Mike Joyce interview - Don't Believe The Hype (May 2016)

Mike Joyce Interview - Don't Believe The Hype (May 6, 2016)

Plenty of Smiths content, including the court case:

"The politics of being in a band are scary; nobody knows what is going to happen in the future, and you don’t want to upset your mates. But looking back, it’s an awful lot easier than being in a room with someone in a wig and thinking ‘how did it come to this?’ At the time I didn’t appreciate how serious it was, I didn’t think it would be such a big deal. After the first day, it was all over the newspapers, and it hit home”.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Do you KNOW him as a person?

What's the message here? Only someone who knows someone personally can have an opinion on them? That's all of journalism f***ed then.

 

[MIDNITE]

.........................................

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Mike has his truth and is right

Morrissey has his truth and is right

that's the thing, really, which is why i dont feel it's my business to take sides.

 

[Surface]

Do you KNOW him as a person?

Why would I need to know someone to form an opinion of them.

I lived in Manchester at the time and I can tell you that a lot of people were shocked and disappointed when they heard about the 40/40/10/10 split.

Can understand it from a writing perspective but not from live performances, that's just wrong. At least Marr redeemed himself by paying up and not contesting the outcome.

 

[Guernie]

I agree Surface . The Smiths were a great band , one unit . All added to the sound of THE SMITHS .

 

[Anonymous]

Why would I need to know someone to form an opinion of them.

I lived in Manchester at the time and I can tell you that a lot of people were shocked and disappointed when they heard about the 40/40/10/10 split.

Can understand it from a writing perspective but not from live performances, that's just wrong. At least Marr resdeemed himself by paying up and not contesting the outcome.

I think it the idea that they were the draw of the live crowd has something to do with it . I mean Earl slick and aolmar werent making as much as Bowie on tour even though they had a lot to do with how the music sounded and ive not heard such an uproar about it

 

[Quando quando quando]

What's the message here? Only someone who knows someone personally can have an opinion on them? That's all of journalism f***ed then.

No.
But if someone states he started hating someone as a person I think it is a legitimate question to ask if he did know him as a person.
To say that all journalism is f***ed than is making it too big.
And you know that. You're too smart to say so.

 

[Surface]

No.
But if someone states he started hating someone as a person I think it is a legitimate question to ask if he did know him as a person.
To say that all journalism is f***ed than is making it too big.
And you know that. You're too smart to say so.

I said dislike not hate, there is a difference.

 

[Surface]

I think it the idea that they were the draw of the live crowd has something to do with it . I mean Earl slick and aolmar werent making as much as Bowie on tour even though they had a lot to do with how the music sounded and ive not heard such an uproar about it

The Smiths were a band with 4 members originally, 5 if you include Craig. When I booked to see the Smiths, I didn't go to see Morrissey/Marr I went to see the whole band. Bowie was an individual artist who used session musicians as Morrissey does today.

 

[Anonymous]

The Smiths were a band with 4 members originally, 5 if you include Craig. Bowie was an individual artist - big difference.

The only difference I see is how they agreed and that Bowie had them sign papers. The spiders from Mars were a band but didn't make the same as he on tour despite doing there percentage of the work on stage because without him no one would come despite them all having contributed to the musics writting. Before Ronson not many had come to Bowie's shows than with him. Whats the difference aside from what you call it. they wrote music and did the tour. If they call it a solo act they get less than if you call it a band even if the work is the same and equal in each situation. It was closely morrissey and mates act which is reflected in the songwriting credits. Bowie's muscians signed papers agreeing to less while the smiths had a verbal agreement according to accounts. Hell Bowie's musicians didn't even get a percentage just a flat fee slick claimed was less than he would get from playing his own show in clubs

 

[Musician]

The only difference I see is how they agreed and that Bowie had them sign papers. The spiders from Mars were a band but didn't make the same as he on tour despite doing there percentage of the work on stage because without him no one would come despite them all having contributed to the musics writting. Before Ronson not many had come to Bowie's shows than with him. Whats the difference aside from what you call it. they wrote music and did the tour. If they call it a solo act they get less than if you call it a band even if the work is the same and equal in each situation. It was closely morrissey and mates act which is reflected in the songwriting credits. Bowie's muscians signed papers agreeing to less while the smiths had a verbal agreement according to accounts. Hell Bowie's musicians didn't even get a percentage just a flat fee slick claimed was less than he would get from playing his own show in clubs

Well,

1. The Spiders weren't a "real' band. Bowie, if not a superstar, was already an established solo act. He knew that, the Spiders knew that, so they accepted fees as offered.

