How many people supported Mike Joyce's claim at the trial?

Marr could have composed with others and still had an audience and still been the smiths even if it might not have sounded as great but hey couldn't get rid of marr and done the same I dont believe. Marr did the heavy lifting and the bulk of the musical composing but it doesn't mean they didn't write and that there writing didn't add to the quality of he music, especially imo the bass parts at times, and should so have been compensated for it. It's hard to determine what's fair as a lot of this has to do with power struggle but at least ten percent each I think is a good base level in the writing department

I can't believe how much people overlook Morrissey's musical contributions to those songs. Listen to the instrumental demos and then tell me Morrissey didn't make an amazing musical and lyrical contribution.

 
I can't believe how much people overlook Morrissey's musical contributions to those songs. Listen to the instrumental demos and then tell me Morrissey didn't make an amazing musical and lyrical contribution.

Yes, it's amazing how Morrissey's contribution to the Smiths always gets overlooked. :confused:
 
Indeed but it was very clearly money offered in the hope that it would avert the court case. It failed.

Probably not. If they hadn't paid him that money, they would have probably stood no chance of being awarded costs in the event that they had won the case.

But, whatever. The point is that if it was an offer, it was effectively an offer of nothing, and not a serious attempt to settle.
 
Yes, it's amazing how Morrissey's contribution to the Smiths always gets overlooked. :confused:

I kinda agree with this. People really thought marr was gonna go on to be some hit maker while morrissey floundered after the split or at least so the story reads. Seems to me to show how some people either didn't see or didn't want to acknowledge how much his contribution and influence made those songs special and how much it would add to songs written with any of his collaborators
 
Morrissey and Marr got greedy. Bands don't tend to make much at the beginning and mostly have to pay back borrowed money. 25% of nothing is nothing. But once the money started rolling in that 25% started to seem like too much. I don't think Joyce was aware of the percentage change. Since they all had the same lawyer and accountant it would have been sort of awkward to ask for details. Besides that he was busy working all the time and enjoying his status as drummer in one of the most important bands of the day. On top of that, once the money started coming in he was still being paid more than he had been. If you were getting 25% of a very small amount of money, and then suddenly you got 10% but the amount being divided was exponentially larger, you would be getting a lot more money. It actually shows Mike's good character that he didn't suddenly want complete accountings to make sure he was getting paid everything he was owed.
I have no idea what they were really making but they were on tour a lot so housing and food would be paid. They probably didn't have to buy their own drinks. And when they weren't on tour they were in the studio. They didn't really have time to think about the money. Also, it's established that there were two sets of alliance. One was Morrissey and Marr, but then there was Marr, Joyce, and Rourke. I'm sure that Mike felt his contributions were appreciated and he was spending long hours working in the studio.
Morrissey was working at the same time but he would have been giving interviews and doing promotion. He was rewarded for that though partly because it was what he wanted to do, and because it helped him create the career he still has today, and because although the performance royalties were split, the publishing wasn't. Those drum parts Mike worked long hours on are part of the composition. He didn't get paid for that. So it's only fair that he get his fair share for performance royalties.
And he would have settled for less but no offer was made. Morrissey either had bad advice or chose to ignore good advice because that case should have never gone to court.
Here is what it all comes down to. Morrissey chose to take it to court rather than make an offer. He lost. Case closed. If he was any sort of rational adult he would have paid Mike off as quickly as possible, or even offered him less in a lump sum, and Mike would probably have still taken it. Instead we get the never ending victim complex, horrible songs about Mike Joyce, and the destruction of The Smiths legacy at least compared to what could have been. And as a fan of The Smiths why should I care about the money? If Morrissey had any sense at all he could have made a deal to do a few shows reforming The Smiths and use his part of the money to pay Mike Joyce. He could have just showed up, sang the songs and left, and gone back to being Morrissey, and at that time it would have been good for his career because he was already successful. The problem if he did it now, first of all I don't think that many people care about a Smiths reunion as you would believe from reading this site and although they could get a big payday as a prestige booking at Coachella they're not going to start making number one singles. Besides that Morrissey's career now isn't what it was and to do The Smiths now wouldn't look like an artistic choice but an act of desperation.
TL;DR: case closed

Dear Judge Judy,

' Morrissey and Marr got greedy.' Some wouldn't say 'greedy', though it's easy to see and label them that way. Excited/surprised that they were starting to actually make money as it progressed and maybe because of their backgrounds and prior economic positions I could see (if we were to put ourselves in their shoes) that the reaction
to this change of having money and deciding on how to divide or how best to handle the situation wasn't done in a clearheaded way, they were young and they are artists (at the time no heads for numbers and paper work, I could imagine) and coming from their backgrounds should all be taken into consideration before we simply call them 'greedy'.

