You make a fair point.
I've just read Morrissey's riposte on TTY and I must say, he has a strong case for Joyce-as-bloodsucker.
What's missing is the larger picture. I'd like to know exactly how much money the 1.5 million pounds is in relation to how much The Smiths catalog pulls in a year, and how much Joyce feels he was owed back in the 80s. If Joyce was due, let's say, five million pounds, then his, uh, persistent methods to get the 1.5 million from Morrissey are somewhat understandable.
Anyway, my opinion has somewhat changed. Knowing all this about Joyce-- even taking it with a grain of salt, coming from Morrissey's lips-- makes me think that Joyce was right in suing Morrissey and Marr, but wrong in the extent to which he has pursued Morrissey's money. Based on Morrissey's outline it seems unfair and excessive to say the least. But how much can we really know unless we see all the monetary figures?
One thing that hasn't changed is my view on how Morrissey bungled this case. This was truly Wilde v. Edward Carson in his eyes, it seems, and that was just foolish. What Morrissey's timeline really shows is that, unlike Johnny, who seems to have grudgingly accepted the lawful verdict and paid up, he fought the ruling tooth and nail and has paid a steep price as a result, a much, much higher price than Johnny. Does anyone believe that Joyce would have resorted to such sleazy actions to get his dough if Morrissey had simply written a check and ended the matter? Morrissey has convinced me that Joyce has not acted all that well in this matter, but he doesn't come off looking much better.
And the notion that Joyce is wealthy-- what's all this about selling white-label test pressings on eBay and so on? Isn't there lots of anecdotal evidence that Joyce is not, in fact, well off? Also, while it's shocking to read that Joyce wanted royalties for "Artwork", it's also true that when one party is evasive in paying fees, the other party has to resort to every legal action possible to get his money. Joyce's claims to "Artwork" and t-shirt royalties are absurd-- but I'm sure his lawyer advised him every step of the way to take these measures against someone who-- we ALL know-- was going to be as happy to fork over his cash as-- oh, I dunno-- Saddam Hussein was to leave his palaces. Joyce tried to get money off Morrissey's family homes in England, but why did he do that-- who forced him to? Did Joyce take similar actions against Marr? Why not?
Here's a short anecdote that illustrates what I mean. An older guy I work with went through a messy divorce. The woman was certifiably insane, and the judge not only sided with her, he stuck it to my colleage big time in the form of exorbitant alimony payments. By all accounts it was a travesty of justice. So what did he do? He refused to pay. Years went by without paying. The woman tried various ways to get money from him, but he owned his own business during that time and found ways to avoid paying. Finally he'd had enough and went to settle. The burden of fleeing the woman's demands was taking a heavy toll. But so many liens and other writs against him had piled up that he was forced to pay through the nose-- court fees, interest, extra damages, as well as the principal amount. You cannot fight these verdicts and hope to escape without paying. One reason Morrissey's account looks so damning of Joyce is that he made it a thousand times harder on himself by seeking to evade the judgment.
What irks me above and beyond all this is how people have slagged off Joyce's contribution to The Smiths. Criticize him to the skies for what he's done in court-rooms, but far too many fans have taken Morrissey's position that his role in The Smiths was tiny and easily replaceable. I just don't see it that way.
Last point. I hear what you're saying about "he's a top bloke" as a groundless reason to believe someone is actually a good guy. Of course it is. However, in this instance, the reason I cite it as valid is that a neutral third-party arbitrator-- i.e., a court-- has heard both sides and found in favor of Joyce. We have an accounting based on hard facts, and it's in Joyce's favor. I'd stick with that, personally.
But that isn't enough for many fans. They want to look deeper, and claim that Morrissey is a victim of Joyce's malevolence. And at that point, all of us have only one thing to fall back on, which is our gut sense of these two men as people. On that basis, one has a solid reputation as a decent fellow, and the other has a long, explosive history of turmoil in his relationships. Yet everyone's letting loose howls of indignation and scorn over Joyce's wickedness, and taking Morrissey's innocence as granted-- why is that, exactly?
Anyway, after reading Morrissey's account, I'm convinced we'll never know the truth.
> You make a very good argument but I think you missed the point I was
> trying to make. I wasn't making a judgement on Joyce selling his records
> on ebay, I see nothing wrong with it in fact.
> I just find it strange that when people are debating someone's actions the
> argument that "I met him in the pub and he is a nice bloke"
> seems to be used so often. It would be the same if someone used that
> argument to explain away something Morrissey had done that pissed the fans
> off, it's completely irrelevant whether someone comes across as "a
> nice bloke". Nice blokes can still lie sometimes, they still make
> mistakes and still let down their friends. As an extreme example Fred West
> was well liked in his local pub, a very sociable nice bloke to drink with
> (no, I am not comparing Joyce to Fred West).
> Although I'd question whether Morrissey gets away with stuff because he is
> charming. I'd say the opposite is true a lot of the time. He causes
> himself a lot of trouble because he fails to read social situations very
> well. Read the appeal judgement for an example.
