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

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
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.

Stories I've heard indicate all of The The took heroin during the recording Of Mind Bomb...that doesn't mean that it was an addiction...but still the idea that Johnny may have even taken it, after all of his old friend's troubles is a bit disturbing....

Through my work, I spoke with David Palmer, who was drummer of The The at the time...and when I talked about Mind Bomb being one of my favorite albums, he said they were all pretty f***ed up while recording it (didn't say what or anything), but said he doesn't remember much about the recording sessions....
 
Stories I've heard indicate all of The The took heroin during the recording Of Mind Bomb...that doesn't mean that it was an addiction...but still the idea that Johnny may have even taken it, after all of his old friend's troubles is a bit disturbing....

Through my work, I spoke with David Palmer, who was drummer of The The at the time...and when I talked about Mind Bomb being one of my favorite albums, he said they were all pretty f***ed up while recording it (didn't say what or anything), but said he doesn't remember much about the recording sessions....


Well, the only thing I remember regarding that was that they hinted at smoking pot during that album. And I think Matt did in general. From the sounds of the album, it seems more like pot was the case than heroin.

As for addiction, almost always, the first heroin try leads to an addiction. Heroin is a totally different species. But, I have seen how people are on the drug, and never once did it appear Marr was under such an influence.

What other stories had you heard? The only other thing I had ever heard was that there was a rumor he was in rehab in the mid 90's for something. No idea how that rumor got started. If anyone wants to shed any light, feel free.
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Well, the only thing I remember regarding that was that they hinted at smoking pot during that album. And I think Matt did in general. From the sounds of the album, it seems more like pot was the case than heroin.

As for addiction, almost always, the first heroin try leads to an addiction. Heroin is a totally different species. But, I have seen how people are on the drug, and never once did it appear Marr was under such an influence.

What other stories had you heard? The only other thing I had ever heard was that there was a rumor he was in rehab in the mid 90's for something. No idea how that rumor got started. If anyone wants to shed any light, feel free.

I was certain that The Severed Alliance indicated Matt gave Johnny heroin during the Mind Bomb sessions...I never heard Johnny deny that...perhaps it's true..perhaps not....
 
I was certain that The Severed Alliance indicated Matt gave Johnny heroin during the Mind Bomb sessions...I never heard Johnny deny that...perhaps it's true..perhaps not....


Whats the Severed Allliance? a band?
But if thats true, then I've lost A LOT of respect for Matt. Seriously. The little I know of him, I do like his music. But wow......

And what was all this rehab talk during the Electronic period? That he took time off for that?
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Whats the Severed Allliance? a band?
But if thats true, then I've lost A LOT of respect for Matt. Seriously. The little I know of him, I do like his music. But wow......

And what was all this rehab talk during the Electronic period? That he took time off for that?

Severed Alliance was The Johnny Rogan book....

Incidently, Electronic utilized the same drummer from The The...a fact I forgot during my telephone correspondence with David Palmer...or I would certainly have gotten in a quick question about Electronic...he did say Martin Fry (from ABC) is still a good friend of his...
 

SRA

the queen is still ill
Moderator
ThreeStrangeDays,

Rourke and Joyce claimed they didnt know about the 40/40/10/10 split.

Mozz and Marr claimed that they did. Unfortunately I think a lot of M&M's evidence ended up being hearsay evidence, for example accounts of Joyce speaking in a kitchen at a party about the 40/40/10/10 split, in full knowledge etc. Because it's hearsay it was never really going to stand up, and because as Worm said, little was written down in an agreement, the court reverted to a default judgement in some Musical Partnership Act, stretching back to about 1820 I think, which stipulates equal payment unless otherwise agreed.

I think that is what irked Mozz so intensely, the knowledge that as Worm said, it was fairly obvious the two did know about the split and never complained about it, but because it was never written down it gave them a strong legal basis to claim they didnt know anything about it.

