Mike Joyce talks about The Smiths at The Mouth Magazine

An anonymous person writes:

Extremely good podcast with Mike Joyce at The Mouth Magazine.
Over an hour of chat about The Smiths, and some really interesting stuff.

Mike Joyce - The Mouthcast - The Mouth Magazine
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have never heard or read anything less than a very good interview at The Mouth. Some are absolute classics - the John Cooper-Clarke springs to mind. Tim Booth was also really good. But this one may be the best. I think it's about time we heard something like this about the court case. Mike is right - it can't be everyone else. There's something very wrong with Morrissey, his psychology.

I think this interview is Joyce accepting that the only way Morrissey will re-group with The Smiths is if he is forced to for financial reasons. In which case, Marr, Rourke and Joyce will call the shots, not Morrissey. Every time Morrissey has to flee the UK to retain his exile/non-domicile tax status he must think of how Joyce won and he lost. And it will be that way for ever. It's a happy ending.

best
BrummieBoy
 
It wasn't about playing the bad guy. You have concocted your own narrative, which is of course the truth to you, and so forth. What Joyce is saying is that Morrissey didn't complain about all of these things at the time, so it's strange that he would now denigrate everyone involved. Morrissey seemed rightfully proud of The Smiths and their records. The point is that he was either lying then or he is lying now.
So you might say, "Well, Morrissey had to play the "good guy" to get things done." No. If they were such incompetent idiots, and Alain as well, then why did he work with them for years? Why, if they didn't deserve to be in his band, did he go on with them, and even work with them in some choice moments of his solo career?

This is rhetorical. You don't need to answer. None of us was there. But Mike Joyce was there, and he is saying that there are inconsistencies in Morrissey's story, and pointing out what they are. Of course, both things can't be true.

What's deeply revealing is that Morrissey, despite over a hundred pages of Victim Script blaming of Joyce,didn't even realise that his position could be effortlessly debunked by the points Joyce has raised. Either Morrissey thought the rest of the Smiths were scoundrels at the time or his bile towards them was a post-factum rationalisation for how it all went wrong. A large part of his dismal career has been spent imagining himself the victim of some vast conspiracy when the facts seem to indicate he was always just an unpleasant narcissist who only tolerated others to achieve his own ends. He was doubtless delusional enough to think that he would eclipse The Smiths as a solo artist. Either he was lying then or he's lying now. The truth is immaterial as he has revealed himself as incapable of bearing witness to his own life by his own words. Nobody else need damn him. He was either a Careerist who kept mute about his hatred of everyone to keep The Smiths going or he concocted a paranoid fantasy after they split. Either way, he's reveales as a devious, truculent and unreliable witness. It really is astonishing that Joyce has kept his counsel until now but it's great to finally hear him reduce Morrissey's account to a laughable, implausible fantasy. Game. Set. Match to Joyce!

best
BrummieBoy

- - - Updated - - -

'Of course,both things can be true' thank you.

No..Sorry ,I thought I worded it correctly. I'm just saying that at the time people in a band will turn a blind eye to other's ways of doing/saying things in order to keep as a unit and make it work. What's said after is a different situation and should not come as a surprise that after being 'free' of the past situation that some feel that they can now say how they really felt. Humans being human.

You weren't there! How do you know this? Why are you commenting? Etc
*smirks*

best
BrummieBoy
 
AGAIN B.Bardot YOU FAIL.


I WAS speaking from experience.


gotcha !

;)

But your experience is exclusive to you and has no meaning outside your privately constructed world. I am only replying to you so you at least have the chance to begin to understand your nonsensical solipsism. When you finally crash and burn, I hope there is SOMEONE! in this world who will find you and get you to a place of safety before you do something...extreme.

best
BB
 
No I was giving my view based on my own experience. Not based on reading something and using my imagination to make up unproven 'facts' ... as you are always quick to do.



NEXT !


Nobody can believe your experience is a reliable guide, hence your 'point of view' is irrelevant!

As you claim there are no 'facts' you cannot claim that I have used my imagination to make some up.

Surely even YOU can see that?

Follow you own logic until you disappear up your solipsistic ass!

best
BB
 
Either he was lying then or he's lying now. The truth is immaterial as he has revealed himself as incapable of bearing witness to his own life by his own words. Nobody else need damn him. He was either a Careerist who kept mute about his hatred of everyone to keep The Smiths going or he concocted a paranoid fantasy after they split. Either way, he's reveales as a devious, truculent and unreliable witness. It really is astonishing that Joyce has kept his counsel until now but it's great to finally hear him reduce Morrissey's account to a laughable, implausible fantasy. Game. Set. Match to Joyce!

Most likely the latter, though his Careerist tendencies are made appallingly evident with his demand for "a number 1 record RIGHT NOW!" As you say, it doesn't matter. We don't know for a fact that Joyce is telling the truth, but we do know for a fact Morrissey is not.