2. Bowie lost a HUGE amount of money during the Zigy years as his manager was spending money (like live fees for the Spiders) for future Bowie royalties. This is why later they had lawsuit for years. So, in a way, Bowie paid his musicians from future royalties while losing money. Imagine Morrissey doing this....not likely, to put it mildly.

3. Whatever the Spiders received was agreed and accepted in writing. Too bad M&M eren't as wise as Bowie was in advance.

 

[Anonymous]

Well,

1. The Spiders weren't a "real' band. Bowie, if not a superstar, was already an established solo act. He knew that, the Spiders knew that, so they accepted fees as offered.

2. Bowie lost a HUGE amount of money during the Zigy years as his manager was spending money (like live fees for the Spiders) for future Bowie royalties. This is why later they had lawsuit for years. So, in a way, Bowie paid his musicians from future royalties while losing money. Imagine Morrissey doing this....not likely, to put it mildly.

3. Whatever the Spiders received was agreed and accepted in writing. Too bad M&M eren't as wise as Bowie was in advance.

If they weren't a real band they for sure wrote like one and ronson for sure was pretty close to a real collaborator in the way the marr was when it came to music and they for sure toured like one putting in the same work anyone would, or at least as much as Andy or Joyce did. Vinscotti and others all state that man who sold the world was a band effort. As for the royalties and loses he paid them this salary, not a percentage, long before he realized how main man was screwing him which amusingly and ironically is about how he didn't understand the deal he had made and its ramifications. Your last point I agree with, they signed on paper to there agreement where morrissey and marry had there's in verbal agreements easily contested long after when they broke up and knew they didn't have anything to lose. This is beside the point though as surface said when he found out they were making less he didn't like morrissey as much, I'm assuming he means marras well to some degree as they both knew and arraigned this agreement with morrissey just fighting a lot longer about it, simply because they were there at the beginning. The amount of work they put in on the road or in the studio isn't a deciding factor as to how much they're owed its just when they joined and if they wrote there agreement down and made it legal. If you fault the smiths song writing team for these kind of deal it seems hypocritical to not fault Bowie as well who I think much was more notorious a cheap skate and credit taker. They both thought they were the live draw and the stars of there acts worked harder and deserved more money for it

 

[Quando quando quando]

I said dislike not hate, there is a difference.

Sorry, you're right of course.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Your last point I agree with, they signed on paper to there agreement where morrissey and marry had there's in verbal agreements easily contested long after when they broke up and knew they didn't have anything to lose. This is beside the point though as surface said when he found out they were making less he didn't like morrissey as much, I'm assuming he means marras well to some degree as they both knew and arraigned this agreement with morrissey just fighting a lot longer about it, simply because they were there at the beginning. The amount of work they put in on the road or in the studio isn't a deciding factor as to how much they're owed its just when they joined and if they wrote there agreement down and made it legal. If you fault the smiths song writing team for these kind of deal it seems hypocritical to not fault Bowie as well who I think much was more notorious a cheap skate and credit taker. They both thought they were the live draw and the stars of there acts worked harder and deserved more money for it

' morrissey and marry ' ? nice touch, I like that.

 

[Anonymous]

' morrissey and marry ' ? nice touch, I like that.

The auto correct doesn't like when I type marr. Most times it changes it to mare. Marry is a new one

 

[Anonymous]

Your last point I agree with, they signed on paper to there agreement where morrissey and marry had there's in verbal agreements easily contested long after when they broke up and knew they didn't have anything to lose.

