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

 

[Anonymous]

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have been thrown out if they'd objected because the two of them were basically irrelevant to the group and could have been replaced by numerous others in a heartbeat (thus confirming that maybe even 10% was too high for them).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.

 

[Anonymous]

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

The case for the defence rests.

Do I detect sarcasm there?



Regards,
Kate2828

 

[Uncleskinny]

The case for the defence rests.

Do I detect sarcasm there?



Regards,
Kate2828

No. None there at all.

P.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

If Morrissey and Marr were to announce right now they were reuniting for album, tour etc. without Joyce and Rourke, would anyone care in the slightest at their absence?
Given the state of music, I’m not sure any would care about Moz and Marr but however many there may be, the lack of Joyce/Rourke would not result in 1 less ticket sold, 1 less CD bought, 1% less publicity, 1% less of anything whatsoever because in the end, The Smiths were and always will be Johnny and Moz. The other 2 were just along for the ride. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve anything for their efforts and they convinced a court that they deserved more than their worth but in the end that simply meant that a couple of session musicians were elevated to equal status when no one would have or would miss them if they'd never have existed.

 

[Anonymous]

If Morrissey and Marr were to announce right now they were reuniting for album, tour etc. without Joyce and Rourke, would anyone care in the slightest at their absence?
Given the state of music, I’m not sure any would care about Moz and Marr but however many there may be, the lack of Joyce/Rourke would not result in 1 less ticket sold, 1 less CD bought, 1% less publicity, 1% less of anything whatsoever because in the end, The Smiths were and always will be Johnny and Moz. The other 2 were just along for the ride. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve anything for their efforts and they convinced a court that they deserved more than their worth but in the end that simply meant that a couple of session musicians were elevated to equal status when no one would have or would miss them if they'd never have existed.

Either: (a) you've never heard a record by The Smiths; or (b) you know f*** all about musicianship. Or possibly both.

Regardless of this, "their worth," was determined by their equal status as members or The Smiths, nothing else. How many times, and in how many ways, does this have to be spelt out? It's not complicated.

(Incidentally, since you're unsure of who the members of The Smiths were, you should visit a record shop and look for their albums [they're listed under the letter "S"]; you'll see four people's names listed, not two.)

 

[Anonymous]

If Morrissey and Marr were to announce right now they were reuniting for album, tour etc. without Joyce and Rourke, would anyone care in the slightest at their absence?
Given the state of music, I’m not sure any would care about Moz and Marr but however many there may be, the lack of Joyce/Rourke would not result in 1 less ticket sold, 1 less CD bought, 1% less publicity, 1% less of anything whatsoever because in the end, The Smiths were and always will be Johnny and Moz. The other 2 were just along for the ride. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve anything for their efforts and they convinced a court that they deserved more than their worth but in the end that simply meant that a couple of session musicians were elevated to equal status when no one would have or would miss them if they'd never have existed.

Stupid comment - maybe we could say the same about the drummer and bass player in - say - U2..... or The Who. Or The Clash or Nirvana or Guns N Roses. Because any one can play bass and drums, right?

A few other comments to pick up on. To those people saying Mike & Andy never had a contract saying they would receive 25%, well lets turn that around. They never had a contract saying they were not on 25% either! If they were ''employees'' of M&M then it is the responsibility (in UK law) of the employer to provide a contract of work. The employer failed to do that, failed to provide evidence of the 10% v 25% claim. It wasn't for Mike & Andy to prove they were on 25%, but for M&M to prove that they were not.

Someone claimed a few pages ago that Morrissey had paid the money due to Mike. And your source of information is from?????

Finally, someone said if M&M got together without Mike & Andy, there would not be anyone refusing to buy a ticket or the album etc on the basis that half of The Smiths were absent. Again, turn it round on its head. If the four of them did get back together, there would not be anyone out there refusing to go to a gig / buy the record on the basis that Mike was playing drums.

I would also wager that if Morrissey did invite Mike back then all the haters on here would be declaring how glad they were as they had always liked Mike and they never ever slagged him off on here.........

 

[Anonymous]

Finally, someone said if M&M got together without Mike & Andy, there would not be anyone refusing to buy a ticket or the album etc on the basis that half of The Smiths were absent. Again, turn it round on its head. If the four of them did get back together, there would not be anyone out there refusing to go to a gig / buy the record on the basis that Mike was playing drums.

-----------

This is /\ proof of insanity.

