On the topic of M&M vs. Joyce and Rourke. Can someone clarify this?

First of all, I agree that the royalties should have been equal among ALL sides.
Whether the other two supposedly had no writing credit or not.

My question is, *how* did these two go on for YEARS and not even be aware of the fact that they were not getting equal royalties from Moz and Marr?
What was their argument?
That A.) during the years that the band was still together, they 'thought' or were lead to believe by Moz and Marr that Moz and Marr were both also getting just 20%? and that the rest was going to other stuff relating to the band (equip, etc)?
or B.) that they didn't even know how much they were receiving?

And 'when' did they supposedly come to the realization that Moz and Marr were getting more? Directly after the breakup? or 10 years later?

This whole thing is honestly confusing, and I hear 3 different things each time.

By no means do I support how Moz acted about the whole thing during the court thing, or so from what I hear, but still something doesn't make much sense and sounds suspicious to me on Rourke and Joyce's end of this.
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
First of all, the only royalties in question were those for "activities" in The Smiths not relating to songwriting or publishing.

Why did Joyce and Rourke think they were equal? A few things, such as Marr testifying in court that when The Smiths began there was a presumption of equality that he and Morrissey later changed. In the beginning it was to be equal, and at the end of 1983 that idea was scrapped. But since this change was essentially a decree with no firm contractual agreement, Joyce and Rourke could plausibly argue that they never agreed to the 40/40/10/10 split.

In the absence of documentation, the court had to look at what the verifiable facts were. This one was important: "In the Spring of 1984, all four members of the band were at a meeting with Arthur Young, accountants instructed on behalf of the band. Morrissey accepted in evidence that the split was discussed, and he accepted that neither he nor Mr Marr told the accountants that the split should be 40/40/10/10. In the result the accountants produced draft accounts under cover of a letter dated 8 May 1985 which drafts clearly indicated equality as between the partners."

Thus, as late as May 1985 Andy and Mike might have thought they were equals. A year later, when Joyce asked for the accounts in 1986 to verify how much he and Andy were getting, he either didn't look at the numbers closely or didn't understand them once they were handed over. So he claimed, anyway; given most people's estimation of Joyce's brains it is not totally unbelievable that he didn't understand what he was given.

A final important point is that the distribution of money was ad hoc and never on an exact 40/40/10/10 basis.

Is their case believable? Not really. I think Mike and Andy were unhappy about their split and probably hoped it would be worked out eventually. When the break-up occurred, it gave them a green light to go after what they thought they were owed. They knew about the inequality but had no recourse because they knew they'd be kicked out of the band. So when The Smiths were no longer around, there was nothing more to protect and therefore nothing to keep them from the courts.
 
Ok. Wow, that's a lot of wild shit that went on.

See, I had thought that the whole idea that Rourke and Joyce were to get less, was brought to their attention from the very absolute start. And that it wasn't ever originally equal from the start. Well, that's what M&M said.

So, M&M told them they'd get equal, in the beginning and then when it was time to sign the appropriate papers or whatever, behind their back they supposedly left them out or changed things without telling them?

I still don't get how those R&J could not have gotten the facts straight. Of all those years they must have noticed something didn't add up. Or they think M&M took advantage of their stupidity perhaps? But then again, if you look at it that way, I certainly do not think two very smart people like M&M would have done this (especially Marr) without assuming that obviously down the line this was going to come back to bite them in the asses. That the band could have gone on for decades and they would continue to keep getting away with R&J not noticing or caring. and the fact that thats a serious legal offense and they'd end up owing them loads of money. or did M&M think the courts would never believe it anyway? It doesn't make sense. M&M seem way too smart to have done this secretly without thinking of the consequences.

Or, were R&J actually hired to be absolute permanent members from the beginning, or just more like session musicians and told this from the start? or did their 'permanent' position in the band not officialize until later on? Hence, the whole royalties thing in that sense. Cause thinking of it all as a plan to keep the band going as a longstanding thing... if they were to scrap either of those two at any point in the game, they would be losing all kinds of money on paying them, etc.
 
Last edited:

Worm

Taste the diffidence
There really isn't much mystery to the case.

