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:
A

Anonymous

Guest
Joyce gave this interview just and only just couse he was conected to Morrissey thirty years ago.

nobody, including Brummie, wouldn't care what he has to say on any subject if there was no Morrissey at the first place.

yes, an excellent drummer but that's all... but it is past long gone... IMHO

but Moz, that's another story. he is still relevant today (maybe not 100% as I would want him to be), and that is the only reason Joyce is asked anything/ofcourse only Moz releated stuff is interesting to editors.

anyone who thinks he deserves 25% of royalities, must also think he contributed the same amount of creativity/art to the band. and that is absymal.

in the Smiths era Moz only carred for Marr. he just needed a bas player and a drummer. that's why he tolerated their company. and that is not mean, that is human, that's basic psihology. when he didn't need them no more, he stoped the comunication. Moz just never cared to pretend to be good/kind/likable
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Joyce gave this interview just and only just couse he was conected to Morrissey thirty years ago.

nobody would care what he has to say on any subject if there was no Morrissey at the first place.

yes, an excellent drummer but that's all... but it is past long gone...

but Moz, that's another story. he is still relevant today (maybe not 100% as I would want him to be), and that is the only reason Joyce is asked anything/ofcourse only Moz releated stuff is interesting to editors.

anyone who thinks he deserves 25% of royalities, must also think he contributed the same amount of creativity/art to the band. and that is absymal.

in the Smiths era Moz only carred for Marr. he just needed a bas player and a drummer. that's why he tolerated their company. ocasionally, he maybe even had some fun with the guys :) when he didn't need them no more, he stoped the comunication. and that is not mean, that is human, that's basic psihology. Moz just never cared to pretend to be good/kind/likable


p.s. I was lurking here for the past two years, and now I am in bed with a fever, and some extra time, so finally decided to post something.
p.p.s. I don't have an PhD on Morrissology/ being just an ordinary not real fan
 
M

Musician

Guest
Well I can't be bothered because of time to listen.

Otherwise, I will wait for Mikes book and measure his account of the trial against M's account.

You have no time to listen to the podcast, yet you'd read a book?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The place to get info about the evidence and arguments used in court is the 21st century edition of The Severed Alliance. It goes something like...

In English law, if you join a band you are assumed to be in an equal partnership with everyone else in the band, an entitled to an equal share of the money it makes (not including songwriting royalties, which belong to the songwriters, not the band), unless you agree otherwise.

So, the case was about whether Morrissey and Marr could show that Joyce had at some point agreed not to be an equal partner. The key occasion when this was claimed to have happened was in October 1983 at Pluto Studios. Morrissey wasn't present, but Marr acted for both of them, telling Andy and Mike that they had to accept a reduction in their stake or he would quit the band.

The first problem with this is that Johnny's ultimatum might be considered coercion, so that it could not result in Andy and Mike agreeing to anything legally binding. But, even if we say that it wasn't coercion, the main problem is that it's extremely unclear that any agreement was reached. Andy and Mike testified that there was no agreement. Johnny testified that there must have been an agreement, because he wouldn't have just let it slide, but couldn't remember what the agreement exactly was. Importantly, no-one, including Johnny, could recall specific percentages being discussed. So, at best, we have a discussion which was inconclusive and ought to have been picked up at a later date.

Later, in 1984, all four Smiths plus Scott Piering went to a solicitors' offices, where Mike and Andy were offered 25% each if they agreed to cease being partners five years after the group split (i.e. after that point they would get nothing). They turned the offer down, and Morrissey said in court that the offer never had his agreement anyway. But the thing about the existence of the offer is that it obviously undermines M&M's claim that the thing had been sorted out at Pluto studios.

Later still, perhaps sometime in 1985, the amounts of money being set aside for Andy and Mike in the Smiths' accounts was reduced to reflect a drop in their share from 25% to 10%. This doesn't seem to be related to any new discussion, but just something Morrissey and Marr had decided to do. Rourke and Joyce are either unaware of this or choose not to make an issue if it until after the Smiths split up.

Nobody puts anything relating to an agreement down in writing at any point.
 

Carly

Active Member
jesus. O.k in the present moment I don't have the time to listen to the whole interview but I am willing to listen to those parts that he talks about the 'evidence' that he Joyce brought to the trial.If anyone you Musician? point out the times so I can skip to ,to listen I'd be glad to.

