Peter Hook mentions Mike Joyce in recent interview

peter hook interview: power, corruption & lies. - Skiddle.com

Excerpt:

You mentioned Rob Gretton and Tony Wilson, God rest their souls. If they were still alive do you think this rift between you and your former friends would ever have got so wide? Don't you think they would have just banged your heads together, the lot of you?

You know what, every day I wake up I wish somebody would. Because it is the most stupid waste of time and effort. As Peter Saville said to me recently “You and Bernard have dragged Joy Division and New Order into the desert where nothing grows. I hope you're proud of yourselves”. And I thought “Shit”. But the thing is, pride and ego have a lot to do with these things.

What they did to me, by taking the name and by doing it all behind my back and then deciding how much I should get, after 31 years work, it just wasn't fair, the way they did it.

What I'm fighting for is fairness, a bit of justice. In divorce cases you don't get one side telling the other what they're getting, do you? You're supposed to work together and I supposed that after 31 years – and I think I can safely say that New Order wouldn't have been the same without my input – you deserve a little respect.

Barney's beef with me is to do with The Hacienda and me playing Joy Division. In a way it's just a childish way of getting your own back. But, you've got to fight. If you don't fight, you die, don't you?

Were they around, what could Rob and Tony do to resolve it?

You know, if we got together, me, Barney, Steve and Gillian, we could probably resolve it, but it's just that you don't get to do that because of how the system works once it goes to lawyers and is all legal.

They don't want you to get together, they want to keep you separate, paying their wages. I've seen Mike Joyce in the past few weeks and he said to me, a while ago, that the worst thing he's ever been through in his life was the legal fight he had with The Smiths.

He said “I don't envy you”. It's an awful thing to go through. I'd never recommend it to anybody. But, unfortunately, I'm stuck in it and I'm not the kind of person who gives up easily.

 

[Guernie]

I agree rifke . From songs to his book Moz has carried a flame for Mike that NEVER burns out . Over 20 years have passed . The court of law will not go back and change the verdict . I think Mike would be wanting to meet but Morrissey .........

 

[Surface]

The two cases are not comparable. Joyce sued in order to get the share of royalties you would normally expect as the drummer in a band. Hooky got an equal share of everything while he was in JD/NO, then he left and he still gets royalties for records he's not on and gigs he doesn't turn up to, on top of his songwriting and back-catalogue royalties. Nice of Mike to say he doesn't envy him, but he'd be well within his rights if he did.

Spot on and Hook also makes money touring playing back to back New Order albums. Does he pay the others any royalties fro those gigs, no he doesn't. It's all one way in Hookys world, his ego told him the band would crumble without him, reality is they have released there best album in years and are selling out gigs world wide.

 

[Anonymous]

Spot on and Hook also makes money touring playing back to back New Order albums. Does he pay the others any royalties fro those gigs, no he doesn't. It's all one way in Hookys world, his ego told him the band would crumble without him, reality is they have released there best album in years and are selling out gigs world wide.

I agree that he overthought his importance to the group. I just get annoyed by his simple hokey seemingly forced I'm a working class man routine

 

[countthree]

The hatred from some fans is very OTT when the case has been examined in a court of law, and judged in Joyce's favour. There are a substantial number of Morrissey fans - not all, but a substantial number - who adore their idol so much that they will support him unquestioningly no matter what he says. I swear there are people out there who, if Morrissey turned round tomorrow and said he'd had a change of heart, and actually he loved the Royal Family, and eating meat in moderation was a good thing, they'd instantly change their views to match his own.

Let's see...

 

[countthree]

Very weird to see all you left wing marxist Moz fans here claim that Moz should not pay his staff for the work they put in for so many years working in a studio and going on tour. You are the same people demonstrating for equal pay and social rights, double standards much?

Oh! Was Joyce a staff member after all? Why did he sue Morrissey and Marr arguing he was an equal partner? Why a partial judge ruled in his favor?
There's a serious inconsistence in Joyce supporters' arguments.
Anyway, it's nice for Morrissey when Joyce says he regrets having claimed what was not his right.
You should know if you have people working for you, there's a high probability a percentage of them are like the scorpion in the fable of the frog and the scorpion. They may seem good people, nice to chat with, but if it suits them well, they will no doubt to destroy your interests and forget the opportunities you gave them, even when there's a high chance they sink with you. It's their nature.
You have never been in any business if you never met one of that species.

 

[Musician]

Oh! Was Joyce a staff member after all? Why did he sue Morrissey and Marr arguing he was an equal partner? Why a partial judge ruled in his favor?
.

*sigh*....it's hard enough to have debates when essential things are not defined properly. Joyce argued he was an equal partner as far as LIVE royalties concerned. There was no word whatsoever on songwriting or anyhting else. You can make up you rmind to decide if it's right to claim that you are equal when it comes to a concert.

