Stupid question

Catholic

English Blood, Irish Heart
In the (approximately) .00000000000001% chance that Morrissey, Marr and Rourke ever recorded a new track together, but without Joyce—would they be able to release the track under the name "The Smiths"?

Or would this require any legal wrangles etc as Joyce could object?

IOW would Joyce have any say in the matter now?

Stupid question, I know. But can anyone answer it for me, anyway?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 29417

Guest
They probably could - Morrissey-Marr is the songwriting team - the majority of the band would be involved.

But there's always the potential for legal wrangles - unless there's an agreement that covers it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the court case established that Morrissey/Marr/Rourke/Joyce each have an equal 25% ownership of 'The Smiths (at least in theory - we all know Rourke settled out of court regarding money owed). So I think that any three of them could theoretically team-up and make a majority decision like make a new album or tour under that name.

That said, I'm sure if any of the other three decided to do something without either Morrissey or Marr, they would launch some legal challenge saying he came up with the name/invented the band, and the whole thing would end up in court again. I'm not sure any of them would want the headache and costs of that, but there are plenty of situations where this happens. I mean, we just had the whole Sex Pistols court case, where Lydon didn't want to have that new bio film made and tried to block it, and the other three overruled him.

I'd be more interested in the archival Smiths recordings. The inference in some of the things Johnny has said over the years has indicated that Morrissey has been the person dragging their heels, and blocking more stuff getting released. I wonder if the other 75% of the band teamed up and agreed, could they just ignore his wishes and release this stuff anyway?
 

gordyboy9

Game Of Death.
everything is possible,they could do it under the name of smiths incase of any legal challenge.
your percentage is spot on because it will never happen and thank fook for that.
 

Ketamine Sun

<><><><><><><><>
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the court case established that Morrissey/Marr/Rourke/Joyce each have an equal 25% ownership of 'The Smiths (at least in theory - we all know Rourke settled out of court regarding money owed). So I think that any three of them could theoretically team-up and make a majority decision like make a new album or tour under that name.

That said, I'm sure if any of the other three decided to do something without either Morrissey or Marr, they would launch some legal challenge saying he came up with the name/invented the band, and the whole thing would end up in court again. I'm not sure any of them would want the headache and costs of that, but there are plenty of situations where this happens. I mean, we just had the whole Sex Pistols court case, where Lydon didn't want to have that new bio film made and tried to block it, and the other three overruled him.

I'd be more interested in the archival Smiths recordings. The inference in some of the things Johnny has said over the years has indicated that Morrissey has been the person dragging their heels, and blocking more stuff getting released. I wonder if the other 75% of the band teamed up and agreed, could they just ignore his wishes and release this stuff anyway?


discussed here before. But I think the conclusion was that Johnny most likely stopped the Classically Smiths shows from happening. So it looks like Mike, Andy and Craig have no ownership of the name The Smiths. I could be wrong.

So it seems Mike couldn’t stop M & Marr from
using the name in anyway they pleased.


 

Eldritch

Well-Known Member
discussed here before. But I think the conclusion was that Johnny most likely stopped the Classically Smiths shows from happening. So it looks like Mike, Andy and Craig have no ownership of the name The Smiths. I could be wrong.

So it seems Mike couldn’t stop M & Marr from
using the name in anyway they pleased.
Or it could be that Mike and Andy just were taken aback by Marr's strong reaction and realized that the project could be dead in the water if Johnny criticized it publicly.

New Order and Peter Hook had a long court battle about the band name, but as far as I know that never really amounted to anything beneficial to Hooky, who instigated the process.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I still think 'Classically Smiths' project could have legally gone ahead without any issues. It was effectively a tribute band, and as long as it's made clear on the posters it isn't actually The Smiths then there shouldn't be a problem, no more than Rick Astley performing a Smiths concert . The town I live in is full of posters for touring tribute bands, who change their names in only the smallest way from the original, by adding a 'UK' after the name etc, so adding a 'Classically' on there should have been fine.

That said, I expect even the threat of Marr and/or Morrissey objecting and having to fight it out in a potentially expensive court case would have been offputting, and Rourke bailing was probably the final nail in the coffin.
 

Catholic

English Blood, Irish Heart
Many, many thanks for all the interesting and clarifying responses!

I am intrigued indeed by this:

I'd be more interested in the archival Smiths recordings. The inference in some of the things Johnny has said over the years has indicated that Morrissey has been the person dragging their heels, and blocking more stuff getting released. I wonder if the other 75% of the band teamed up and agreed, could they just ignore his wishes and release this stuff anyway?

It's established, I think, that an Elvis cover exists and "A Matter of Opinion".

Is there more that is known of and how possible is that there could be stuff (say, more covers) that nobody has ever heard of?
 
M

Musician

Guest
Or it could be that Mike and Andy just were taken aback by Marr's strong reaction and realized that the project could be dead in the water if Johnny criticized it publicly.

New Order and Peter Hook had a long court battle about the band name, but as far as I know that never really amounted to anything beneficial to Hooky, who instigated the process.
The New Order situation is very different to The Smiths, as, to my knowledge they weren't only aband but a company too, band members being shareholders or something.
 

Surface

Chilling in Cheshire.
The New Order situation is very different to The Smiths, as, to my knowledge they weren't only aband but a company too, band members being shareholders or something.
However, in 2015, Hook filed a major legal case and sued Sumner, Morris and Gillian Gilbert. It was claimed that the remaining members of the band had formed a new company behind his back, one that generated an income close to £8million. Hook’s case suggested he was owed his percentage.
 
Top Bottom