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

Worm

Taste the diffidence
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

Not necessarily. Granted, there was some rather dubious negotiations if, as the court brief states, Andy and Mike started on equal footing but by the end of 1983 were put on unequal terms. In any case, by the end of 1983, after "Hand In Glove" was released, they were playing to hysterical crowds, and enjoying music press hype, Andy and Mike must indeed have known that The Smiths were going to be huge. I find it pretty believable that if, at the end of the year (right around the time of "This Charming Man" going Top 40), Marr and Morrissey came to them and said "We're changing the deal" they might have stayed on. Ten percent of a fortune isn't bad. Mike and Andy were not clairvoyant, no, but they were also not clairvoyant enough to know if they would have to give up music in a week and get a job in a warehouse loading boxes.

For the record I agree with you about musicians in a band. I think Andy and Mike were entitled to ask for 25% of the "other activities" portion of the profits, just as all musicians are. I love their contributions and don't think The Smiths would have been the same without them. I also think Morrissey and Marr were entitled to ask for the 40/40/10/10 split-- Morrissey's current band no doubt has a similarly Moz-heavy split but they seem to carry on with dignity and passion-- so I understand their side, too. I wish their business affairs had been conducted better.
 

2-J

Member
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...


Well I've read the court case notes , the biographies, the interviews, et cetera, and I'm of the opinion that it would be quite impossible for them to have not known they were getting a lesser cut. There are so many reasons for this but the fact that moz & marr had no incentive to deceive them is definitely a big one.
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Not necessarily. Granted, there was some rather dubious negotiations if, as the court brief states, Andy and Mike started on equal footing but by the end of 1983 were put on unequal terms. In any case, by the end of 1983, after "Hand In Glove" was released, they were playing to hysterical crowds, and enjoying music press hype, Andy and Mike must indeed have known that The Smiths were going to be huge. I find it pretty believable that if, at the end of the year (right around the time of "This Charming Man" going Top 40), Marr and Morrissey came to them and said "We're changing the deal" they might have stayed on. Ten percent of a fortune isn't bad. Mike and Andy were not clairvoyant, no, but they were also not clairvoyant enough to know if they would have to give up music in a week and get a job in a warehouse loading boxes.

For the record I agree with you about musicians in a band. I think Andy and Mike were entitled to ask for 25% of the "other activities" portion of the profits, just as all musicians are. I love their contributions and don't think The Smiths would have been the same without them. I also think Morrissey and Marr were entitled to ask for the 40/40/10/10 split-- Morrissey's current band no doubt has a similarly Moz-heavy split but they seem to carry on with dignity and passion-- so I understand their side, too. I wish their business affairs had been conducted better.

Perhaps...but if the deal was changed....I find it unethetical and wrong....and the fact that there was no contract also makes it impossible for it to hold water legally..and therefore I side with the two who were treated unfarily...

Morrissey is a solo artist, and therefore can pay his musicians as he see fits...If he wants to give Boz a big cut for being the Veteran and pay Jesse 2%..then as long as it's in writing...I find nothing wrong with it at all
 

anotherordinaryboy

Cheeky Scamp
There are only four people who know the truth behind this, and ALL OF THEM constantly contradict themselves and each other when discussing it in the media. As the dispute is basically over 'activities' - namely performing royalties, i think that the 4 should have had equal shares in touring revenue. The Smiths are listed as a 4 piece on all releases.

The problem I have is that since the court ruling, the profit from all Smiths album sales has gone to Joyce(who doesn't deserve them as he contributed very little creatively), who has already been paid 1,378,000 from Marr and Morrissey combined. The Smiths were together for 5 years, never played large arena shows, and were never one of the biggest bands in the world (from a money earning perspective).

As we're only talking about what he is owed for 'activities', how much more does the man want? He talks as though he is owed so much money, but 15% of tour royalties can't be much more than what he has already had. Morrissey and Marr were sly and unfair in how they went about this, but it seems to me that he's had his fair share, and is now acting on greed.
 

Worm

Taste the diffidence
From the court brief, here's the testimony of Morrissey and Marr. Did any of this happen? I'm guessing so. None of it was ultimately convincing in a strictly legal sense.

"First, they relied upon a wide range of matters showing that Mr Morrissey and Mr Marr alone controlled the management and organisation of the band and had a far greater contribution and commitment thereto.

Second, Mr Marr alleged that during a recording session at Pluto Studio in or around October 1983, he threatened to leave the band because Mr Morrissey was insisting on a 40/40/10/10 split. Mr Marr alleged that Mr Joyce persuaded him to stay and in the process accepted the stated division.

