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.

 

[Calamine Lotion]

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.

That's not true, and you have just proved my point. A session musician signs a contract and is paid for their time in the studio. Really good session musicians are paid more and contribute more.
Band members are not paid for their time in the studio. Why? Because it is assumed they are part of the collective and will share in the money generated by the effort they put in.

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.

Which is why they would not get publishing royalties. The performance royalties are a compromise.

 

[marred]

That's not true, and you have just proved my point. A session musician signs a contract and is paid for their time in the studio. Really good session musicians are paid more and contribute more.
Band members are not paid for their time in the studio. Why? Because it is assumed they are part of the collective and will share in the money generated by the effort they put in.


Which is why they would not get publishing royalties. The performance royalties are a compromise.

My point is if Rourke and Joyce were contracted for 10% each in Royalties as members of the band why should they be due 25% each when playing live for songs they didn't write?

 

[Calamine Lotion]

My point is if Rourke and Joyce were contracted for 10% each in Royalties as members of the band why should they be due 25% each when playing live for songs they didn't write?

As I understand it the reasoning is that they didn't actually have a signed contract. Someone actually posted the relevant law in another thread about this here once and it was very clear that when several people have a business enterprise together that makes a profit, and there are no signed agreements, by default the profits are split equally.
So consider that and then consider that the initial agreement was equal shares and it was later changed to the deal where Rourke and Joyce were to get 10%.
Realistically, Morrissey could call himself The Smiths and get a large portion of the potential audience that would be interested in The Smiths. Add Johnny Marr and very few people will stay home because, "It's not really The Smiths."
But legally, it was not handled correctly. We see Morrissey shoot himself in the foot all the time on contracts. This is not a new thing.
They started paying Rourke and Joyce less, and they accepted it, but even that doesn't change things legally.
At some point you have to accept that all the evidence was put before the court, who know more about British law and contracts than you or I do, and really had no reason to take anyone's side, and they found that the 10% deal didn't hold up.
Just because Morrissey and Marr can play Coachella as The Smiths and that deal would never be offered to Rourke and Joyce, even if you added Marr, that doesn't change the law. We all know Morrissey is the one that has to be there for it to be called The Smiths.

 

[Anonymous]

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

Joyce was awarded the royalties. He seems to have moved on and from his attitude on Twitter and in interviews comes across as a genuine, decent guy who respects both the legacy of The Smiths and their fans.

Moz still seems bitter as hell about the whole episode, even ruining his own autobiography by devoting pages and pages to it rather than talking about his music.

It's pretty clear who has won and who has lost here I think. Strength to be gentle and kind etc

 

[marred]

Joyce was awarded the royalties. He seems to have moved on and from his attitude on Twitter and in interviews comes across as a genuine, decent guy who respects both the legacy of The Smiths and their fans.

Moz still seems bitter as hell about the whole episode, even ruining his own autobiography by devoting pages and pages to it rather than talking about his music.

It's pretty clear who has won and who has lost here I think. Strength to be gentle and kind etc

I don't think you can really count on the nature of someone's tweets as a true reflection of their present mental state.

When you're writing your biography you spill your guts. It's not a place to hold back, pull punches and make sure you don't upset anyone. I think we all know who we find more interesting when faced with the choice between a bitter Morrissey and a dull Joyce. His drumming on Smiths records is great but that's as far as it goes.

All Joyce won was a court case.

 

[countthree]

I don't think you can really count on the nature of someone's tweets as a true reflection of their present mental state.

When you're writing your biography you spill your guts. It's not a place to hold back, pull punches and make sure you don't upset anyone. I think we all know who we find more interesting when faced with the choice between a bitter Morrissey and a dull Joyce. His drumming on Smiths records is great but that's as far as it goes.

All Joyce won was a court case.

Agree. And we all here are mature enough to know justice is rarely served in this kind of situations. Morrissey was punished using Joyce as a tool, and the latter was greedy and fool by letting others do it. It's about your actions, not about your twitter account.
Finally, it's obvious who lost in the long run.

 

[Musician]

It's about your actions, not about your twitter account.
Finally, it's obvious who lost in the long run.

Also, it's about your life, how you deal with shit that happens to you, not about unkown fans who listen to your music. Would you rather be a bitter, angry man than someone who made peace with himself and his decisions, his past?

It's obvious who lost in the long run.

 

[Musician]

yes agree, As far as I can tell, Unlike Joyce, M has moved on and is at peace with himself in the very fact that he continues to have a very successful and interesting life touching lives daily with the power of his voice.

So it's obvious who has won.

It doesn't really seem like judging from the Autobio.

 

[countthree]

It doesn't really seem like judging from the Autobio.

On the contrary. Did you read it?

 

[Musician]

On the contrary. Did you read it?

Yes. Unfortunately it didn't help my appreciation of Morrissey. He once sang about DJs who said nothing about his life. Well, starting "Quarry" he couldn't shut up about judges and evil lawyers, judges....then carried on in length in his book. That constant moaning says nothing to me about my life.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes. Unfortunately it didn't help my appreciation of Morrissey. He once sang about DJs who said nothing about his life. Well, starting "Quarry" he couldn't shut up about judges and evil lawyers, judges....then carried on in length in his book. That constant moaning says nothing to me about my life.

More like vauxhal and maladjusted is where it started but before that it was journalists and press. There's always been that side of him

 

[Quando quando quando]

Are we judging yesterdays man with today's? Autobiography was so long ago, and who knows now which way the winds of change have blown.


Having said that, just because one will bear more grudges than lonely high court judges, doesn't mean that person is a bitter and angry man or has not made peace with themselves and their past decisions. It means that they express themselves and let it be known what is troubling them, it is much saner and healthier than keeping it all bottled up inside. Don't you think ?

Great post Ketamine Sun.
There were only a few songs about that and some lines in others.

 

[marred]

Also, it's about your life, how you deal with shit that happens to you, not about unkown fans who listen to your music. Would you rather be a bitter, angry man than someone who made peace with himself and his decisions, his past?

It's obvious who lost in the long run.

It has nothing to do with whom we would rather be. If you're asking me to choose between Morrissey and Joyce I'd have to get over an uncontrollable fit of laughter before I answered that question

It's a ridiculous premise anyway. I don't want to be either of them.

 

[countthree]

Are we judging yesterdays man with today's? Autobiography was so long ago, and who knows now which way the winds of change have blown.


Having said that, just because one will bear more grudges than lonely high court judges, doesn't mean that person is a bitter and angry man or has not made peace with themselves and their past decisions. It means that they express themselves and let it be known what is troubling them, it is much saner and healthier than keeping it all bottled up inside. Don't you think ?

Totally. Telling your story is a healing method.

 

[Anonymous]

It'll be interesting to see what marr has to say in his auto about the situation or if he has any lingering feelings at all. Won't be long now

 

[Musician]

It has nothing to do with whom we would rather be. If you're asking me to choose between Morrissey and Joyce I'd have to get over an uncontrollable fit of laughter before I answered that question

It's a ridiculous premise anyway. I don't want to be either of them.

Obviously. I am happy being me - my question wasn't who'd rather one be, Morrissey or Mike Joyce, but rather.....what i wrote in my post.

 

[Quando quando quando]

Obviously. I am happy being me - my question wasn't who'd rather one be, Morrissey or Mike Joyce, but rather.....what i wrote in my post.

I'd rather be Morrissey.
For obvious reasons.