As I explained in an earlier thread discussing this, since Morrissey and Marr had SONGWRITING royalties as an extra, i find it pettiful to want to keep four times as much as the other two.

 

[Anonymous]

If Mike Joyce was a cow, Morrissey would have forgiven him already.

 

[Uncleskinny]

*sigh*....it's hard enough to have debates when essential things are not defined properly. Joyce argued he was an equal partner as far as LIVE royalties concerned. There was no word whatsoever on songwriting or anyhting else. You can make up you rmind to decide if it's right to claim that you are equal when it comes to a concert.

As I explained in an earlier thread discussing this, since Morrissey and Marr had SONGWRITING royalties as an extra, i find it pettiful to want to keep four times as much as the other two.

Tell it to the judge.

 

[Anonymous]

*sigh*....it's hard enough to have debates when essential things are not defined properly. Joyce argued he was an equal partner as far as LIVE royalties concerned. There was no word whatsoever on songwriting or anyhting else. You can make up you rmind to decide if it's right to claim that you are equal when it comes to a concert.

As I explained in an earlier thread discussing this, since Morrissey and Marr had SONGWRITING royalties as an extra, i find it pettiful to want to keep four times as much as the other two.

But the money making aspect of a live show, why people show up in large numbers and pay to be there, is part of the songs appeal. People would still pay a bunch of money to see, the same amount I would argue, to see marr Andy and morrissey perform the songs marr and morrissey wrote. I don't think you could say the same about a show featuring Andy and mike without marr and morrissey even still playing the same songs with two different people. If sall this is true then one or two people would seem worth more to the value of the live show

 

[Anonymous]

Oh! Was Joyce a staff member after all? Why did he sue Morrissey and Marr arguing he was an equal partner? Why a partial judge ruled in his favor?
There's a serious inconsistence in Joyce supporters' arguments.
Anyway, it's nice for Morrissey when Joyce says he regrets having claimed what was not his right.
You should know if you have people working for you, there's a high probability a percentage of them are like the scorpion in the fable of the frog and the scorpion. They may seem good people, nice to chat with, but if it suits them well, they will no doubt to destroy your interests and forget the opportunities you gave them, even when there's a high chance they sink with you. It's their nature.
You have never been in any business if you never met one of that species.

You read the bible like satan would. He does not regret getting his fair share he felt all that came with it was hard to cope with as it is for anyone involved in a legal issue. Joyce won and Moz lost.

 

[countthree]

You read the bible like satan would. He does not regret getting his fair share he felt all that came with it was hard to cope with as it is for anyone involved in a legal issue. Joyce won and Moz lost.

Are you sure? A lost battle is not a lost war.

 

[marred]

Joyce was lucky to even be in The Smiths. Right time, right place. He's easy to slag off but he was obviously the right man for the job. Love him or hate him it's his drumming coming through the speakers in those songs we love so much.

 

[marred]

*sigh*....it's hard enough to have debates when essential things are not defined properly. Joyce argued he was an equal partner as far as LIVE royalties concerned. There was no word whatsoever on songwriting or anyhting else. You can make up you rmind to decide if it's right to claim that you are equal when it comes to a concert.

As I explained in an earlier thread discussing this, since Morrissey and Marr had SONGWRITING royalties as an extra, i find it pettiful to want to keep four times as much as the other two.

Well they were performing songs live they had no hand in writing.

 

[Musician]

Well they were performing songs live they had no hand in writing.

And...? It's exactly what I wrote. He and Rourke never went after songwriting royalties, only live royalties, where all four members performed equally - or, as Joyce argued recently, with instrumentals it was only three of them. And just like you also wrote: like him or loathe him, he was there, he played the gigs, he is entitled to get an equal share. Morally, and since the court case, legally too.

 

[ADAM]

Egad, here we go again. Mike Joyce was paid for his services. Morrissey was punished for his anti-establishment/anti-royalist views by a reprehensible judge with absolutely no regard for justice or impartiality.

 

[countthree]

Morrissey is a living legend

 

[Calamine Lotion]

Well they were performing songs live they had no hand in writing.