Third, Mr Marr alleged that on the evening of “The Smiths” appearance on Top of the Pops on 26 January 1984, he watched television at Mr Joyce’s flat and Mr Joyce asked for an increase in his 10%. Mr Marr said that he spoke to Mr Morrissey, and that the idea was rejected.

Fourth, Mr Morrissey claimed that in or around early 1986 Mr Marr telephoned him to say that Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke were angry that they were only receiving 10% that Mr Marr had informed them that the 10% share would not be increased.

Fifth, Mr Morrissey claimed that in or around Spring of 1986 during a car journey from Manchester to London, Mr Joyce asked Mr Morrissey how he could earn a 25% share and offered to act as a manager for the band, but this suggestion was rejected.

Sixth, Mr Morrissey claimed that shortly thereafter he and Mr Marr informed Mr Joyce that if he was not happy with his share he should leave the band, but Mr Joyce decided to remain.

Seventh, Mr Morrissey and Mr Marr relied upon the receipt by Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke of sums equivalent to 10% of the profits from the activities of the band.

Eighth, Mr Marr and Mr Morrissey relied upon the receipt by Mr Joyce of a set of 1983/84 accounts on or around 4 July 1986 and the fact that Mr Joyce did not mention the fact that the accounts showed the profits of the band being split 40/40/10/10.

Ninth, Mr Marr and Mr Morrissey each relied upon a conversation between an accountant Mr Patrick Savage of O.J. Kilkenny & Co recently appointed by Mr Marr and Mr Morrissey to act for “The Smiths”, which Mr Savage said he had with Mr Joyce and Mr Rourke, in the kitchen of the Woolhall Studio in or around May 1987. Mr Savage said that he asked on that occasion Messrs Rourke and Joyce as to their understanding of the percentage split, in response to which Mr Rourke said in the presence of Mr Joyce, “We get ten percent”. Mr Savage said that Mr Joyce made no comment or protest when Mr Rourke so stated."

And to follow up on my comment earlier about Joyce being the villain in collecting his fees, we must of course remember Morrissey's side of the story. There were more legal battles after the judgment, and I find these claims of Joyce's to be outrageous:

"In 2001, Joyce attempted to seize both my mother's house and my sister's house by claiming that I had taken my assets out of the UK; he made this claim even though he had direct access to all of the above – which are in the UK. Joyce eventually dropped both of these claims due to lack of evidence, and he refused to pay the 150 thousand pounds that it had cost me to defend his groundless claims. Joyce also dropped his claim as co-composer with Johnny M on Smiths compositions, and Joyce also dropped his claim for Producer royalties on Smiths recordings, and Joyce also dropped his claim for a share of Artwork payments given to me for providing Smiths record sleeves. There were, in fact, no payments to me for Smiths Artwork. Joyce made a further claim for 25% of all Smiths t-shirts sold during the '83 to '87 period, even though there was no evidence that any royalty for t-shirts had been received by either myself or Johnny Marr."​

I can't tell if that means that Joyce simply wanted to collect his money from whichever profit streams he could dip his mits into, but if he actually claimed a share of money based on his contributions to The Smiths' artwork-- to the artwork!-- that alone tells me that Joyce is as evil as Morrissey says.
 
Last edited:

HIM

New Member
[...] 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

in this instance, sir, i agree with you entirely.
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Well I've read the court case notes , the biographies, the interviews, et cetera, and I'm of the opinion that it would be quite impossible for them to have not known they were getting a lesser cut. There are so many reasons for this but the fact that moz & marr had no incentive to deceive them is definitely a big one.

No incentive?....The fact they they got away with it for several years, is a good indication...that they did have an incentive...
 

2-J

Member
No, no incentive to DECEIVE, since if Rourke and Joyce had confronted M&M over it during the lifetime of The Smiths, they would have just been ejected from the group, and recruited a new rhythm section.

This is even supposing that Rourke and Joyce didn't know they were receiving 10%, which I don't believe for a second, based on all the evidence.
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
There are only four people who know the truth behind this, and ALL OF THEM constantly contradict themselves and each other when discussing it in the media. As the dispute is basically over 'activities' - namely performing royalties, i think that the 4 should have had equal shares in touring revenue. The Smiths are listed as a 4 piece on all releases.

The problem I have is that since the court ruling, the profit from all Smiths album sales has gone to Joyce(who doesn't deserve them as he contributed very little creatively), who has already been paid 1,378,000 from Marr and Morrissey combined. The Smiths were together for 5 years, never played large arena shows, and were never one of the biggest bands in the world (from a money earning perspective).

