep doing this. Why don't you just edit/delete your posts when you realise you've made a mistake?
      Yes, you're right, I should. Apologies.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Thesmithsmorrissey's Avatar
      Thesmithsmorrissey -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      Irrelevant. You asked how Morrissey "stole" Joyce's money, "exactly," and I explained it to you, exactly.

      On the question of whether Joyce was or, "wasn't whining about not receiving his share of the profits until AFTER the band had split," I think you need to go and read the decision given by Judges Gibson, Thorpe & Waller in "Morrisey [sic] & others v. Joyce." It'll acquaint you with the material facts of the case.
      is the same shit-for-brains judge who needed "Top of the Pops" explained to him?

      Yes, he certainly sounds like somebody who is in a place to decide such things

      and you came nowhere close to explaining how Morrissey stole any money from Joyce, so I'm afraid you FAIL. Joyce had no contract stating he deserved such an allotment, so whose fault is that? He only started crying after the band split

      even if he drummed on every song they did, he had no artistic input into the songs. I can just see Porter and Street holding his arms to show him how they wanted the drums played. Otherwise, he'd have his name on the compositions next to "Morrissey/Marr"

      which might also account for Joyce's less-than-extensive canon of songwriting he's done since the end of the Smiths.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Thesmithsmorrissey's Avatar
      Thesmithsmorrissey -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      He was un aware that he was being robbed...until later. But I guess that is the Moz in your ear stating that because he did his job, he should be happy being robbed.

      This is why I have moved on from Morrissey. It is so sad to see. Most artists do not dwell on such junk. They do not need fans to fight their battles.
      it cracks me up to see people like you take this shit to heart. On the internet, no less. To think that some belligerent Morrissey fans defending their hero to the death is what caused you to move on from the man's music

      I would be incredibly embarrassed if I were you

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Quote Originally Posted by Thesmithsmorrissey View Post
      is the same shit-for-brains judge who needed "Top of the Pops" explained to him?

      Yes, he certainly sounds like somebody who is in a place to decide such things
      A thoroughgoing knowledge of popular culture isn't necessary to decide questions of law.

      Quote Originally Posted by Thesmithsmorrissey View Post
      and you came nowhere close to explaining how Morrissey stole any money from Joyce, so I'm afraid you FAIL. Joyce had no contract stating he deserved such an allotment, so whose fault is that? He only started crying after the band split
      Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you just genuinely not understand? Let me explain it again, slowly, for you. The four members of The Smiths had a contract. The default position, in law, is that profits and liabilities arising from that contract should've been divided equally unless there was a contractual agreement which departed from the presumption of equality. Meticulous examination of the facts showed that Morrissey and Marr had not made a contractual agreement with Joyce that he would receive just 10%. For that reason, the default position (of equality) applies.

      Quote Originally Posted by Thesmithsmorrissey View Post
      even if he drummed on every song they did, he had no artistic input into the songs. I can just see Porter and Street holding his arms to show him how they wanted the drums played. Otherwise, he'd have his name on the compositions next to "Morrissey/Marr"

      which might also account for Joyce's less-than-extensive canon of songwriting he's done since the end of the Smiths.
      Whether or not he made an "artistic contribution" to the songs (he did, incidentally) has absolutely nothing to do with his entitlement to 25%.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Stephen Morris is a terrific drummer, sometimes let down by poor songwriting; New Order's 'The him' from their first album is a good example.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      Stephen Morris is a terrific drummer, sometimes let down by poor songwriting; New Order's 'The him' from their first album is a good example.
      Stewart Copeland, he ain't. (Interesting choice of song, by the way.)

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Morrissey was right. He should've won. This is all just bullshit. And on top of it, there was no partnership. Isn't it? Because if you did the search on it, a "partnership" is not what these four had. Not at all. Just an observation



      Kate2828

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      There WAS a contract - verbal, not written (it doesn't have to be written). The court heard that Rourke made a statement while still in The Smiths that 'we get 10%'. They knew they were getting 10%. They didn't make a fuss about it because if they had done they would have been kicked out the band straight away. So don't give me that shit about there not being a contract.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Uncleskinny's Avatar
      Uncleskinny -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      There WAS a contract - verbal, not written (it doesn't have to be written). The court heard that Rourke made a statement while still in The Smiths that 'we get 10%'. They knew they were getting 10%. They didn't make a fuss about it because if they had done they would have been kicked out the band straight away. So don't give me that shit about there not being a contract.
      You should be a High Court Judge.

      P.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      Morrissey was right. He should've won. This is all just bullshit. And on top of it, there was no partnership. Isn't it? Because if you did the search on it, a "partnership" is not what these four had. Not at all. Just an observation



      Kate2828
      And with that submission, the case for the defence rests. Impressive.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      There WAS a contract - verbal, not written (it doesn't have to be written). The court heard that Rourke made a statement while still in The Smiths that 'we get 10%'. They knew they were getting 10%. They didn't make a fuss about it because if they had done they would have been kicked out the band straight away. So don't give me that shit about there not being a contract.
      I don't think anybody has argued that there was no contract. There was a contract that entitled all four members to 25% each.