'But once the money started rolling in that 25% started to seem like too much.' Yes, it's hard to judge and make the call to say that they were right or wrong, but for their reasons(unknown to us) they maybe did feel it was too much of a cut to give them based on their own judgement of what they felt was due to Andy & Mike in their contributions to the songs and maybe more importantly their contributions to the overall work of the band, everything from management to the artistic vision of the band.

For the percentage given to A&M was not only based on for playing in the Smiths but for being in the Smiths ( as far as work goes in the studio and what they bring on spot to the almost already finished compositions) and the percentage is also based ( in my guessing to M&M's judgment,I could be wrong)on how much work A&M didn't have to do in regards to things other than working in the studio and performing the songs live.

'I don't think Joyce was aware of the percentage change. Since they all had the same lawyer and accountant it would have been sort of awkward to ask for details. Besides that he was busy working all the time and enjoying his status as drummer in one of the most important bands of the day.' yes, agree. But I thought he did have issues of the percentage given during the time the band was in operation.

'On top of that, once the money started coming in he was still being paid more than he had been. If you were getting 25% of a very small amount of money, and then suddenly you got 10% but the amount being divided was exponentially larger, you would be getting a lot more money.' So yes, I could see then on how one would think he wasn't aware of the percentage change. Though....

'It actually shows Mike's good character that he didn't suddenly want complete accountings to make sure he was getting paid everything he was owed.' I don't know if it would/could be called 'good character', I would call it.. he was just happy at the time that his pockets were being filled and so he wasn't aware of a percentage change if as you say is true about the Smiths bringing in more money as they progressed, which does sound feasible.

'And when they weren't on tour they were in the studio. They didn't really have time to think about the money.'
yes, agree, but one still needs money for a place to live to come back to when the tour is over, also one needs to house ones possessions.

'Also, it's established that there were two sets of alliance. One was Morrissey and Marr, but then there was Marr, Joyce, and Rourke. I'm sure that Mike felt his contributions were appreciated and he was spending long hours working in the studio.' yes, 'two alliances', three actually! in regards to Marr if you want to take into account his relationship with Angie and her contributions to the Smiths. But yes... Johnny had A LOT on his head and worked hard for his cut juggling these 'alliances' and writing songs and keeping the band together(management). And yes, I'm sure Mikes contributions were appreciated... but when working in a band as a unit ...then everyone hopes their contributions are being appreciated... and that appreciation and being involved in such a great and important band is what he should have been grateful for, but being human with all our faults, maybe he felt that wasn't enough. I don't know.

'Morrissey was working at the same time but he would have been giving interviews and doing promotion. He was rewarded for that though partly because it was what he wanted to do, and because it helped him create the career he still has today'

But I don't think he had the foresight to see or believe that the 'promotion' work he was doing at that time would benefit some future solo career. I believe I read that he felt his solo move could have flopped and was surprised that it took off in the way that it did during 'Viva' or the singles charting prior to 'Viva', I'm just saying this in regards to his belief in himself.

'Those drum parts Mike worked long hours on are part of the composition. He didn't get paid for that. So it's only fair that he get his fair share for performance royalties.' I agree he should get his 'get his fair share for performance royalties'. Though as far as 'contributions' go these 'contributions' are the duties expected of all the members in the band in contribution to what M&M already bring in. All members of the band contribute to the composition that is already there to form it and make it complete... Mike adds the drums, Andy the bass, Marr guitars,rhythm,lead,etc and Morrissey words,voice,melody lines. Now with each contribution, each band member brings their own thing to the ideas and the vision that M&M have already supplied. Each members contribution is important, but some of those contributions are more needed and unique than others which is what made the Smiths stand out as they did and still do today.