In regards to having time to read a book.by the time the book comes out..I'll be able to read that/those section/s on the trial.
interviewer mentions the case at the 32 mark
just before that he was talking about that he did have big involement in the recording ect and being there in the studio all the time
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
being there in the studio all the time

When did he say that? It isn't true. Certainly not ALL THE TIME. How about the time Simon Wolstencroft visited the Smiths at the Wool Hall where Mike had a lot of time to play darts and snooker with him and to go to the pub while Johnny and Morrissey were "tied to the studio"?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I remember M saying that he brought in actual evidence.

There is no evidence, at least not in the eyes of the law. Johnny and Moz couldn't produce evidence and THAT has been the problem. The only thing that surprises me to this day is why the trial even went on for so long because you have to name your evidence beforehand. So, the court knew from the beginning that there were only accounts by several people but nothing written down. Even if there had been 30 people telling what they knew or witnessed it wouldn't have been enough in the eyes of the law so I don't know why the court was wasting everybody's time and energy.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You get the writing credit on those?
"Yeah. But I don’t get paid for it."

I guess a year ago they re-released those on...
"On the Very, Very, Very, Very Best of Morrissey. “The Girl Least Likely To” is on that."

But why not argue with Morrissey about royalties? Is it just not worth it?
"He’s impossible to get ahold of."

But lawyers do these things.
"Lend me some money to get a lawyer. It’s Laurel and Hardy here: give it to him, to give to you, to give to him."

This is a pretty good example of how people realized very quickly that regarding Moz and money you can tell people almost anything and they believe it without thinking. Dear Andy, maybe you have a look on this page de.warnerchappel.com/song-details/WW008669901000 . You know, there are companies which collect royalties for their clients. How is it Moz' fault when your publishing company is shit. Maybe you should overthink your business with them. And is it also Moz' fault that you didn't find other sources for money after the Smiths? I mean, did he personally stop you from founding a great new band or to become a permanent member of a great band or to become a great music composer for other people?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thanks,Interesting. Read 'Alliance' once,couldn't remember the details in it or if my first edition had the trial information in it(?).

But thing is... If 'the other two' were 'equal' partners, wouldn't they be insistent at the time about knowing what is going on in their business/career ? Shouldn't they be handling money and know what was coming in and going out? Or were they too busy playing their instruments while 'somebody' else took care of those responsibilities. Which was one of the reasons Marr was fed up having to take care of a lot of shit on top of writing songs.

Though if it is English law..unless down in writing that they receive 10 percent. Then I guess M is screwed there.
I'd have to read Autobiography again ,Cause I remember M saying that he brought in actual evidence.

Thanks again, :)

Morrissey says in Autobio that there was "a wealth of evidence stacked against" Joyce, but he doesn't specifically say what the evidence was. I don't think it's that Moz went into court with literally nothing, but what he lacked was any firm evidence to show Mike had agreed to be an unequal partner. For example, he had lots of witness evidence to show that he and Johnny contributed more to the Smiths, but that wasn't the main issue (even if Morrissey felt it should have been).

My impression from Autobio is that Moz went into court fundamentally misunderstanding who needed to prove what. He seems to think that, in the absence of an agreement, Mike is legally entitled to get what he is given. Since there was no piece of paper with "25%" written on it, it should have been an open and shut win for Moz. I think he was either very poorly advised or (more likely) heard what he wanted to hear. Or perhaps he knew very well he had no case but can't admit that to the world.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Morrissey says in Autobio that there was "a wealth of evidence stacked against" Joyce, but he doesn't specifically say what the evidence was. I don't think it's that Moz went into court with literally nothing, but what he lacked was any firm evidence to show Mike had agreed to be an unequal partner. For example, he had lots of witness evidence to show that he and Johnny contributed more to the Smiths, but that wasn't the main issue (even if Morrissey felt it should have been).

My impression from Autobio is that Moz went into court fundamentally misunderstanding who needed to prove what. He seems to think that, in the absence of an agreement, Mike is legally entitled to get what he is given. Since there was no piece of paper with "25%" written on it, it should have been an open and shut win for Moz. I think he was either very poorly advised or (more likely) heard what he wanted to hear. Or perhaps he knew very well he had no case but can't admit that to the world.

Again, he AND Johnny had plenty of evidence in their eyes but it wasn't the kind of evidence that the court required which was something written down. So if the judge had asked "Mr Marr, Mr Morrissey, do you have written or recorded evidence" and if both had answered with "No" that should have been the end of the trial. In Germany (where I live and work at court) it would've never went that far. How this whole trial has been blown up like that is beyond me with one party helplessly stating their "evidence" over and over again before a judge who perfectly knew that it wasn't enough. Was it some perverse joy for him to watch that? And the other party stating their "evidence" over and over again although being the one who actually had NOT to prove anything. Why say anything at all?
 