That's not true. You'd have to define what the song is. Unless Joyce was told what drum parts to play on every track then he had a hand in writing them. The words and guitar are the majority of the song but there are quite a few Smiths songs where the bass and drum parts matter.
Joyce spoke in that recent audio interview posted here about spending a lot of time in the studio working out his drum parts. He was there longer than Morrissey was, for sure.
Also, performance royalties don't just mean live performance. The records also count. If The Smiths had never written their own songs then someone else would get the publishing royalties, but The Smiths would still get performance royalties for performing the songs on the record.
The performance royalties should have probably been split equally. The publishing royalties would vary from song to song but generally would be split between Morrissey and Marr.
This was all settled a long time ago. I'm just saying 1 Everyone who performed on the recorded version had some hand in the writing, though maybe not enough to change the songwriting credits, and 2, this is covered by performance royalties and is the reason it's fair to split them.
The performance royalties help make it more fair for someone like Joyce who worked hard coming up with a perfect drum part, but would not have been given publishing because it is traditional to think of the song as the words, harmony, and melody. The part that can be played by one person on a piano is "the song." But when you listen to the record you will hear other parts, from Joyce and Rourke, that are also "the song."

 

[marred]

That's not true. You'd have to define what the song is. Unless Joyce was told what drum parts to play on every track then he had a hand in writing them. The words and guitar are the majority of the song but there are quite a few Smiths songs where the bass and drum parts matter.
Joyce spoke in that recent audio interview posted here about spending a lot of time in the studio working out his drum parts. He was there longer than Morrissey was, for sure.
Also, performance royalties don't just mean live performance. The records also count. If The Smiths had never written their own songs then someone else would get the publishing royalties, but The Smiths would still get performance royalties for performing the songs on the record.
The performance royalties should have probably been split equally. The publishing royalties would vary from song to song but generally would be split between Morrissey and Marr.
This was all settled a long time ago. I'm just saying 1 Everyone who performed on the recorded version had some hand in the writing, though maybe not enough to change the songwriting credits, and 2, this is covered by performance royalties and is the reason it's fair to split them.
The performance royalties help make it more fair for someone like Joyce who worked hard coming up with a perfect drum part, but would not have been given publishing because it is traditional to think of the song as the words, harmony, and melody. The part that can be played by one person on a piano is "the song." But when you listen to the record you will hear other parts, from Joyce and Rourke, that are also "the song."

Of course I agree the bass and drums are a huge part of the songs but they aren't part of the initial creation of the song itself, therefore they have no part in the writing of the song. By your analysis every session musician that ever played on an album is a co writer. That's pretty far fetched.

I realise bass players and drummers aren't robots that you program (unless you're a drum machine) and any musician is going to bring their own style to the feel of a song they play on but that's not writing. Creation of art comes from a blank page and until that blank page is filled by Morrissey and Marr Rourke and Joyce are twiddling their thumbs.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course I agree the bass and drums are a huge part of the songs but they aren't part of the initial creation of the song itself, therefore they have no part in the writing of the song. By your analysis every session musician that ever played on an album is a co writer. That's pretty far fetched.

I realise bass players and drummers aren't robots that you program (unless you're a drum machine) and any musician is going to bring their own style to the feel of a song they play on but that's not writing. Creation of art comes from a blank page and until that blank page is filled by Morrissey and Marr Rourke and Joyce are twiddling their thumbs.

That doesn't make much sense. It's not about feeling or style it's about writting musical parts that are important to how the song sounds. Andy wrote his own bass parts that are a large part of how the song sounds and why it's enjoyed. That makes him one of the song writers. The smiths wouldn't have been the same or as good as they were without him. the songs wouldn't be the same songs. How could barbarism exist without that bass line which the rest of the music was probably written around and he not be considered one of the writers

 

[countthree]

That's not true. You'd have to define what the song is. Unless Joyce was told what drum parts to play on every track then he had a hand in writing them. The words and guitar are the majority of the song but there are quite a few Smiths songs where the bass and drum parts matter.
Joyce spoke in that recent audio interview posted here about spending a lot of time in the studio working out his drum parts. He was there longer than Morrissey was, for sure.
Also, performance royalties don't just mean live performance. The records also count. If The Smiths had never written their own songs then someone else would get the publishing royalties, but The Smiths would still get performance royalties for performing the songs on the record.
The performance royalties should have probably been split equally. The publishing royalties would vary from song to song but generally would be split between Morrissey and Marr.
This was all settled a long time ago. I'm just saying 1 Everyone who performed on the recorded version had some hand in the writing, though maybe not enough to change the songwriting credits, and 2, this is covered by performance royalties and is the reason it's fair to split them.
The performance royalties help make it more fair for someone like Joyce who worked hard coming up with a perfect drum part, but would not have been given publishing because it is traditional to think of the song as the words, harmony, and melody. The part that can be played by one person on a piano is "the song." But when you listen to the record you will hear other parts, from Joyce and Rourke, that are also "the song."

That's plainly forcing an argument like a rubber band. Following your reasoning, when a musician records a song he is co-writing it. An that's far from true.
Without the writing of melody and lyrics the song doesn't exists as a song. Without the intervention of a musician the song can be played by another musician and that song is still the same song. That's what makes someone owns songwriting copyrights.