'Here is what it all comes down to.' if you think so, and some of it I agree with.

'Morrissey chose to take it to court rather than make an offer. He lost. Case closed.' Lost in regards to the courts ruling yes, but when I look at the bigger picture.. who really lost? I don't see it as being Morrissey.

'If he (Morrissey) was any sort of rational adult' God forbid that he was or will ever be a 'rational adult'!:lbf: I don't think he could have made the records he did or of be the the person he is and that we love if he was merely a 'rational adult'.

'Instead we get the never ending victim complex, horrible songs about Mike Joyce, and the destruction of The Smiths legacy at least compared to what could have been.' If you think. Though we don't know what could have been if Mike was able to see the bigger picture and not do as he did then maybe the Smiths could have reformed,which would have benefited him more,but no.

Would have, should have, could have.. we'll never know. I mean the rest of your post is just an opinion as all of our comments and replys are just that, opinions. It's hard tell what the turn out would be if the Smiths reunited now. I think M is doing very well considering the pop world climate,etc. For the case being closed? I don't know what you really mean. As far as anyone can see... Morrissey is not the one who lost, but the one who has won.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's amazing how Morrissey's contribution to the Smiths always gets overlooked. :confused:

Musical contribution I think he meant. We all know about his lyrics but he also came up with the vocal melodies which are fantastic. The royalties should be split 66%/34% in Morrissey's favour.
 
I reckon Morrissey and Marr were spending every waking hour, more or less, doing some band related work. Didn't Morrissey imply Mike was stoned or shagging most of the time?

If that's true,I'm not surprised Mike had an issue. There he is, out there doing all the hard work shagging groupies on behalf of the band while Morrissey is at home drinking tea and reading Oscar Wilde. Mike deserves his cut for his hard work promoting the band and keeping the fangirls happy.
 
you forgot magical ! :p

Yes but that is so obvious to me I didn't think it needed to be rementioned.
But you are totally right!
So, MAGICAL, it is.
You are not that easy to please, aren't you KS?
But that's okay. :p
 
Dear Judge Judy,

' Morrissey and Marr got greedy.' Some wouldn't say 'greedy', though it's easy to see and label them that way. Excited/surprised that they were starting to actually make money as it progressed and maybe because of their backgrounds and prior economic positions I could see (if we were to put ourselves in their shoes) that the reaction
to this change of having money and deciding on how to divide or how best to handle the situation wasn't done in a clearheaded way, they were young and they are artists (at the time no heads for numbers and paper work, I could imagine) and coming from their backgrounds should all be taken into consideration before we simply call them 'greedy'.

'But once the money started rolling in that 25% started to seem like too much.' Yes, it's hard to judge and make the call to say that they were right or wrong, but for their reasons(unknown to us) they maybe did feel it was too much of a cut to give them based on their own judgement of what they felt was due to Andy & Mike in their contributions to the songs and maybe more importantly their contributions to the overall work of the band, everything from management to the artistic vision of the band.

For the percentage given to A&M was not only based on for playing in the Smiths but for being in the Smiths ( as far as work goes in the studio and what they bring on spot to the almost already finished compositions) and the percentage is also based ( in my guessing to M&M's judgment,I could be wrong)on how much work A&M didn't have to do in regards to things other than working in the studio and performing the songs live.

'I don't think Joyce was aware of the percentage change. Since they all had the same lawyer and accountant it would have been sort of awkward to ask for details. Besides that he was busy working all the time and enjoying his status as drummer in one of the most important bands of the day.' yes, agree. But I thought he did have issues of the percentage given during the time the band was in operation.

'On top of that, once the money started coming in he was still being paid more than he had been. If you were getting 25% of a very small amount of money, and then suddenly you got 10% but the amount being divided was exponentially larger, you would be getting a lot more money.' So yes, I could see then on how one would think he wasn't aware of the percentage change. Though....

'It actually shows Mike's good character that he didn't suddenly want complete accountings to make sure he was getting paid everything he was owed.' I don't know if it would/could be called 'good character', I would call it.. he was just happy at the time that his pockets were being filled and so he wasn't aware of a percentage change if as you say is true about the Smiths bringing in more money as they progressed, which does sound feasible.