      Joyce was, "making a fuss about it," as early as January 1984, yet he wasn't kicked out of the band - straight away or otherwise. Indeed, the courts' decisions make precisely the point that Morrissey and Marr's failure to either compel Joyce to accept a mere 10% or dissolve the partnership demonstrated their acceptance of his entitlement to 25%.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      There WAS a contract - verbal, not written (it doesn't have to be written). The court heard that Rourke made a statement while still in The Smiths that 'we get 10%'. They knew they were getting 10%. They didn't make a fuss about it because if they had done they would have been kicked out the band straight away. So don't give me that shit about there not being a contract.
      Please. They knew they were getting 10% because that was the deal they had and they understood and accepted until they saw a shot at a big payday. Of course they would have been thrown out if they'd objected because the two of them were basically irrelevant to the group and could have been replaced by numerous others in a heartbeat (thus confirming that maybe even 10% was too high for them). Pull the two of them out of The Smiths and insert hundreds if not thousands of others and no one would have noticed or cared one bit as long as Marr and Morrissey were still there.
      But the Legal System being what it is, just another example of two slackers staking their claim on others efforts in order to avoid ever having to again earn their way.

      Instead of being grateful that they were in the right place at the right time and fell into a golden situation, Joyce and Rourke saw the opportunity to cash out, seeing the end of The Smiths as their last opportunity as it was quite unlikely they'd get that lucky again and fall in to a new group with truly talented members for them to leech off. In retrospect we can say they were part of The Smiths so they matter but deep down they don't and never did and never will again.

      But as many others have done before them, they played the Legal System Roulette and won. So for that we must tip our hat and sing a rousing chorus of
      "Slackers of the World Unite and Take Over!"

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      There WAS a contract - verbal, not written (it doesn't have to be written). The court heard that Rourke made a statement while still in The Smiths that 'we get 10%'. They knew they were getting 10%. They didn't make a fuss about it because if they had done they would have been kicked out the band straight away. So don't give me that shit about there not being a contract.
      The saddest part of all this is this is how Joyce and his "management" spend their days. Haunting the disavowed website of his former meal ticket trying desperately to defend his name against a onslaught of anonymous criticism. Having no real job or purpose this is what is left for him, to scour the web for mentions of his name to prove to himself (certainly no one else cares) that he matters or once did anyway.
      Sad. Pathetic.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. billybu69's Avatar
      billybu69 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      Please. They knew they were getting 10% because that was the deal they had and they understood and accepted until they saw a shot at a big payday. Of course they would have been thrown out if they'd objected because the two of them were basically irrelevant to the group and could have been replaced by numerous others in a heartbeat (thus confirming that maybe even 10% was too high for them). Pull the two of them out of The Smiths and insert hundreds if not thousands of others and no one would have noticed or cared one bit as long as Marr and Morrissey were still there.
      But the Legal System being what it is, just another example of two slackers staking their claim on others efforts in order to avoid ever having to again earn their way.

      Instead of being grateful that they were in the right place at the right time and fell into a golden situation, Joyce and Rourke saw the opportunity to cash out, seeing the end of The Smiths as their last opportunity as it was quite unlikely they'd get that lucky again and fall in to a new group with truly talented members for them to leech off. In retrospect we can say they were part of The Smiths so they matter but deep down they don't and never did and never will again.

      But as many others have done before them, they played the Legal System Roulette and won. So for that we must tip our hat and sing a rousing chorus of
      "Slackers of the World Unite and Take Over!"
      If this wasn't so well written I'd have had to have called you an idiot, beautifully written post, perfect grammar, spelling, even the bounce in the way it reads is impressive, unfortunately the contents is lacking some what, in particular everything between "Please" and "over!" is bollocks.

      0 Not allowed!
    1. Anonymous's Avatar
      Anonymous -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
      Please. They knew they were getting 10% because that was the deal they had and they understood and accepted until they saw a shot at a big payday. Of course they would have been thrown out if they'd objected because the two of them were basically irrelevant to the group and could have been replaced by numerous others in a heartbeat (thus confirming that maybe even 10% was too high for them). Pull the two of them out of The Smiths and insert hundreds if not thousands of others and no one would have noticed or cared one bit as long as Marr and Morrissey were still there.
      But the Legal System being what it is, just another example of two slackers staking their claim on others efforts in order to avoid ever having to again earn their way.

      Instead of being grateful that they were in the right place at the right time and fell into a golden situation, Joyce and Rourke saw the opportunity to cash out, seeing the end of The Smiths as their last opportunity as it was quite unlikely they'd get that lucky again and fall in to a new group with truly talented members for them to leech off. In retrospect we can say they were part of The Smiths so they matter but deep down they don't and never did and never will again.

      But as many others have done before them, they played the Legal System Roulette and won. So for that we must tip our hat and sing a rousing chorus of
      "Slackers of the World Unite and Take Over!"
      Again, the courts' decisions show that Joyce objected to the proposition of a 10% share as early in the group's existence as January 1984 and yet the partnership was not dissolved.

      Here is what one of the appeal judges (Lord Justice Waller) had to say on the subject:

      "I think it is important to stress it is perhaps easier for those who have the law of partnership in mind to appreciate that there is a presumption of equality and no presumption of inequality created by a greater contribution being made by one or two partners. It is understandable if a non-lawyer starts from a different position. It may also have been unpalatable to contemplate that partners even factually dominant partners, who wish to vary the terms from equality to some different proportion must face up to making absolutely clear that the only basis on which they will continue is on a different and unequal basis thus putting at risk the joint venture itself, but that is what has to be done if a variation is to be achieved."

      Because Morrissey and Marr took no decisive action to vary the contract that provided all four members with an equal share of profits, their unilateral decision to withhold the relevant sums from Joyce was a clear breach of contract.

      Incidentally, Andy Rourke was not a party to the proceedings.

      Happy to help.

      0 Not allowed!