Morrissey & Marr were essentially correct that Joyce and Rourke knew they were getting only 10%. Joyce and Rourke I'm sure would tell you that off the record, in a pub, sotto voce. Legally, however, M & M could not prove that all sides agreed on the 40/40/10/10 split. In this they were partly undone by the "archaic" Partnership Act about which they probably knew nothing during the Smiths years.

Joyce and Rourke undoubtedly knew about the 10% splits. Although unhappy about it, they had no choice but to keep mum about their complaints while The Smiths were around. They had to take what they were given. Had they asserted themselves they'd have been given the chop. They were never totally ignorant of what they were being paid, they just couldn't do anything about it. And it's not like times were hard for them, even as it was.

For their part, I'm sure Morrissey and Marr did communicate to the other two that they were to get no more than 10%. It only seems like 'wild shit' until you realize that these were young men who had no strong legal or management teams to help them set up the business of The Smiths properly. They made the classic, classic blunder: they didn't get the agreement down in writing.

The only real question that remains is whether or not Joyce was genuinely entitled to 25% of the "other activities" (i.e. touring, recording) of The Smiths, and that's where opinion varies. The court wasn't and didn't need to be interested in this question.
 
Last edited:

Worm

Taste the diffidence
Dale Hibbert conirms that from the very beginning, the 'band' was to be Morrissey and Marr. Link.


Peter

From the court briefing available online:

"It was Mr Marr’s evidence that to start with equality was the understanding and that it was only in late 1983 that Mr Morrissey suggested otherwise to him."
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
From the court briefing available online:

"It was Mr Marr’s evidence that to start with equality was the understanding and that it was only in late 1983 that Mr Morrissey suggested otherwise to him."

Well, there's a dichotomy from the very early days. Lesson to be learned - get it all in writing, and get those contracts signed. Although when you're in the throes of being a very special band, it's easy to be carried along with the excitement and forget about the business side.

Peter
 

Danny

Senior Member
From the court briefing available online:

"It was Mr Marr’s evidence that to start with equality was the understanding and that it was only in late 1983 that Mr Morrissey suggested otherwise to him."

He's said the complete opposite in recent interviews, saying he and Morrissey made it absolutely clear from the beginning. So he must have lied about it then or he's lying about it now.
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Dale Hibbert conirms that from the very beginning, the 'band' was to be Morrissey and Marr. Link.


Peter

I'm sure Mike & Andy, said "Okay, that's sounds great...Sign Me Up..", IF they were told they'd only be getting 10% of the take...

NOBODY joins an UPSTART band under those terms...
 
From the court briefing available online:

"It was Mr Marr’s evidence that to start with equality was the understanding and that it was only in late 1983 that Mr Morrissey suggested otherwise to him."


Oh, so Marr actually testified against Moz?????!

So pretty much everything and anything to do with the band had to be approved by Moz or else? Even if Marr wanted to do something, Moz had to approve or if someone in the band or elsewhere went against it, he'd have a hissy fit and it'd cause all kinds of mess?

So, where does this whole thing about Moz going to Rough Trade and going flippant about royalties while the band was still together? There was some stuff in the documentaries about that. what was that about? and was Marr all pissed off because of how unfair Moz was being about the royalties for R&J?
 
I'm sure Mike & Andy, said "Okay, that's sounds great...Sign Me Up..", IF they were told they'd only be getting 10% of the take...

NOBODY joins an UPSTART band under those terms...



Well, if they knew it was probably their only chance of being in a band that was gonna be huge and about to sign a contract, they might have gone for anything!
There are people who would go for a lower % to be a part of that and still, they'd be well off for the rest of their lives even with that older %.
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
He's said the complete opposite in recent interviews, saying he and Morrissey made it absolutely clear from the beginning. So he must have lied about it then or he's lying about it now.

Good point. I'll believe what he said in court, under oath.
 
He's said the complete opposite in recent interviews, saying he and Morrissey made it absolutely clear from the beginning. So he must have lied about it then or he's lying about it now.