'And when they weren't on tour they were in the studio. They didn't really have time to think about the money.'
yes, agree, but one still needs money for a place to live to come back to when the tour is over, also one needs to house ones possessions.

'Also, it's established that there were two sets of alliance. One was Morrissey and Marr, but then there was Marr, Joyce, and Rourke. I'm sure that Mike felt his contributions were appreciated and he was spending long hours working in the studio.' yes, 'two alliances', three actually! in regards to Marr if you want to take into account his relationship with Angie and her contributions to the Smiths. But yes... Johnny had A LOT on his head and worked hard for his cut juggling these 'alliances' and writing songs and keeping the band together(management). And yes, I'm sure Mikes contributions were appreciated... but when working in a band as a unit ...then everyone hopes their contributions are being appreciated... and that appreciation and being involved in such a great and important band is what he should have been grateful for, but being human with all our faults, maybe he felt that wasn't enough. I don't know.

'Morrissey was working at the same time but he would have been giving interviews and doing promotion. He was rewarded for that though partly because it was what he wanted to do, and because it helped him create the career he still has today'

But I don't think he had the foresight to see or believe that the 'promotion' work he was doing at that time would benefit some future solo career. I believe I read that he felt his solo move could have flopped and was surprised that it took off in the way that it did during 'Viva' or the singles charting prior to 'Viva', I'm just saying this in regards to his belief in himself.

'Those drum parts Mike worked long hours on are part of the composition. He didn't get paid for that. So it's only fair that he get his fair share for performance royalties.' I agree he should get his 'get his fair share for performance royalties'. Though as far as 'contributions' go these 'contributions' are the duties expected of all the members in the band in contribution to what M&M already bring in. All members of the band contribute to the composition that is already there to form it and make it complete... Mike adds the drums, Andy the bass, Marr guitars,rhythm,lead,etc and Morrissey words,voice,melody lines. Now with each contribution, each band member brings their own thing to the ideas and the vision that M&M have already supplied. Each members contribution is important, but some of those contributions are more needed and unique than others which is what made the Smiths stand out as they did and still do today.

'Here is what it all comes down to.' if you think so, and some of it I agree with.

'Morrissey chose to take it to court rather than make an offer. He lost. Case closed.' Lost in regards to the courts ruling yes, but when I look at the bigger picture.. who really lost? I don't see it as being Morrissey.

'If he (Morrissey) was any sort of rational adult' God forbid that he was or will ever be a 'rational adult'!:lbf: I don't think he could have made the records he did or of be the the person he is and that we love if he was merely a 'rational adult'.

'Instead we get the never ending victim complex, horrible songs about Mike Joyce, and the destruction of The Smiths legacy at least compared to what could have been.' If you think. Though we don't know what could have been if Mike was able to see the bigger picture and not do as he did then maybe the Smiths could have reformed,which would have benefited him more,but no.