There is some stuff about a contract with only two signature spaces on it as well which I think is relevant, but it's all a bit hazey in my mind, ages since I read the judgement - anyone have a sharper memory to fill in the blanks?
 

celibate

Forever Ill
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.

mhh, this qoute is from TheeStrangeDays, not from SNS

c'mon
even in the Smiths , Johnny , Andy and Mike experimented with drugs

SNS didn't say Johnny was an heroine addict, but I'm sure he tried it
a few times, also in the Smiths.
They were young, and recklees and in a band who got more polular every week.
It's a well known fact in the music industry that drug dealers hang around
bands, or there's always a groupie/roadie who knows to get some. It's
just there, always was and will be
 
Last edited:
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.



Or, think of it this way. Maybe in the beginning they were told it was going to be equal. Like right when the band very first started. And thats how Marr saw it.
Then, later that year in 1983, (was this when they were signing all the other legal stuff or what?) Moz decided R&J should get less, so then he convinced Marr and he went along with it. Then those two went to R&J and let them know. in 1983. SO, that there would technically be "right in the very beginning". They're supposed excuse TOLD to R&J for leaving out their names on the contract was so that it would supposedly be easier to collect publishing rights with just the two names? Right?

So in Marr's view, maybe he meant "from the very beginning" as in that sense, and not that they told them 6 years later. Get what I'm saying? I don't know the exact time-line and when they signed whatever. They were a full-fledged band for quite a while before they had signed that contract anyway, right?
 
Last edited:

2-J

Member
What always swings it for me, is that anyone who thinks that, if at any stage of the lifetime of the Smiths, Mike and Andy had 'found out' that they were only getting 10% (not that I believe for a second that they didn't know, but let's just assume for the sake of argument) and demanded 25%, that Moz and Marr wouldn't have just kicked them out of the group, is on crack. Of course they would have been kicked out. Maybe that might have meant they couldn't have used the Smiths name anymore (though that's actually unlikely) but even so, the idea that Moz and Marr would have said 'oh that's okay, since we need you that much, we'll give you 25%, that's fine' is absolutely ridiculous.

The IDEA that they would need or even want to conceal that they were paying them only 10%, is also consequently ridiculous. They had no real incentive to deceive them; they could and would have been replaced.

None of this is to say that Rourke and Joyce didn't bring something to the Smiths' sound. Critical opinion is almost universal that Rourke added something special; but from Morrissey and Marr's point of view, not special enough to have warranted a 25% cut.
 
What always swings it for me, is that anyone who thinks that, if at any stage of the lifetime of the Smiths, Mike and Andy had 'found out' that they were only getting 10% (not that I believe for a second that they didn't know, but let's just assume for the sake of argument) and demanded 25%, that Moz and Marr wouldn't have just kicked them out of the group, is on crack. Of course they would have been kicked out. Maybe that might have meant they couldn't have used the Smiths name anymore (though that's actually unlikely) but even so, the idea that Moz and Marr would have said 'oh that's okay, since we need you that much, we'll give you 25%, that's fine' is absolutely ridiculous.

The IDEA that they would need or even want to conceal that they were paying them only 10%, is also consequently ridiculous. They had no real incentive to deceive them; they could and would have been replaced.

None of this is to say that Rourke and Joyce didn't bring something to the Smiths' sound. Critical opinion is almost universal that Rourke added something special; but from Morrissey and Marr's point of view, not special enough to have warranted a 25% cut.


So, you don't think Moz and Marr deceived anyone really?

And is it true that they would not have been able to use the name for some reason if they had the others' names on that contract too? I don't get that part.

But what was Marr all upset about, while the band was still together, before the breakup, regarding royalties and stuff when Moz was arguing with Rough Trade?
 

2-J

Member
But what was Marr all upset about, while the band was still together, before the breakup, regarding royalties and stuff when Moz was arguing with Rough Trade?

It was just one of the factors that lead to Marr leaving The Smiths. Morrissey kept alienating managers and generally forcing Marr to look after some aspects of the day to day running of the group, which stressed him out. Also Morrissey being protective of Marr and the stresses of having to work out who he was taking offence at at any particular time etc, just added to Johnny's stress with it I guess. There were other reasons too (Johnny wanting to do different stuff musically, Morrissey not being happy with Johnny doing stuff away from the group).
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
So, you don't think Moz and Marr deceived anyone really?