Maybe that is true. Dale Hibbert said the same on that blog. But.......... what side was/is Dale on? Marr or Moz's? or the other two?

Also, it depends on what you consider "from the very beginning".
1983 is technically "the beginning", so maybe that's what Marr meant. So, in that case his story never changed. If at the beginning it was to be equal and then later on in the year it was changed, then they still informed R&J about it.. obviously years before the band broke up. or am i missing something?
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Maybe that is true. Dale Hibbert said the same on that blog. But.......... what side was/is Dale on? Marr or Moz's? or the other two?

Also, it depends on what you consider "from the very beginning".
1983 is technically "the beginning", so maybe that's what Marr meant. So, in that case his story never changed. If at the beginning it was to be equal and then later on in the year it was changed, then they still informed R&J about it.. obviously years before the band broke up. or am i missing something?

Oh sure, What Musicians are going to stay in a band if they're TOLD they're going to be paid Unequally? Sure...People are just blinded by their unyeilding loyalty to Morrissey and have no concept of equality..None of you people have ever been in a band..and none of you people obviously have no clue as to the way things are done...if somebody knows they're being SCREWED...they walk out the door...they don't stay with the Band just cause It's Morrissey and they KNOW he and the band are going to be famous...

Wake up and smell reality people...And stop looking at things from the Outside In....Regardless of what Rourke & Joyce may have done lately, they were two capable and talented musicians who were given a raw deal, but who were probably too caught up in doing their job and enjoying their success to realize they were getting the short end of the stick...Ignorant and stupid...yes...But did they deserve it...NO

Stop worshipping at the altar of Immaculate Morrissey and realize that, yes...even he can be Wrong
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Well, if they knew it was probably their only chance of being in a band that was gonna be huge and about to sign a contract, they might have gone for anything!
There are people who would go for a lower % to be a part of that and still, they'd be well off for the rest of their lives even with that older %.

Sure...keep dreaming...you obviously have no concept of reality and would believe Morrissey if he said Joyce agreed to play drums in exchange for Peanuts and groupies
 
Sure...keep dreaming...you obviously have no concept of reality and would believe Morrissey if he said Joyce agreed to play drums in exchange for Peanuts and groupies


Are you nuts? In no way am I a blind Morrissey worshipper like 90% of the people on here. Morrissey is certainly not some perfect, honest, 'can do no wrong,' pure, shy guy like he tries to come across. I certainly would never take what he says automatically as a fact just because he is 'Morrissey'. Personally, I am not a fan of Morrissey himself. I simply like the Smiths, as a band. I would take what Marr says more seriously than the vindictive, bitter Morrissey. Simply because he (Marr) seemed to be more of the middle man and if anything, a mediator in half of it. Which is sad. And secondly, he actually seems mentally stable and a genuinely OK guy, unlike Morrissey. But again, I would not blindly go on believing someone 100% unless I saw it myself.

I think you may have misread what I meant in my other posts.
 
Last edited:

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Are you nuts? In no way do I think Morrissey is a perfect, honest, can do no wrong, innocent angel. Nor think he is some Godlike figure! I certainly would never take what he says automatically as a fact just because he is 'Morrissey'. Personally, I am not a fan of Morrissey himself. I simply like the Smiths, as a band and try to blur out Morrissey's shit. I would take what Marr says more seriously than the vindictive, bitter Morrissey. Simply because he (Marr) seemed to be more of the middle man and if anything, a mediator in half of it. Which is sad. And secondly, he actually seems mentally stable and a genuinely OK guy, unlike Morrissey. But again, I would not blindly go on believing someone 100% unless I saw it myself.

I think you may have misread what I meant in my other posts.