Would have, should have, could have.. we'll never know. I mean the rest of your post is just an opinion as all of our comments and replys are just that, opinions. It's hard tell what the turn out would be if the Smiths reunited now. I think M is doing very well considering the pop world climate,etc. For the case being closed? I don't know what you really mean. As far as anyone can see... Morrissey is not the one who lost, but the one who has won.
For me what it comes down to is that there is a tradeoff between performance royalties and publishing royalties. We all know the most important member of the band was Morrissey. Some bands divide songwriting royalties. I think each case is unique. That can keep a band together but can cause longlasting resentment. One case I know of because he gripes about it so much is Van Halen. Eddie Van Halen finally replaced the band's longtime bassist with his son. Hate it or love it, sometimes in the same song, Eddie Van Halen's contribution to the music of Van Halen was more prominent and important than that of their bassist. But he got the same amount of money for decades.
With The Smiths mostly we hear that Andy Rourke's contribution to the song as a composer was not that substantial, but Mike Joyce actually spent long hours in the studio composing drum parts. Drumming is usually disregarded anyway. It's traditional for the lyric and the melody to be notated along with some interpretation of the rest of the band all usually written as a piano or guitar part. There are some songbooks that attempt to include charts for each instrument but that is unusual and it wasn't really until the 80's that the guitar part or piano accompaniment was written correctly. Pop songbooks were not very accurate for the most part, but what did matter was the lyric and the melody. Going by this you might say that Morrissey's part was the most important and for most listeners the singer is the most important member of the band.
But using The Beatles and the Rolling Stones as sort of a template most rock bands have a songwriting duo and it's usually the lead singer and a guitarist. It's not unusual that Joyce and Rourke didn't get much publishing credit. In the Rolling Stones many times the bass part is an essential part of the song. Or look at The Who for an extreme example. Pete Townshend wrote "the song" and his demos show it's mostly there, something that could be considered as the song. But John Enwistle and Keith Moon "wrote" very memorable parts that were essential to the songs. When you hear the songs in your head you hear their parts, too.
Joyce and Rourke are not Moon and Entwistle but they too were important to the songs. Sometimes it is said that Marr taught Rourke his parts, though Johnny himself praises Rourke. I don't know. I do know that Mike Joyce made his own drum parts.
But he knew he was never going to get publishing. A talented person could play The Smiths songs on an acoustic guitar and convey a good percentage of the song. In that case "the song" is the bare bones composition. It requires a singer most importantly and then someone to accompany with some sort of backing music. It can be simplified and the song will still work. I guess you could say that the song is what you have when you remove everything that is not essential.
But because Joyce's performance did include a good bit of composition it seems only fair that the lack of publishing credit be offset to some degree with a fair share of performance royalties. Of all the people buying the records and going to see the shows there were probably only a few who did so to hear Mike Joyce's parts. But everyone who listened to the songs enjoyed them more because of Mike Joyce's contributions whether they were aware of it or not.
And Morrissey clearly lost because he took a situation where he achieved his wildest dreams and, because of money, turned it into a bitter and sad tale of backstabbing and betrayal. Mike Joyce may have lost more, but that doesn't add up to Morrissey winning.
 
For me what it comes down to is that there is a tradeoff between performance royalties and publishing royalties. We all know the most important member of the band was Morrissey. Some bands divide songwriting royalties. I think each case is unique. That can keep a band together but can cause longlasting resentment. One case I know of because he gripes about it so much is Van Halen. Eddie Van Halen finally replaced the band's longtime bassist with his son. Hate it or love it, sometimes in the same song, Eddie Van Halen's contribution to the music of Van Halen was more prominent and important than that of their bassist. But he got the same amount of money for decades.
With The Smiths mostly we hear that Andy Rourke's contribution to the song as a composer was not that substantial, but Mike Joyce actually spent long hours in the studio composing drum parts. Drumming is usually disregarded anyway. It's traditional for the lyric and the melody to be notated along with some interpretation of the rest of the band all usually written as a piano or guitar part. There are some songbooks that attempt to include charts for each instrument but that is unusual and it wasn't really until the 80's that the guitar part or piano accompaniment was written correctly. Pop songbooks were not very accurate for the most part, but what did matter was the lyric and the melody. Going by this you might say that Morrissey's part was the most important and for most listeners the singer is the most important member of the band.
But using The Beatles and the Rolling Stones as sort of a template most rock bands have a songwriting duo and it's usually the lead singer and a guitarist. It's not unusual that Joyce and Rourke didn't get much publishing credit. In the Rolling Stones many times the bass part is an essential part of the song. Or look at The Who for an extreme example. Pete Townshend wrote "the song" and his demos show it's mostly there, something that could be considered as the song. But John Enwistle and Keith Moon "wrote" very memorable parts that were essential to the songs. When you hear the songs in your head you hear their parts, too.
Joyce and Rourke are not Moon and Entwistle but they too were important to the songs. Sometimes it is said that Marr taught Rourke his parts, though Johnny himself praises Rourke. I don't know. I do know that Mike Joyce made his own drum parts.
But he knew he was never going to get publishing. A talented person could play The Smiths songs on an acoustic guitar and convey a good percentage of the song. In that case "the song" is the bare bones composition. It requires a singer most importantly and then someone to accompany with some sort of backing music. It can be simplified and the song will still work. I guess you could say that the song is what you have when you remove everything that is not essential.
But because Joyce's performance did include a good bit of composition it seems only fair that the lack of publishing credit be offset to some degree with a fair share of performance royalties. Of all the people buying the records and going to see the shows there were probably only a few who did so to hear Mike Joyce's parts. But everyone who listened to the songs enjoyed them more because of Mike Joyce's contributions whether they were aware of it or not.
And Morrissey clearly lost because he took a situation where he achieved his wildest dreams and, because of money, turned it into a bitter and sad tale of backstabbing and betrayal. Mike Joyce may have lost more, but that doesn't add up to Morrissey winning.