Depends on the moral weight you're giving to the word 'deceived'. They were four very young guys trying to navigate the treacherous terrain of the music business almost without guidance. The band dynamic was an odd one. Johnny, Mike and Andy were good friends. Morrissey was a friend, too, but somewhat aloof toward everyone but Johnny. So Johnny, a teenager when The Smiths began, was the man in the middle from the very start, forced to please everyone. Throw in all the management problems and their sudden succcess and it's incredibly easy to see how The Smiths turned into a soap opera rife with lies and evasions. I'm actually astonished Joyce and Rourke weren't fired and replaced after a year or two (Andy, of course, was sacked at one point).

The situation was a poisonous one in which everyone is at fault and no one was at fault. The ship was going to go down no matter what. The more "inside information" that comes out, the plainer it is that The Smiths surviving as long as they did was a miracle. I'm not sure it's really a useful question to ask who deceived who in order to find a villain in the story. If there is a villain, it's probably Joyce, and even then I would say he's the bad guy for how he has behaved in trying to claim his money from Morrissey rather than for his original claim.
 
Last edited:

Worm

Taste the diffidence
The IDEA that they would need or even want to conceal that they were paying them only 10%, is also consequently ridiculous. They had no real incentive to deceive them; they could and would have been replaced.

This is the interesting thing, though, isn't it. Your logic is sound but if that's the case, why didn't they get it in writing? What would have been easier to do? Why didn't they clarify matters at the 1984 accountants meeting? Their failure to do so seriously undercut their court case. What throws a wrinkle into your logic?

Friendship. It shouldn't be forgotten that Mike and Andy were not just hired guns, they became good friends of Johnny's while in The Smiths. Listen to how Andy and Johnny talked about their friendship when they played in Manchester awhile back. From what I've read the same friendship existed between Mike and Johnny, too, at least during the lifetime of the band.

How would you handle a situation in which you were essentially the head of a suddenly and wildly successful company and were in a position where you had to be both a good friend to the work staff and pay their salary? And imagine if they grumbled about their low salary but you and your partner were adamant about keeping the profit split as it was? Imagine all the craziness of being in a rock and roll band, one which you and your two friends fully immersed yourselves in, and ask yourself if you'd be able to find the will to sit Mike and Andy down to say: "It's ten percent or out you go. I hope you stay, but those are the terms. Sign here". Meanwhile, your creative partner-- someone with whom you are probably in an intense relationship, a creative partnership which is the very thing that keeps the money rolling in-- puts pressure on you to do exactly that. And by the way, you're all of twenty years old.

Impossible, insane situation to be in. Johnny and Morrissey had the nerve to insist on Mike and Andy getting 10% splits but they never had the resolve to finalize it in writing because that might have derailed their forward momentum. I'll bet most of us would have acted similarly.
 
Last edited:

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Okay, people are we saying is that in ALL bands, The singer and the guitarist should get a bigger cut? Or are you saying that only The Smiths should? Either way what you're advocating is wrong...and no real musician would agree to it...As I said...If Rourke & Joyce had been told such before a contract signed...they would have WALKED...They weren't clarvevoyant enough to know The Smiths would be famous...the idea is ludicrious....

And if sudddenly, Morrissey & Marr had told them after a contract had been signed...and they had been kicked out for sticking up for the situation...they could have sued if they had enough evidence to warrant they were being taken advantage of...

Point is....Morrissey & Marr controlled the financies...and thus CHOSE to pay the other two as they saw fit
 
Last edited:

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
What else did this Palmer guy say about Johnny? Good or bad.

Do you work in the music business? If you don't mind my asking.

Hahha...He said Johnny was fun to work with...No...I collected an overdue Bill he owed on a traffic ticket....First his manager called in, and when I was getting the info on him and she said he was a musician...I asked if he was a drummer...when she said said yes...I had a feeling who he was..and so I named all the bands that I knew he had played with...The second time, he called back to pay his ticket..and I talked to him for a few minutes about the groups he played with...He was impressed that I knew his resume...
 