As we're only talking about what he is owed for 'activities', how much more does the man want? He talks as though he is owed so much money, but 15% of tour royalties can't be much more than what he has already had. Morrissey and Marr were sly and unfair in how they went about this, but it seems to me that he's had his fair share, and is now acting on greed.

Joyce is acting on GREED? Why didn't Morrissey just pay him the money he owned him (Like Johnny) and been done with it? While act like a spoiled child, defy the court, and kick and scream..and throw a tantrum...You lost..Get over it already..it's not like Morrissey's going to not be able to make any more money...it's not like he's Limahl!

Did Morrissey ever pay Joe Moss back the Money he invested in The Smiths? NO....Johnny did...and that is why I think Johnny has a lot more intengrity..
 
D

Dave

Guest
I believe the statements of Morrissey and Marr, mainly because they are saying the same thing, that R&J were not happy with the deal, but they agreed because it was the best deal they had. Even if the deal was renegotiated, once the numbers being divided started to change, that's business. "There are two words in Music Business"

According to the post above about the court records, R&J felt squeezed but they agreed to it, because that was in their best interest. But once the band broke up there was no longer any reason to stick to the agreement, so they went back and tried to get more. I don't think that's exactly honorable, but I guess that's what the civil court system is there to decide.
 

faroffplaces

How I feel in my mind
"Joyce made a further claim for 25% of all Smiths t-shirts sold during the '83 to '87 period, even though there was no evidence that any royalty for t-shirts had been received by either myself or Johnny Marr."

That bit about the t-shirts is my favorite. Right or not, how petty can Joyce get?

(Moz' phrasing on "no evidence" has always struck me as a bit unfortunate - the mental picture is of him cagily trying to hide the fact that he and Marr did, in fact, oversee a vast Smiths t-shirt empire.)

For the record I agree with you about musicians in a band. I think Andy and Mike were entitled to ask for 25% of the "other activities" portion of the profits, just as all musicians are. I love their contributions and don't think The Smiths would have been the same without them. I also think Morrissey and Marr were entitled to ask for the 40/40/10/10 split-- Morrissey's current band no doubt has a similarly Moz-heavy split but they seem to carry on with dignity and passion-- so I understand their side, too. I wish their business affairs had been conducted better.

Pretty much.

They all have a point, and I strongly suspect the whole business would've reached a compromise years ago if the emotional subtext hadn't been so hairy, and (as you say) based on the business interactions of four inexperienced, very young friends.

Moz crossed a line by not paying Mike directly; Mike crossed about forty lines, apparently, in his methods of getting the money out and by his decision to milk a significant amount of extra cash...at this point, can this ever end? One pictures this still being fought out among their heirs.
 
Last edited:

Danny

Senior Member
The rights and wrongs of who got what have always seemed to me to be debatable really, but it's really not any of our business what is fair because we weren't there at the time and didn't see how many hours each individual member put into the band.

What I can't understand is anyone really falling for the "we worked in a highly successful band for five years but didn't have a clue what we were getting paid" line. It just seems laughable and the only one who would fall for it is some musty old judge who probably thinks all working class people are thick and illiterate so it's credible to him.
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
The rights and wrongs of who got what have always seemed to me to be debatable really, but it's really not any of our business what is fair because we weren't there at the time and didn't see how many hours each individual member put into the band.

What I can't understand is anyone really falling for the "we worked in a highly successful band for five years but didn't have a clue what we were getting paid" line. It just seems laughable and the only one who would fall for it is some musty old judge who probably thinks all working class people are thick and illiterate so it's credible to him.

I doubt Mike And Andy had access to Morrissey and Marr's bank records...so it's reasonable to believe they thought they were getting the same amount they were getting....
 
Joyce is acting on GREED? Why didn't Morrissey just pay him the money he owned him (Like Johnny) and been done with it? While act like a spoiled child, defy the court, and kick and scream..and throw a tantrum...You lost..Get over it already..it's not like Morrissey's going to not be able to make any more money...it's not like he's Limahl!

Morrissey is just a stubborn ass like that either way. Not taking up for him, but whether Joyce is acting out of greed or not, that's just the way Morrissey is, sadly. Joyce actually reminds me of a Morrissey in some ways. Both act like greedy, stubborn jerks.

Did Morrissey ever pay Joe Moss back the Money he invested in The Smiths? NO....Johnny did...and that is why I think Johnny has a lot more intengrity..