If the artisans M&M reformed The Smiths; the tradesmen's services of Rourke and Joyce would not be required. They are a post-it note in musical history.

 

[Anonymous]

Morrissey and Marr have most assuredly spent more in Barrister fees than they ever would have spent just being fair and settling up with the both of them.
I don't pine away for it, but I would never count out a full reunion, even if it was of limited scope. Five to ten well-planned dates along with merchandise and the audio/video rights could be a decent pension for all of them. "Money Changes Everything" to be sure but so does advancing age and dwindling bank accounts.

 

[Anonymous]

Another successful Anonymous wallybash at Morrissey-solo.com!

Keep 'em coming!

 

[Thesmithsmorrissey]

A thoroughgoing knowledge of popular culture isn't necessary to decide questions of law.

Then why was the issue brought up in court, to the point where it had to be explained to the judge who was presiding over the whole case?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you just genuinely not understand?

Or maybe I just enjoy arguing ceaselessly with people who make presumptuous comments about things they don't know under the mask of anonymity

let's go with that.

Let me explain it again, slowly, for you. The four members of The Smiths had a contract.

Oh really? Show me this contract please

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.

Aha, the "presumption" of equality. Well! Seems to me if the agreement had been in a written contract the way business affairs are supposed to be, there would be no need for such "presumptions" [read: assumption].

I'm seriosuly starting to think you're either Mike, Andy, Mike's manager, or on of their lawyers. Because only somebody like that would try to make an argument as banal as this

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.

Meticulous examination of what facts, exactly? This alleged contract you're apparently in the know about? Was Joyce able to furnish anything stating he was rightfully entitled to 25% of the band's profits? Again, show me this. Or continue to make a fool of yourself by making slapdash excuses like "you just don't understand".

Whether or not he made an "artistic contribution" to the songs (he did, incidentally) has absolutely nothing to do with his entitlement to 25%.

It most certainly does have something to do with his entitlement to 25%. If he were an integral member of the songwriting process, he would have been making 25% from the start.

But once again, show me proof of these artistic contributions you're claiming he made to the songs.

 

[Anonymous]

A contract doesn't have to be written, it can be verbal. Mike and Andy knew they were getting 10%. They knew the terms, however informal, of the contract. They knew they would have been thrown out the group if they made a fuss about it - so they didn't, at least not to the point of making it a legal issue back when The Smiths still existed.

The Judge's ruling basically hinged on the idea that there is a presumption of an equal split, according to the Partnership Act 1890 (! 1890 indeed. Not fit for the business situations of the 1980s, quite clearly) and that therefore if parties wish to vary their arrangement they must take very very clear steps to do so (a written contract signed by all would have sufficed, I'm sure)

Almost certainly all 4 Smiths were equally ignorant of the finer points of the Partnership Act and it was just luck on Joyce's part that he was able to find out later on that it favoured him. Morally, he and Rourke accepted 10% at the time, through their words and deeds (you don't carry on for years if you don't accept 10%) and that is what they should have got.

 

[Anonymous]

Then why was the issue brought up in court, to the point where it had to be explained to the judge who was presiding over the whole case?



Or maybe I just enjoy arguing ceaselessly with people who make presumptuous comments about things they don't know under the mask of anonymity

let's go with that.



Oh really? Show me this contract please



Aha, the "presumption" of equality. Well! Seems to me if the agreement had been in a written contract the way business affairs are supposed to be, there would be no need for such "presumptions" [read: assumption].

I'm seriosuly starting to think you're either Mike, Andy, Mike's manager, or on of their lawyers. Because only somebody like that would try to make an argument as banal as this



Meticulous examination of what facts, exactly? This alleged contract you're apparently in the know about? Was Joyce able to furnish anything stating he was rightfully entitled to 25% of the band's profits? Again, show me this. Or continue to make a fool of yourself by making slapdash excuses like "you just don't understand".



It most certainly does have something to do with his entitlement to 25%. If he were an integral member of the songwriting process, he would have been making 25% from the start.

But once again, show me proof of these artistic contributions you're claiming he made to the songs.

Jesus Christ.

For, possibly, the fourth time: a contract does not have to be written down. Joyce had no obligation to provide the court with with written documentation of the contract between the four partners. Morrissey & Marr were, on the other hand, obliged to show proof of a contract which entitled Joyce to less than 25%.