And not that it matters but I had always been of the opinion, as Joyce says many were, that he and Rourke were, I think his term is "larking about," while Morrissey spent every waking moment working. And this is not to say that Morrissey doesn't deserve every bit of acclaim he earned, and did not work very hard on every creative aspect of the band, was not largely responsible for their look, and their image. Morrissey is a very talented person and he had the creative sensibility to pull from many areas to create a unified image for the band. I would not deny him that. But Mike Joyce was there in the studio working his long hours, too. Hearing him talk about his drum parts for Shakespeare's Sister was really interesting and showed the care he put in. He came up with a complicated part that was difficult to play at tempo, but learned to play it. His parts matter, too, and it's a shame his place in pop music history was somewhat overshadowed by his refusal to be robbed by his bandmates. To his credit, he says great things about Morrissey as a performer, vocalist, everything but the way he deals with people. I'm really glad this interview was done.
 
It wasn't about playing the bad guy. You have concocted your own narrative, which is of course the truth to you, and so forth. What Joyce is saying is that Morrissey didn't complain about all of these things at the time, so it's strange that he would now denigrate everyone involved. Morrissey seemed rightfully proud of The Smiths and their records. The point is that he was either lying then or he is lying now.
So you might say, "Well, Morrissey had to play the "good guy" to get things done." No. If they were such incompetent idiots, and Alain as well, then why did he work with them for years? Why, if they didn't deserve to be in his band, did he go on with them, and even work with them in some choice moments of his solo career?

This is rhetorical. You don't need to answer. None of us was there. But Mike Joyce was there, and he is saying that there are inconsistencies in Morrissey's story, and pointing out what they are. Of course, both things can't be true.

Is that what Morrissey says in his book? Not to me...

I have just re-read it and he is very positive about both Mike's and Andy's musicianship. He is also positive about Alain and his contribution.

He was unhappy with how these things ended but certainly does not complain about every aspect of working with them by a very long way.
 
Is that what Morrissey says in his book? Not to me...

I have just re-read it and he is very positive about both Mike's and Andy's musicianship. He is also positive about Alain and his contribution.

He was unhappy with how these things ended but certainly does not complain about every aspect of working with them by a very long way.

You're right that Mike's recollection of the book is not totally accurate. But the basic point stands up if you consider the case of Craig Gannon. Morrissey spends several pages characterising him as an irredeemable cretin who no-one liked and who contributed nothing of worth to anything. But what Morrissey doesn't explain - or even mention - is the fact that, a year after the end of the Smiths, Craig is re-hired as Morrissey's guitarist. Why? Surely we have to conclude either that Morrissey didn't actually believe him to be a totally worthless piece of shit, or else that Morrissey is insane. It must be one or the other.
 
if he responds it will show he listens to 'podcasts', only plebeians listen to podcasts, they are free for ffs.
of course he listens what else hes go to do up in paraguay, go out with chicks? LOL
but he will never admit.
 
You're right that Mike's recollection of the book is not totally accurate. But the basic point stands up if you consider the case of Craig Gannon. Morrissey spends several pages characterising him as an irredeemable cretin who no-one liked and who contributed nothing of worth to anything. But what Morrissey doesn't explain - or even mention - is the fact that, a year after the end of the Smiths, Craig is re-hired as Morrissey's guitarist. Why? Surely we have to conclude either that Morrissey didn't actually believe him to be a totally worthless piece of shit, or else that Morrissey is insane. It must be one or the other.

I really don't think bringing Craig Gannon back for such a short time means that at all. The reason he was needed for the Wolverhampton gig was obvious and having Mike, Andy and Craig meant a link to the past which Morrissey didn`t fully break until he put together a new band.

The pending legal proceedings were also relevant of course.
 
I really don't think bringing Craig Gannon back for such a short time means that at all. The reason he was needed for the Wolverhampton gig was obvious and having Mike, Andy and Craig meant a link to the past which Morrissey didn`t fully break until he put together a new band.

The pending legal proceedings were also relevant of course.

Morrissey is still playing Smith's material. It's the only reason he's viable as a touring act, to draw out the Smith's fans. If he only did his solo material his audience would halve. He knows this. Why would Morrissey want a 'link to the past' if he thought they were all useless? Because he's a Careerist and if Johnny Marr hadn't taken action he'd have tried to carry on as The Smiths- with the despised Joyce and Rourke...who he also invited to help launch his solo career....yet all along he knew they were challenging his greed over royalties. You couldn't make it up. Hilarious stuff!

best
BB
 
if he responds it will show he listens to 'podcasts', only plebeians listen to podcasts, they are free for ffs.
of course he listens what else hes go to do up in paraguay, go out with chicks? LOL
but he will never admit.

I wouldn't think he'd listen to it. But I'd imagine it'd fire up Sam or Donnie Knutson enough to tell him all about it.
 