'But because Joyce's performance did include a good bit of composition it seems only fair that the lack of publishing credit be offset to some degree with a fair share of performance royalties.'

We're both dealing in assumptions so...

I think the percentage he and Andy received may have been off set by what they didn't have to do, couldn't do, or were not expected to do in the Smiths, things that were carried out by M&M ... Artwork,interviews,management, composition,and the overall vision of the band.

As I said before,who knows if the Smiths would have been better or worse without A&M. But I do feel that if both were replaced during the Smiths time that out of the two replaced Andy and his style of bass playing would be noticeable and missed. A straight forward decent drummer could most likely replace and even replicate Mikes drumming and drum patterns, more or less. As far as calling what Mike brought to the already written song I wouldn't call it composition. I know how it can be called that, but there must be a better word for it. I mean it is a type of writing, the same way all members who brought their ingredient (lets say) were writing their parts to make the almost finished song/composition/blueprint that is there for them all to make it complete.

'And Morrissey clearly lost because he took a situation where he achieved his wildest dreams and, because of money, turned it into a bitter and sad tale of backstabbing and betrayal.'

And again I don't see it that way at all. And where does Marr come into the picture? you seem to have forgotten about him in your anger that only seems to be misdirected towards one person.

Both M&M believed that A&M agreed to these percentages. They (M&M) unfortunately didn't/couldn't find evidence on paper to this agreement, so in the courts eyes they couldn't win. So, if A&M believe that M&M believed that they both agreed to those percentages, then wouldn't it look like betrayal to M&M when Joyce brought them to court? And in doing so it is Joyce who turned their wildest dreams into a bitter sad tale of backstabbing and betrayal.

Clearly it is Joyce who has lost.
 
I think it is a stretch to say that Mike had anything to do with "composition". He worked on his drum parts in the same way that any other drummer would (and generally did a fine job), but there is no way that that amounts to composition.

And with regard to time in the studio, didn't Johnny say in his book that he would spend many hours with the producer on his own while Mike and Andy would be watching TV elsewhere?
 
I think it is a stretch to say that Mike had anything to do with "composition". He worked on his drum parts in the same way that any other drummer would (and generally did a fine job), but there is no way that that amounts to composition.

And with regard to time in the studio, didn't Johnny say in his book that he would spend many hours with the producer on his own while Mike and Andy would be watching TV elsewhere?

Here's the problem. I carefully explained my assertion and you do not. And I believe you are the same person who said I was wrong and that Mike Joyce had been offered a settlement when in fact he had actually been offered to be paid money that, even by their own calculations, was owed and overdue. He was not offered a settlement. You have three problems that I see. First and most importantly you are wrong. This could be overcome with the ability to state your case strongly but your second problem is that you lack this ability. You can't just announce that a drum part which was composed does not announce to composition. I explained that I understand that drum parts are not usually credited and why performance royalties are a way to offset this. You didn't explain anything.
Your third problem is that you called an offer to pay past monies due an offer of a settlement and then seemed to admit you know the difference between an offer of a settlement and an attempt to avoid court. These are two different things. If you know the difference then your third problem is that you're arguing a point you know to be false. If you still don't know the difference that's another problem, but either way it makes your argument pointless.
As far as Johnny and Mike and their respective time spent I think it's safe to say Johnny spent more time in the studio. Still, I believe Mike's own testimony on the podcast I linked to earlier. Have you heard it? I think it's very safe to say that Mike spent more time in the studio than Morrissey did. And I don't think Johnny was hanging around watching Mike record his drum parts any more than Mike would have been hanging around watching Johnny orchestrate his guitar parts. But my main point is very simple. Each member contributed to the final product, the recorded version, which is a different thing than the composition. So I'm saying that it's standard procedure for Marr and Morrissey to get the composition credits, and I would never say that Mike Joyce's drum parts were as important as Morrissey's lyrics and melodies. But an equal division of performance royalties would be fair, because they did contribute to the final product. The publishing is where the money is. Marr and Morrissey were taking the majority of the major income stream anyway, as is standard. But to then take the majority of a lesser income stream as well, in my opinion, reeks of greed.