Did Joe Moss take or threaten to take them to court for that? or did Johnny just pay him that out of fairness? When did this take place?
GOD, I am really far behind. :eek:
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Morrissey is just a stubborn ass like that either way. Not taking up for him, but whether Joyce is acting out of greed or not, that's just the way Morrissey is, sadly. Joyce actually reminds me of a Morrissey in some ways. Both act like greedy, stubborn jerks.



Did Joe Moss take or threaten to take them to court for that? or did Johnny just pay him that out of fairness? When did this take place?
GOD, I am really far behind. :eek:

Morrissey and Joyce should be forced to live in a Flat as part of a new reality show...

No, Moss never threatened to sue...But Johnny paid him soon after quitting The Smiths..which holds crecedence to the theory that Morrissey had some kind of "control" over Johnny's conscious...hence I think it was his idea to short change the other two...and therefore he's responsible for the situation he is now dealing with...

BTW, why does your name remind me of School Of Fish?
 
I doubt Mike And Andy had access to Morrissey and Marr's bank records...so it's reasonable to believe they thought they were getting the same amount they were getting....

Not necessarily. I am sure there would be other signs, clues, talk from other people in and around their circle that could have clued them in. Either way, wasn't it Joyce who's actually blabbered out on one or more occasions over the years, in public, hinting that he knew about the split from the get-go? Or at least while they were still in the band?

And yes, I can totally believe R&J would have stayed in the band with just receiving that 10% split. That's a nice amount there and like someone else said on here, would they chance giving up being in the band in exchange for a job unloading or packing boxes somewhere in depressing Manchester? I really doubt it. I can also totally see R&J sticking with the band despite this as well. Just think about it.

I actually believe that they did indeed know about the split all along. The one thing I now really question is why is everyone contradicting certain things every other time? Like Johnny, for a big example, among all of them.
 
Morrissey and Joyce should be forced to live in a Flat as part of a new reality show...

LMFAO!! I would definitely like to see that!

No, Moss never threatened to sue...But Johnny paid him soon after quitting The Smiths..which holds crecedence to the theory that Morrissey had some kind of "control" over Johnny's conscious...hence I think it was his idea to short change the other two...and therefore he's responsible for the situation he is now dealing with...

VERY interesting fact and point there.

Also, when exactly did R&J first claim they discovered they were being short changed? Was it riht after the split or much later? I can't remember what's been said if it has on here... so many posts.


Reason I ask is, that I was wondering if maybe Johnny was paying back Moss all of that then, because he knew R&J were either going to take them to court or was already in the process. and was doing it to save his own ass or to make himself look good. ?



BTW, why does your name remind me of School Of Fish?

Yup! It sure should. ;) "Three Strange Days" is one of my favorite songs of all-time and I love School of Fish. You a fan, too?
 
Last edited:

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Not necessarily. I am sure there would be other signs, clues, talk from other people in and around their circle that could have clued them in. Either way, wasn't it Joyce who's actually blabbered out on one or more occasions over the years, in public, hinting that he knew about the split from the get-go? Or at least while they were still in the band?

And yes, I can totally believe R&J would have stayed in the band with just receiving that 10% split. That's a nice amount there and like someone else said on here, would they chance giving up being in the band in exchange for a job unloading or packing boxes somewhere in depressing Manchester? I really doubt it. I can also totally see R&J sticking with the band despite this as well. Just think about it.

I actually believe that they did indeed know about the split all along. The one thing I now really question is why is everyone contradicting certain things every other time? Like Johnny, for a big example, among all of them.

Regardless of whether they knew or not...It was totally unethical for them to recruit the two of them...lead them to believe they were in a band with equal footing and then AFTER they were signed...or just before it...suddenly decide to Screw them over...
 
Do you think maybe Johnny was paying back Moss all of that then, because he knew R&J were either going to take them to court or was already in the process. and was doing it to save his own ass or to make himself look good,or just in case?
 

SNS22

Not Dead Yet
Yup! It sure should. ;) "Three Strange Days" is one of my favorite songs of all-time and I love School of Fish. You a fan, too?

I remember School Of Fish...they were one of the last Great new bands to be played on "Alternative" radio...before The floodgates of crap from Seattle came crashing down in 1992.....

I was fortunate to find some of their stuff on Napster before it got shut down.....sad thing that the singer died and he was the same age as I am now...just goes to show you...cancer can strike anybody..and it's always a good idea to get yourself checked out as often as possible
 
Top Bottom