Maybe it's true that Morrissey feels he needs to play those Smiths songs to draw more of a crowd, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt here. He doesn't really advertise that he will be playing Smiths songs and if he wanted to he could tour The Queen Is Dead with his current band, or something similar that would play on "an evening of the music of The Smiths." The second reason is that maybe he just had enough time go by that he can enjoy playing them again, and they are his songs to sing.
The third reason is that personally, when I saw him play Smiths songs I was not elated, did not have the feeling, "This is the song I played until the cassette wore out." I liked Morrissey's early solo work better than The Smiths, personally. To me when he plays The Smiths I do hear the excitement in some of the people but it does not feel like the real thing, to me. I would much rather hear some of the lesser played solo material than the current band's versions of Smiths songs, and not because of the quality of the reproduction, but because it is a reproduction.
Of course with changes in the band he doesn't have the original players on very much of the set at all.
I decided to stop going to see him in 2007 because I saw him play a very tiny room and it was excellent, and then a dew months later I saw the Hollywood Bowl show, and it was great to see him in a place that size with everyone there for him. It was nearly flawless, although he did not say goodnight. At the end of the longest show I'd seen him do, full of great performances, he disappeared and the band played a few minutes longer and it was over. It was a little bit of a letdown but overall the size of the crowd and the quality of the show made up for it.
I saw him several times that year and I just thought that was a good show to end on. I don't like the last few records very much. I kind of liked Years Of Refusal, but I have never listened to World Peace all the way through at once. I'm not sure I've heard it all. It's too easy to push a button and go to something that I really want to hear.
If The Smiths ever did reform, I would probably be satisfied watching it on youtube. I don't want to pay $200 and travel to see it, that's for sure.
 
What a great interview that was, I thank you with all of my heart Mike and as Brummie has said Mike Joyce should write the book.
If you read this Mike you are welcome to come and speak at team debunk meetings anytime.

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 
Morrissey lost the court case and is a fugitive from the judgement, forced into involuntary foreign exile from the UK which he tries to spin as his choice. His ludicrous wailing about the 'injustice' of the verdict has always been nonsense. Whilst the court case didn't label Morrissey as 'dishonest' he was famously described as 'devious, truculent and unreliable' during the proceedings. The Court wasn't there but found it easy to reach a judgement that Morrissey's version of events was untenable. You will also recall that Morrissey lost his appeal to the House Of Lords. Assuming that Morrissey has never paid Mike Joyce for his contribution, the accrued fees and costs to Morrissey must now be astronomical. If Joyce is correct in saying that Morrissey insisted on 50% publishing royalties for instrumentals, then I think that is very clearly dubious, insulting and greedy to Joyce and Rourke. If you are 'quite happy' about Morrissey's unscrupulous behaviour in demanding royalties for instrumentals then you merely confirm that you are as morally dubious as he is. That is your problem.

Given that Morrissey took the precaution of transferring ownership of his UK properties to family members, it's clear he knew he might be exposed by the Court. One can forsee a tragic situation whereby he has to decide between his tax exile status and being there for his ageing parents. I hope he is chased to the ends of the earth until his dying breath. He lost the case, lost the appeal and appears to have concocted an entirely implausible account for his 'Autobiography'.

best
BrummieBoy
Morrissey could ask for rainbows and lollipops and it doesn't mean Mike Joyce should sign a contract saying yes I'll give it to you without reading it or getting legal representation if he doesn't understand it.
I don't agree with Morrissey on much, lately nothing. But I don't think he should have lost this case because the judge thought Mike Joyce was too much of an idiot to understand what he was signing. He's smart enough now to get good lawyers to allegedly go after Johnny Marr for Morrissey's share.
 
Morrissey could ask for rainbows and lollipops and it doesn't mean Mike Joyce should sign a contract saying yes I'll give it to you without reading it or getting legal representation if he doesn't understand it.
I don't agree with Morrissey on much, lately nothing. But I don't think he should have lost this case because the judge thought Mike Joyce was too much of an idiot to understand what he was signing. He's smart enough now to get good lawyers to allegedly go after Johnny Marr for Morrissey's share.

I assume Joyce can claim a % from any future reunion of The Smiths. At some stage I think Morrissey and Marr will go for the Pension Fund Tour and have to pay him off if they want him to let them use "The Smiths" as a brand name.

best
BB
 
I assume Joyce can claim a % from any future reunion of The Smiths. At some stage I think Morrissey and Marr will go for the Pension Fund Tour and have to pay him off if they want him to let them use "The Smiths" as a brand name.

best
BB

Mike came across as a reall decent man in that interview and I wish him the very very best in life, I really do.
The lengths and depths that snake Steven CrankFruad went to ! What a devious so and so !
His time will come soon, I pray it's very prolonged and twenty three times more painful than Thatchers.

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 
I assume Joyce can claim a % from any future reunion of The Smiths. At some stage I think Morrissey and Marr will go for the Pension Fund Tour and have to pay him off if they want him to let them use "The Smiths" as a brand name.

best
BB

And that's another reason it probably wont happen, cant see Morrissey lining Mikes pockets, even if it costs him millions. Not sure of Morrisseys worth, but I am sure he would be comfortable in retirement, if he ever decides to retire.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom