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 -

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Was released on Parlophone. A subsidiary of EMI? I'm confused.

    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @08:51AM (#337775)
  • well, not really a big surprise.
    Just glad to get it confirmed.

    Morrissey has still not let me down once.

    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @08:55AM (#337777)
  • If a record company has somehow become the sole owner of someone's music then there is no reason they shouldn't do what they want with it.

    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.
    bored -- Saturday August 08 2009, @08:57AM (#337778)
    (User #8415 Info)
  • imo (Score:1, Insightful)

    an artist should be more concerned about new fans having a chance of hearing the songs (ie: the art) than getting paid every cent for songs recorded 20 years ago.

    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @09:43AM (#337781)
  • basically, Morrissey could release the biggest piece of crap ever and so long as he's getting paid he will endorse it, but if he's not getting paid then he issues a statement requesting that no one buy it. whata tit.
    chrisarclark <[email protected]> -- Saturday August 08 2009, @09:47AM (#337782)
    (User #9259 Info)
    "I'm just passing through here on my way to somewhere civilized and maybe I'll even arrive, maybe I'll even arrive..."
  • I really genuinly dont care if Moz said he doesn't appriove

    a)They are a wonderful collection of singles

    b) He's very very rich anyway

    LOVE YOU MOZ .. but im still buying them.
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @10:32AM (#337785)
  • but i wasn't buying it anyway - still i would be pissed if people were making money off of me too
    moho -- Saturday August 08 2009, @10:53AM (#337786)
    (User #10663 Info)
  • According to Moz, the only reason we should buy his music is so that he can get royalty checks? Actually, there's no reason to buy any of it, whether Morrissey or someone else owns the copyright. a) You probably already have it. b) If you don't have it someone can always make you a copy for free. c) If you are willing to spend money, you can buy 2nd hand original releases (less expensive & you help smaller sellers instead of the rich.)
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @10:58AM (#337787)
  • Fair play...Faith somewhat restored.
    MozzerAnt -- Saturday August 08 2009, @11:01AM (#337788)
    (User #13105 Info)
  • I mean the smiths cd singles were supervised by Marr so....who cares about Moz, greedy guy.
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @11:18AM (#337790)
  • i've not come across another artist that has this much trouble with people releasing stuff that they don't approve of and goes ahead and asks fans not to buy it because he doesn't get any money.
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @11:30AM (#337791)
  • I'm not buying your albums and singles simply because you receive royalties for them.

    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.
    MILVA -- Saturday August 08 2009, @11:41AM (#337792)
    (User #12729 Info)
    no previous convictions
  • This may go back to a time when Morrissey and Marr, after europhic concerts with The Smiths, would come off stage 'dripping with sweat' and then immediately have to sign cheques before they were even allowed back into their dressing rooms . . . to put their trousers on.
    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 . . .
    Piccadily -- Saturday August 08 2009, @12:11PM (#337793)
    (User #22795 Info)
  • ...anything that has been recently produced. I still haven't bought Moz's latest album yet. As with most of my favorite bands, their older stuff is much better than anything that is currently being released. For example, Depeche Mode...anything passed Violater sucks! The Cure...anything passed Wish sucks (Bloodflowers was ok). And for M, Quarry was the last studio album I bought.
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @12:20PM (#337794)
  • Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @12:33PM (#337796)
    • Re:This is why no royalties. by Piccadily (Score:1) Saturday August 08 2009, @12:56PM
    • Re:Grotesque by goinghome (Score:1) Saturday August 08 2009, @01:41PM
      • Re:Grotesque (Score:2, Informative)

        PRS (Performing Right Society) royalties are payments made by broadcasters, gig promoters, clubs, shops, restaurants etc to songwriters (or their publishers) for public performances (eg radio/tv plays, gigs etc) of their compositions. This royalty is collected by PRS and distributed to its composer members. PRS is the main UK collection society - ASCAP and BMI are its US counterparts.

        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':

        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.
        methadone -- Sunday August 09 2009, @07:04AM (#337859)
        (User #12826 Info)
  • Greedy Boy! (Score:1, Insightful)

    Morrissey has to be the greediest bastard around. Who does he think he is, to tell us what we can and can't buy? Just cuz he isn't getting royalties? Screw that. Just to spite him I'll buy 5 copies!!
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @01:05PM (#337800)
    • Re:Greedy Boy! by Anonymous (Score:0) Saturday August 08 2009, @09:06PM
    • Re:Greedy Boy! by Anonymous (Score:0) Monday August 10 2009, @05:28AM
  • ... Morrissey, I love you, but I actually felt slightly nauseous reading that statement. Is it really all only about royalty cheques these days? :(
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @01:51PM (#337804)
  • I didn't really want to buy it anyway. A pointless redundant stop-gap release.
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @02:02PM (#337806)
    • Re:Well..... by Anonymous (Score:0) Saturday August 08 2009, @06:44PM
      • Re:Well..... by Anonymous (Score:0) Saturday August 08 2009, @06:47PM
  • Yea.
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @06:12PM (#337820)
  • Ahhh Diddums!!!!!!!!! JUST PRESSED PREVIEW BUTTON aswell HUH
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @06:17PM (#337821)
  • sorry Morrissey..gonna guy it..and gonna buy it with a big smile.
    you don't get royalties from it? Yeah, well I don't either. boo hoo
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @07:29PM (#337828)
  • Statement from Morrissey

    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
    Anonymous -- Saturday August 08 2009, @09:04PM (#337831)
  • THE thing is that you'd have to be a PIRATE to do that and still keep the authorities at BAY.
    Anonymous Dan -- Sunday August 09 2009, @02:46AM (#337848)
    (User #20895 Info)
  • I wonder if Moz objected to these box sets when they were released on CD nine years ago?!
    paulah -- Sunday August 09 2009, @05:15AM (#337853)
    (User #17812 Info)
  • all these people questioning Morrisseys statement have cleary mis read his message. Morrissey ISN'T complaining about not recieving royalties, he is clearly trying to say that he doesnt want them to be released and for people to think that HE is cashing in. Its the record companies trying to make money not MORRISSEY
          He doent want people to think that he is going against what he wrote about in Paint a Vulgar picture

    well done MOZ
    mozsupportsrovers -- Sunday August 09 2009, @05:46AM (#337854)
    (User #18054 Info)
    • Re:Well done Morrissey by Anonymous (Score:0) Sunday August 09 2009, @06:18AM
      • i can see what you are saying about these....but these releases were full of b-sides that were, at the time not easily assesable without buying the single versions, some b-sides were on vinyl and not everyone had vinyl players, so compilations of them songs in my opinion is fine. also the 2 singles going on YOR was a decision probably made by Morrissey way befor the greatest hits was thought up. He debut those songs ages ago and why not put them on YOR as the album flows brilliantly with them in
        mozsupportsrovers -- Sunday August 09 2009, @06:31AM (#337857)
        (User #18054 Info)
      • Re:Well done Morrissey by Deniston (Score:1) Monday August 17 2009, @01:06AM
    • Re:Well done Morrissey by Nick The Name (Score:1) Sunday August 09 2009, @07:12AM
  • Maybe he is greedy,
    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.

    Carly_mc -- Sunday August 09 2009, @06:35AM (#337858)
    (User #22638 Info)
    "Im smart enough to know how stupid i am"
    • Re:Greedy by Nick The Name (Score:1) Sunday August 09 2009, @07:06AM
  • Sunny 7'inch vivyl 44 [euro/BP/$USA-Canada-Australia-wales?]something.

    so there's a market for it

    [not for me]
    Celibate Cry <[email protected]> -- Sunday August 09 2009, @07:46AM (#337867)
    (User #220 Info)
    and the hills are alive with celibate cries
  • ..You've made your point.

    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..
    AllSea -- Sunday August 09 2009, @08:14AM (#337871)
    (User #15089 Info)
  • Well then, if this is what Morrissey wants, then he gets it. Whatever Morrissey wants, he got it. If he doesn’t want me to buy anything whereby somebody else i.e. Mike Joyce aka Mike Gross is going to attain his money, then I won’t buy them. If any record company issues anything without Morrissey’s permission and he doesn’t want me to buy them, then that’s just the way it goes.