Well my remarks were more directed at the crowd as a whole...than you yourself...so I apologize if you took it personally...I just can't swallow the scenairo that two serious musicians would willingly go along with a screw job...a Band is a Band...None of The Smiths albums list Rourke & Joyce, they are credited as full members of the band...if Morrissey and Marr intended them to not be...then they should have been blantant about it when listing credits...Every musician I have talked to that is in a Band..said there is NO way they would agree to be paid unequally no matter how great they thought their band was.....As I said, with shoddy management, more than likely the figures were not keep track of well..and Morrissey and Marr dolled out the money as they saw fit..and blindly Rourke & Joyce assumed they were getting a fair share when in reality they weren't...it's just so easy for people today to look back and say...They should be honored to just have been in The Smiths..but you can't look at it that way....They were both there from the begninning (unlike Gannon, who I am sure knew upfront he wasn't getting an exact fair cut)...and therefore were an equal part recording wise to every song The Smiths ever recorded...It's stupid for people to just think an apple and an orange could have stood in for them and The Smiths would have been a success...Of course it's true, but it still doesn't mean the Fruits shouldn't be paid fairly as well
 
Well my remarks were more directed at the crowd as a whole...than you yourself...so I apologize if you took it personally...


Thats ok.

I just can't swallow the scenairo that two serious musicians would willingly go along with a screw job

Just as I can't really swallow the scenerio of two serious musicians (Marr and Morrissey) would knowingly go along with cheating two other band members out of loads of money like that. Or put their own future and band at risk. For the record, I am not taking up for Morrissey.

...a Band is a Band...None of The Smiths albums list Rourke & Joyce, they are credited as full members of the band...if Morrissey and Marr intended them to not be...then they should have been blantant about it when listing credits...Every musician I have talked to that is in a Band..said there is NO way they would agree to be paid unequally no matter how great they thought their band was.....As I said, with shoddy management, more than likely the figures were not keep track of well..and Morrissey and Marr dolled out the money as they saw fit..and blindly Rourke & Joyce assumed they were getting a fair share when in reality they weren't...it's just so easy for people today to look back and say...They should be honored to just have been in The Smiths..but you can't look at it that way....They were both there from the begninning (unlike Gannon, who I am sure knew upfront he wasn't getting an exact fair cut)...and therefore were an equal part recording wise to every song The Smiths ever recorded...It's stupid for people to just think an apple and an orange could have stood in for them and The Smiths would have been a success...Of course it's true, but it still doesn't mean the Fruits shouldn't be paid fairly as well

Yes I agree. They deserved equal just as anyone else. I was never thinking they did not. I'm upset that they did not. If I was leading a band, I'd make sure everyone got it equally and everything was documented legally. I'm just trying to figure it all out, because I never followed it as closely as everyone else has as I am a younger fan and never bothered paying much attention to this thing to begin with. Moz says one thing. Marr says another. Rourke and Joyce say other things. I just can't see Marr, especially being involved in something as vicious and backstabbing as this. Moz, yeah.
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Thats ok.



Just as I can't really swallow the scenerio of two serious musicians (Marr and Morrissey) would knowingly go along with cheating two other band members out of loads of money like that. Or put their own future and band at risk. For the record, I am not taking up for Morrissey.



Yes I agree. They deserved equal just as anyone else. I was never thinking they did not. I'm upset that they did not. If I was leading a band, I'd make sure everyone got it equally and everything was documented legally. I'm just trying to figure it all out, because I never followed it as closely as everyone else has as I am a younger fan and never bothered paying much attention to this thing to begin with. Moz says one thing. Marr says another. Rourke and Joyce say other things. I just can't see Marr, especially being involved in something as vicious and backstabbing as this. Moz, yeah.

What's equally ironic is the fact that after seeing all of Andy's problems with Heroin....Johnny alegedly used it along with the rest of The The...so anything is possible...as I said, I think Rourke & Joyce just didn't pay attention to the financial records and without consitant management..I'm sure Marr willingly went along with whatever Morrissey said to keep him happy....
 
What's equally ironic is the fact that after seeing all of Andy's problems with Heroin....Johnny alegedly used it along with the rest of The The...so anything is possible...as I said, I think Rourke & Joyce just didn't pay attention to the financial records and without consitant management..I'm sure Marr willingly went along with whatever Morrissey said to keep him happy....

Who said Johnny took heroin??? Thats the first I ever heard that one. And he never appeared to be a heroin-addict. What the f***? :confused:
Andy, the openly admitted had the problem. Don't know anything regarding The The, though.
 
Top Bottom