"Meticulous examination of what facts, exactly?" The facts surrounding the financial arrangements between the four partners.

Again, if you need to ask this question, you clearly need to familiarise yourself with the detail of the legal decisions. The Court of Appeals' judgement summarises said facts and how they were dealt with in the original decision.

 

[Anonymous]

It really isn't.

Really?
And who is better?
Shit Nick Cave?
Bastard Bono?
Sissy Martin?
Lost Brett?
Irrellevant Jarvis?
Brainless Noel?
Brainless Liam?
Crap 50 cent?
Rat P Diddy?
Twadle Damon?
Junk Doherty?
Silly F Ferdinand?
Voiceless Brown?

Morrissey is King!

we'll let you know

 

[Anonymous]

Really?
And who is better?
Shit Nick Cave?
Bastard Bono?
Sissy Martin?
Lost Brett?
Irrellevant Jarvis?
Brainless Noel?
Brainless Liam?
Crap 50 cent?
Rat P Diddy?
Twadle Damon?
Junk Doherty?
Silly F Ferdinand?
Voiceless Brown?

Morrissey is King!

we'll let you know

I don't know who any of those people are, but I've always preferred Lionel Richie, personally. He's dead good.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey... Everyone knows how cheap and chinsey Brits are. A total disaster when it comes to fair play financially. Must come from some royal pain in the ass stealing, how much now? 60 plus % a year and for what? A failed nation state empire that has on Derry and Belfast to pick on and then feeeeel tuff about it all. Whoopee!
So some nansy- pansy wants to play cheap and liar. Kick the pukes ass and git the f on with life. What a bunch if c-nt$!

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know who any of those people are, but I've always preferred Lionel Richie, personally. He's dead good.

Sir,

L.R. is fine - gentleman.

we'll let you know

 

[Anonymous]

Meticulous examination of what facts, exactly? This alleged contract you're apparently in the know about? Was Joyce able to furnish anything stating he was rightfully entitled to 25% of the band's profits? Again, show me this. Or continue to make a fool of yourself by making slapdash excuses like "you just don't understand".

Were M&M able to furnish anything stating Joyce and Rourke were rightfully entitled to only 10% of the profits? Yeah, didn't think so.

And incidentally, you don't understand. Rourke and Joyce never wanted 25% of all of the band's profits. They wanted 25% of performing royalties, or to put it in the simplest terms, 25% of money from the gigs. Or do you think M&M could play on 3/4 of the bass and 3/4 drums, thus in fact leaving Joyce and Rourke with their 10%? Yeah, didn't think so either.

- with_nail

 

[Anonymous]

I think Andy Rourke might be addicted to prescription drugs these days, rather than the illegal kind. Whenever you see an interview done by him he always seems 'out of it'. Now Andy is living it up in trendy New York City he now even has a slight American accent! Andy Rourke seems to surround himself with strange hipsters, bullies and gangsters, but then they do say 'like attracts like'. The scene he is in is no good! I don't feel sorry for Andy Rourke though, he has had a pretty good life, it's amazing he is still alive really. Andy Rourke treats fans of The Smiths, Morrissey and normal members of the public like dirt! Andy Rourke seems to act like a 17 year old, he stuck-up and so are some of the people he hangs out with. I hate stuck-up people. I lost all respect for Andy Rourke years ago. It's a fact Morrissey doesn't like him.

 

[Anonymous]

I think Andy Rourke might be addicted to prescription drugs these days, rather than the illegal kind. Whenever you see an interview done by him he always seems 'out of it'. Now Andy is living it up in trendy New York City he now even has a slight American accent! Andy Rourke seems to surround himself with strange hipsters, bullies and gangsters, but then they do say 'like attracts like'. The scene he is in is no good! I don't feel sorry for Andy Rourke though, he has had a pretty good life, it's amazing he is still alive really. Andy Rourke treats fans of The Smiths, Morrissey and normal members of the public like dirt! Andy Rourke seems to act like a 17 year old, he stuck-up and so are some of the people he hangs out with. I hate stuck-up people. I lost all respect for Andy Rourke years ago. It's a fact Morrissey doesn't like him.

I agree with this. I hate stuck-up people too. I've met Rourke and he was very rude. But I think some of the guys and girls he hangs with are more cruel and nasty than he is. People like that make me feel angry, they have no respect and it's frustrating.

 

[Anonymous]

Andy Rourke is so fake! I hate false/fake people and stuck-up people.