    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 ...
    Kate2828 -- Sunday August 09 2009, @10:45AM (#337874)
    (User #12664 Info |
  • LOOK its ok moz we will buy them as we all love them and to have then all as a set great its not like we will not buy your new stuff if they like me love u
    sunney01 -- Sunday August 09 2009, @01:42PM (#337879)
    (User #17417 Info)
  • If he cant stop the record company. Consumers will. []
    Anonymous -- Sunday August 09 2009, @07:19PM (#337893)
  • I've been waiting for this!
    hand in glove -- Sunday August 09 2009, @07:40PM (#337894)
    (User #827 Info)
    "Sometimes things fall apart so that better things can fall together" - Marilyn Monroe
  • ....if he and Johnny get no royalties for Smiths product then there's no real incentive to get that rarities box set done then is there, or pretty much any worthwhile product?
    Anonymous -- Sunday August 09 2009, @11:59PM (#337901)
  • I ain't buying it (Score:1, Interesting)

    Why? Because, for me, the great thing about this music and The Smiths was being there when it was new, watching it all happen, being surprised, and waiting for what was going to come next. An experience like that can't be canned, bottled, or reproduced by a record company. Other people can do what they please.

    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.
    Anonymous -- Monday August 10 2009, @09:12AM (#337909)
  • Why on earth does Morrissey insist on 'disapproving' releases of his best work just because he no longer recieves royalties from it. Surely he is not deluded enough to believe that most fans prefer his post-1995 work. The fact is that Morrissey's best work was with the Smiths & then the HMV solo years.
    sparacus -- Monday August 10 2009, @02:09PM (#337916)
    (User #4409 Info)
    • . . . . Is Yet To Be Released.
      Piccadily -- Monday August 10 2009, @03:35PM (#337919)
      (User #22795 Info)
      • Re:MORRISSEY's Best Work . . . . by Anonymous (Score:0) Saturday August 15 2009, @04:39AM
        • Yes I think so Anon.

          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.
          Piccadily -- Saturday August 15 2009, @11:14AM (#338151)
          (User #22795 Info)
  • When somebody uses a record label they hand over their rights to the music (apart from songwrting loyalties). Which is the reason that he is in this situation. However this this leaves the label with far more responsibilities than he will have to suffer. So he chooses his own fate because he could very easily set up his own label and promote it, but chooses not to (and than complains that he is not in control!)
    Driving along in my automobile, with Sid Nettle beside me at the wheel...
    • Re:OK then by Anonymous (Score:0) Tuesday August 11 2009, @12:28AM
  • So maybe it's not about Joyce Michael after all. 1992 was years before the trial. I'm thinking now Moz and his people either didn't read the fine print or the record companies are doing what they always do: cooking the books and stiffing the artists.
    Anonymous -- Monday August 10 2009, @09:54PM (#337927)
  • unfortunately Morrissey is the reason his solo work and Smiths material has not been re-issued. Johnny Marr provided plenty of support and input on a Queen Is Dead deluxe edition - demos, instrumentals, etc. and one person blocked it from happening. Ditto his first four solo albums. There were at least 8 amazing unreleased songs and plenty of demos and alternate takes - enough to make up a whole Moz solo box set of rarities but again his mis-management ruined the whole thing...
    Anonymous -- Tuesday August 11 2009, @12:45AM (#337931)
  • Or maybe Morrissey is getting paid?

    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.

    Jacknife Johnny -- Tuesday August 11 2009, @04:45AM (#337939)
    (User #12307 Info)
  • If Moz had stumped up the cash (how much was it, again) surely his royalty earnings (not to mention the ease of securing live fees without messing around) would have seen him easily in profit by now - and releases like this only adding to that pot?
  • There is no way it's legally possible for an artist not to get paid. He would be within his legal rights to go to court.

    Anonymous -- Tuesday August 11 2009, @02:17PM (#337967)
  • How dare Morrissey use his faithful audience as an instrument for business matters? He should be ashamed of himself. Besides, Johnny Marr has done a fine job with the remasters, and I can't bare the thought that future reissues will be jeopardised by someone who blames everyone but himself for business matters going wrong. Could it be that this man is just impossible to work with?
    Anonymous -- Wednesday August 12 2009, @10:16AM (#338024)

[ home | terms of service ]