Flibberty

Well-Known Member
Morrissey says in Autobio that there was "a wealth of evidence stacked against" Joyce, but he doesn't specifically say what the evidence was. I don't think it's that Moz went into court with literally nothing, but what he lacked was any firm evidence to show Mike had agreed to be an unequal partner. For example, he had lots of witness evidence to show that he and Johnny contributed more to the Smiths, but that wasn't the main issue (even if Morrissey felt it should have been).

My impression from Autobio is that Moz went into court fundamentally misunderstanding who needed to prove what. He seems to think that, in the absence of an agreement, Mike is legally entitled to get what he is given. Since there was no piece of paper with "25%" written on it, it should have been an open and shut win for Moz. I think he was either very poorly advised or (more likely) heard what he wanted to hear. Or perhaps he knew very well he had no case but can't admit that to the world.

:lbf: I think we can safely rule that one out.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
The place to get info about the evidence and arguments used in court is the 21st century edition of The Severed Alliance. It goes something like...

In English law, if you join a band you are assumed to be in an equal partnership with everyone else in the band, an entitled to an equal share of the money it makes (not including songwriting royalties, which belong to the songwriters, not the band), unless you agree otherwise.

So, the case was about whether Morrissey and Marr could show that Joyce had at some point agreed not to be an equal partner. The key occasion when this was claimed to have happened was in October 1983 at Pluto Studios. Morrissey wasn't present, but Marr acted for both of them, telling Andy and Mike that they had to accept a reduction in their stake or he would quit the band.

The first problem with this is that Johnny's ultimatum might be considered coercion, so that it could not result in Andy and Mike agreeing to anything legally binding. But, even if we say that it wasn't coercion, the main problem is that it's extremely unclear that any agreement was reached. Andy and Mike testified that there was no agreement. Johnny testified that there must have been an agreement, because he wouldn't have just let it slide, but couldn't remember what the agreement exactly was. Importantly, no-one, including Johnny, could recall specific percentages being discussed. So, at best, we have a discussion which was inconclusive and ought to have been picked up at a later date.

Later, in 1984, all four Smiths plus Scott Piering went to a solicitors' offices, where Mike and Andy were offered 25% each if they agreed to cease being partners five years after the group split (i.e. after that point they would get nothing). They turned the offer down, and Morrissey said in court that the offer never had his agreement anyway. But the thing about the existence of the offer is that it obviously undermines M&M's claim that the thing had been sorted out at Pluto studios.

Later still, perhaps sometime in 1985, the amounts of money being set aside for Andy and Mike in the Smiths' accounts was reduced to reflect a drop in their share from 25% to 10%. This doesn't seem to be related to any new discussion, but just something Morrissey and Marr had decided to do. Rourke and Joyce are either unaware of this or choose not to make an issue if it until after the Smiths split up.

Nobody puts anything relating to an agreement down in writing at any point.


Thank you for the information, I read the Autobiography, but the legal aspect of the judgment remained unclear to me.

You say "In English law, if you join a band you are assumed to be in an equal partnership with everyone else in the band, an entitled to an equal share of the money it makes (not including songwriting royalties, which belong to the songwriters, not the band), unless you agree otherwise".

I think justice was not served. The equal share of the money didn't reflect the actual value of the members of the band. Joyce and Rourke knew it, and that's because they accepted a minor share when Marr said otherwise he would quit the band. That can't be considered coertion, because neither Marr nor Morrissey could be forced to work under conditions they no longer considered fair.

Each country has its own requirements to consider an agreement valid. English law recognises a wide variety of contracts where there is no written agreement. In this case, we must presume the agreement was valid, because two of the members of the band did perceive 10% of shares without claim during a period of time. If that wouldn't have been so they would have abandoned the band before making claims about it. The formality of writing a contract is necessary only when the law specifically requires it. And the existence of that law was not brought up. I'd like to know if that formal requirement existed at that time, even I doubt it. Otherwise, the verbal agreement plus the execution makes it a valid agreement that can be considered an exception to the assumption to equal partnership. Anyway... a gentleman doesn't need to write an agreement to respect it.

Morrissey and Marr were unfairly affected by the judicial system. But at the end the treachery hurted Joyce more than others, because it made impossible the return of the band which would have put more money in his pockets in a more decent way. He knows it and has to live with it, no matter what he says. It's a shame for the fans...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Again, he AND Johnny had plenty of evidence in their eyes but it wasn't the kind of evidence that the court required which was something written down. So if the judge had asked "Mr Marr, Mr Morrissey, do you have written or recorded evidence" and if both had answered with "No" that should have been the end of the trial. In Germany (where I live and work at court) it would've never went that far. How this whole trial has been blown up like that is beyond me with one party helplessly stating their "evidence" over and over again before a judge who perfectly knew that it wasn't enough. Was it some perverse joy for him to watch that? And the other party stating their "evidence" over and over again although being the one who actually had NOT to prove anything. Why say anything at all?