Now you can pick out a sentence or two from this and argue against it but your argument is done. Thank you.

'But because Joyce's performance did include a good bit of composition it seems only fair that the lack of publishing credit be offset to some degree with a fair share of performance royalties.'

We're both dealing in assumptions so...

I think.

And the judge disagreed. Case closed.
 
And the judge disagreed. Case closed.

oh I agree the court case is closed. But Joyce is still Joyce. And Morrissey? .... he's doing very well.

And as far as composition goes... all that matters is what's in those little brackets under the songs title...
(Morrissey and Marr). :tiphat:
 
Last edited:
Here's the problem. I carefully explained my assertion and you do not. And I believe you are the same person who said I was wrong and that Mike Joyce had been offered a settlement when in fact he had actually been offered to be paid money that, even by their own calculations, was owed and overdue. He was not offered a settlement. You have three problems that I see. First and most importantly you are wrong. This could be overcome with the ability to state your case strongly but your second problem is that you lack this ability. You can't just announce that a drum part which was composed does not announce to composition. I explained that I understand that drum parts are not usually credited and why performance royalties are a way to offset this. You didn't explain anything.
Your third problem is that you called an offer to pay past monies due an offer of a settlement and then seemed to admit you know the difference between an offer of a settlement and an attempt to avoid court. These are two different things. If you know the difference then your third problem is that you're arguing a point you know to be false. If you still don't know the difference that's another problem, but either way it makes your argument pointless.
As far as Johnny and Mike and their respective time spent I think it's safe to say Johnny spent more time in the studio. Still, I believe Mike's own testimony on the podcast I linked to earlier. Have you heard it? I think it's very safe to say that Mike spent more time in the studio than Morrissey did. And I don't think Johnny was hanging around watching Mike record his drum parts any more than Mike would have been hanging around watching Johnny orchestrate his guitar parts. But my main point is very simple. Each member contributed to the final product, the recorded version, which is a different thing than the composition. So I'm saying that it's standard procedure for Marr and Morrissey to get the composition credits, and I would never say that Mike Joyce's drum parts were as important as Morrissey's lyrics and melodies. But an equal division of performance royalties would be fair, because they did contribute to the final product. The publishing is where the money is. Marr and Morrissey were taking the majority of the major income stream anyway, as is standard. But to then take the majority of a lesser income stream as well, in my opinion, reeks of greed.

Now you can pick out a sentence or two from this and argue against it but your argument is done. Thank you.



And the judge disagreed. Case closed.

Sorry but this did make me laugh.

Out of interest, are you saying that Mike recorded his drum parts separately from the rest of the group and that the three musicians didn't record anything as "live"?
 
Sorry but this did make me laugh.
53d98d8bd773f700b2bd52428680cebb.jpg

Out of interest, are you saying that Mike recorded his drum parts separately from the rest of the group and that the three musicians didn't record anything as "live"?
The recording part is the performance but in order to perform the parts they would first have to be composed. And I think we're getting stuck on the word "composed." I don't believe that anything was actually written down, but then I don't believe that Johnny Marr wrote out all of his guitar parts on notation paper. You can compose on tape. Listen to the interview if you haven't. Mike talks about the recording process and it's very interesting.
Mike could have recorded with the group or alone and it wouldn't really matter as to the time spent preparing. The thing is he did spend time composing his parts aside from the time he spent recording them.
 
oh I agree the court case is closed. But Joyce is still Joyce. And Morrissey? .... he's doing very well.

And as far as composition goes... all that matters is what's in those little brackets under the songs title...
(Morrissey and Marr). :tiphat:

And that was never the dispute. We're discussing performance royalties and how they can be used as a way to ameliorate publishing royalties. But I think for you it comes down to "Morrissey good, Joyce bad. Me no like logic. Make big headache."
 
Back
Top Bottom