They don't seem to have even had a verbal agreement. According to Johnny Rogan, Morrissey testified in court that he had never had a conversation with Andy or Mike about how the money should be split. Johnny testified that he had discussed money with them during the recording of the debut album, but he wasn't able to say that they had reached an agreement. In Autobiography, Morrissey doesn't claim there had been a verbal agreement, he seems to just feel he should have been able to pay Mike what he liked. I guess we'll find out what Johnny's version is soon.

 

[Anonymous]

They don't seem to have even had a verbal agreement. According to Johnny Rogan, Morrissey testified in court that he had never had a conversation with Andy or Mike about how the money should be split. Johnny testified that he had discussed money with them during the recording of the debut album, but he wasn't able to say that they had reached an agreement. In Autobiography, Morrissey doesn't claim there had been a verbal agreement, he seems to just feel he should have been able to pay Mike what he liked. I guess we'll find out what Johnny's version is soon.

But they took there money with no complaint until they had nothing to lose as the smiths could go on being the smiths without Andy or Joyce (it did for a while without Andy) as a viable commercial entity but not without morrissey or marr and so they didn't complain but accepted the sum offered by cashing the check. The expectation is that they knew the split and didn't care. It's not like they thought it was all being evenly split and that's the total it all added up to between the four of them. Not having an agreement, even if they didn't have a verbal one, makes them legally entitled but it doesn't mean it's what they should have been making from the tour. Do you think if they had been told to sign or leave that they would have left. If anything I think they should have been making something off of the writing cradits somewhere around the same amount as well as merch but that's a personal opinion of the way things shouldve be done if I'm trying to be fair

 

[Uncleskinny]

But they took there money with no complaint until they had nothing to lose as the smiths could go on being the smiths without Andy or Joyce (it did for a while without Andy) as a viable commercial entity but not without morrissey or marr and so they didn't complain but accepted the sum offered by cashing the check. The expectation is that they knew the split and didn't care. It's not like they thought it was all being evenly split and that's the total it all added up to between the four of them. Not having an agreement, even if they didn't have a verbal one, makes them legally entitled but it doesn't mean it's what they should have been making from the tour. Do you think if they had been told to sign or leave that they would have left. If anything I think they should have been making something off of the writing cradits somewhere around the same amount as well as merch but that's a personal opinion of the way things shouldve be done if I'm trying to be fair

All of this, and any other comment is irrelevant. The judge decided the case. It's over.

 

[Anonymous]

All of this, and any other comment is irrelevant. The judge decided the case. It's over.

I don't think we're talking about it in hopes of making relevant changes to the court cases outcome but rather just expressing our opinions on how we felt about the situation and outcome. Talking for the enjoyment of conversing civilly about a subject we have some level of interest in. The smiths have been over for a while but still we continue to talk

 

[Calamine Lotion]

3. Whatever the Spiders received was agreed and accepted in writing. Too bad M&M weren't as wise as Bowie was in advance.

Yes. no written contract so the case was decided based on the law. If The Smiths had done the same they would have confronted and solved the issue before it even started.
And when you add on the fact that 25% was the original agreement and then it was changed without legal documentation the court had no choice but to find as they did. The judge obviously didn't like Morrissey and that does make a difference but it's not the reason for the verdict. We've seen in the past year Morrissey attempting to lie about dealings with record executives and you can get away with that when you're addressing your silly statements to your delusional Mozbot fans, but in court you need evidence. Since it was lacking the judge decided based on the law. And Morrissey spent far more time and energy trying to portray himself as a victim and lost far more money in legal fees than if he had simply paid the judgement and done a project to make the money back.
In fact, as Joyce recently said in the excellent audio interview that was posted here, he was informed that the case would be settled before it went to court and he was willing to accept far less. He and his representative were waiting on the courthouse steps ready to make a deal but no one turned up with an offer. Morrissey either received poor advice or refused to listen to reason because any seasoned lawyer could have predicted the outcome.