2-J

Member
This is the interesting thing, though, isn't it. Your logic is sound but if that's the case, why didn't they get it in writing? What would have been easier to do? Why didn't they clarify matters at the 1984 accountants meeting? Their failure to do so seriously undercut their court case. What throws a wrinkle into your logic?

Friendship. It shouldn't be forgotten that Mike and Andy were not just hired guns, they became good friends of Johnny's while in The Smiths. Listen to how Andy and Johnny talked about their friendship when they played in Manchester awhile back. From what I've read the same friendship existed between Mike and Johnny, too, at least during the lifetime of the band.

How would you handle a situation in which you were essentially the head of a suddenly and wildly successful company and were in a position where you had to be both a good friend to the work staff and pay their salary? And imagine if they grumbled about their low salary but you and your partner were adamant about keeping the profit split as it was? Imagine all the craziness of being in a rock and roll band, one which you and your two friends fully immersed yourselves in, and ask yourself if you'd be able to find the will to sit Mike and Andy down to say: "It's ten percent or out you go. I hope you stay, but those are the terms. Sign here". Meanwhile, your creative partner-- someone with whom you are probably in an intense relationship, a creative partnership which is the very thing that keeps the money rolling in-- puts pressure on you to do exactly that. And by the way, you're all of twenty years old.

Impossible, insane situation to be in. Johnny and Morrissey had the nerve to insist on Mike and Andy getting 10% splits but they never had the resolve to finalize it in writing because that might have derailed their forward momentum. I'll bet most of us would have acted similarly.

I don't want to appear to patronise you by giving a short reply; what you wrote is well argued and coherent. The thing is, I would just put down the fact that they didn't get it into writing as simple naivety. Quite plausible in people so young, especially in Marr's case.

As to what would have happened if Rourke and Joyce demanded 25%; it's not quite as you put it, it wouldn't have been Moz and Marr sitting the two down of their own accord, it would have been Rourke and Joyce coming to M&M and demanding the cut, putting the ball in their court. I can quite believe they would have had the resolve to say out you go, you know what a cantakerous old bastard Moz is; of course he wouldn't have had the guts to say it to their faces, that would have been left to Johnny or a third party, but the result would have been the same.
 

2-J

Member
Okay, people are we saying is that in ALL bands, The singer and the guitarist should get a bigger cut? Or are you saying that only The Smiths should? Either way what you're advocating is wrong...and no real musician would agree to it...As I said...If Rourke & Joyce had been told such before a contract signed...they would have WALKED...They weren't clarvevoyant enough to know The Smiths would be famous...the idea is ludicrious....

And if sudddenly, Morrissey & Marr had told them after a contract had been signed...and they had been kicked out for sticking up for the situation...they could have sued if they had enough evidence to warrant they were being taken advantage of...

Point is....Morrissey & Marr controlled the financies...and thus CHOSE to pay the other two as they saw fit

I'm not saying it should be the case in ALL bands. I'm saying it should be a matter for bands to decide amongst themselves. the case of The Smiths show that it should be done at the start (though as far as I'm concerned, all 4 knew the financial arrangement from very early on, and Joyce and Rourke chose not to object) ideally, and preferably in writing. I believe people have the right to enter into whatever contracts they want within reason. If a drummer or a bass player isn't happy with a lesser arrangement, it's their right to tell the guitar player and singer to f*** off, and it's their right to leave....
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
I'm not saying it should be the case in ALL bands. I'm saying it should be a matter for bands to decide amongst themselves. the case of The Smiths show that it should be done at the start (though as far as I'm concerned, all 4 knew the financial arrangement from very early on, and Joyce and Rourke chose not to object) ideally, and preferably in writing. I believe people have the right to enter into whatever contracts they want within reason. If a drummer or a bass player isn't happy with a lesser arrangement, it's their right to tell the guitar player and singer to f*** off, and it's their right to leave....

That's if we choose to believe Morrissey...I find it easier to believe nobody said nothing to Rourke And Joyce about it...because as I said...No Sane Musician sticks in an unsigned band being told they will not get an equal share of the profits..it's much easier to believe that finances weren't discussed, Rourke and Joyce assumed they were getting an equal cut....but in actuality Morrissey and Marr paid them as they saw fit...
 
Top Bottom