I don't know a thing about how these things work in Germany, but certainly in England a judge can't just dispose of a case without allowing the defence to present its evidence, even if the judge knows the evidence is not going to cut it. It's considered a basic requirement of justice.

You're right, though, that it should never have gone as far as it did. But, under the English system, the only realistic way to have stopped it would have been for the parties to settle.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
J
Well, Listened.

But if the court ruled in favor of Joyce then shouldn't Andy get the same 'just deserts' of 25 percent also?

Morally speaking, maybe. But, sadly for him, he chose to settle.

And why did Joyce wait all this time. And not quit the band in 84/85 when as he said that he was notified by a secret source that his share is being deducted to 10 percent?

It sounds like he protested about it. And its unclear from what he says that the call was "notification" as such
It seems like the dispute rumbled on for a long time before M&M went ahead and took his money. Maybe that wasn't the occasion. I think the idea that his only options were to accept whatever Morrissey and Marr decided, unilaterally and retrospectively, or quit the band if he didn't like it is a bit unrealistic and unfair. Leaving aside the question of Joyce's status in the partnership, if we imagine M&M as effectively his employers, we should bear in mind that they had been paying him 25% for two years. How fair can it be to suddenly tell him that he was losing more than half his pay, including more than half of what he'd earned since he started?




hear ! hear ! :thumb:

- - - Updated - - -



:thumb:[/QUOTE]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's a complicated mess. I agree on the instrumentals that they should get a better cut of profit from those compared to M's cut.

But if the court ruled in favor of Joyce then shouldn't Andy get the same 'just deserts' of 25 percent also?

Morally, yes - Andy should get the same as whatever Mike is judged to have got. However, as far as I understand it, he settled out of court with Morrissey for a substantially smaller pay out before it got to court. Presumably as part of this pay off, he signed a legal document - so he's now stuck with whatever he agreed to.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest


From what I read in Autobio and I didn't hear/read anywhere else is that Mike and Andy never got 25 percent. This
is the first time hearing of a 'deduction'. Is there proof elsewhere of this besides Joyce's recollections ?

And why is it that M and Marr are regarded as employers if Mike and Andy were 'equal partners'? Wouldn't they also be like M and Marr at the table shaping the plans and decisions of the Smiths ?[/QUOTE]

Johnny Rogan got hold of accounts from 1984, and it seems they show Mike and Andy on 25%.

M&M weren't Mike's employers, they were partners. My point was that suddenly and unilaterally deciding to take money off someone you are working with is not fair regardless of what your legal relationship to them is. If they stopped being happy with him getting 25%, maybe it would have been legal to kick him out and hire a session musician. What M&M did, though, was effectively to say "We feel like you're getting too much money, so we're going to take some of it off you". There's no universe in which that's a fair way to behave, which is why they lost.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think Andy knew deep in his heart what his and Mikes real position were in the band. Which is why he might of settled out of court.

He settled because he had injected a substantial part of his 10% into his arm, and hadn't secured as much post-Smiths work as Mike. He was also getting married and wanted a house.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Again. If you think, If I think. It's complicated and I guess it comes down to whose 'evidence' one is going to believe.
Reading M's Autobiography.. M came into court with evidence and the only thing Joyce came in with as 'evidence' was his constant mumbling that he 'just assumed he was getting 25 percent' .

How could Mike walk into court with any evidence? That was his whole point!
He wasn't given a contract so what else could he have brought into court. As for Morrissey's 'evidence'...... well it clearly wasn't a written contract signed by all four in the presence of a legal eagle.

As for Andy and royalties, I thought he sold his rights a few years back when he was skint?
 
M

Musician

Guest
A side-note to this story. As a musician i also happen to be a songwriter. I am nowhere near to Morrissey/Marr as far as royalties go, but you must believe me songwriting royalties are WAY more than the mechanical royalties/Smiths live fees in the 80s. Royalties from a Johnny Marr gig are more than Mike Joyce would receive after the sale of a 100 "Queen is dead" CDs. Cutting this income is real pitiful from both Morrissey and Marr and yea, even in the glorious 90s, on the height of Morrissey's creativity i thought it was a shitty move.
 
Top Bottom