Mars_Rover
Junior Member
That's what I'm hearing from a source in Blighty. I'm inclined to scoff. Anyone hearing the same?
Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back?
- Thread starter Mars_Rover
- Start date
Mars_Rover
Junior Member
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
It's not a published source, just a loose-lipped fellow in the music biz.
Moz has already signed with a new company though, right? The people who manage Robbie someone (I'm not a fan).
It's not a published source, just a loose-lipped fellow in the music biz.
Moz has already signed with a new company though, right? The people who manage Robbie someone (I'm not a fan).
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
Yes, but as someone pointed out in another thread, that might be on the rocks (or dissolved already).
Yes, but as someone pointed out in another thread, that might be on the rocks (or dissolved already).
vicarinatutugal
can't reMember
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
check the main page.
check the main page.
Mars_Rover
Junior Member
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
There's never any shortage of drama in Steven Patrick's life is there?
There's never any shortage of drama in Steven Patrick's life is there?
oye terence
ampersand after ampersand
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
he really goes after joyce and stongly defends morrissey doesn't he?
especially for a former manager.
weird.
mike joyce is an idiot i agreed before with the original judgementt that he should get his fair share of recording and performance money but he just gets more and more annoying,he reminds me of an ex,they deep down secretly want to be back with you and the only way they think they can do it is just keep on on attacking and saying shit until you finally break down and talk to them.
he really goes after joyce and stongly defends morrissey doesn't he?
especially for a former manager.
weird.
mike joyce is an idiot i agreed before with the original judgementt that he should get his fair share of recording and performance money but he just gets more and more annoying,he reminds me of an ex,they deep down secretly want to be back with you and the only way they think they can do it is just keep on on attacking and saying shit until you finally break down and talk to them.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
This back and forth is so tiresome.
On Joyce's side, no one ever thought he took "ALL" the Smiths' royalties, just Morrissey's. Hinting at a Morrissey plot to defraud him-- and, he implies, the other members-- is disingenuous to say the least.
On Merck's side, who is he trying to kid with the pious rant about Van Gogh's "greedy easel"? To my knowledge, Mike Joyce has never made an artistic claim to the money earned by Smiths records, only a moral one-- that is to say, whatever money he is trying to seize now is money he was awarded in the court case where he claimed performance, not songwriting royalties. He didn't argue that he was a creator, merely a hired hand who wasn't paid his due. Whether or not Joyce lied or exaggerated his claim, it clouds the issue to paint Joyce as a thieving scoundrel the way Merck did.
There really isn't straight talk from any side at this point. The ugliness just goes on and on and on. I wish Morrissey would pay Joyce and end the whole squabble, but that'll never happen. Short of that, how about silence?
This back and forth is so tiresome.
On Joyce's side, no one ever thought he took "ALL" the Smiths' royalties, just Morrissey's. Hinting at a Morrissey plot to defraud him-- and, he implies, the other members-- is disingenuous to say the least.
On Merck's side, who is he trying to kid with the pious rant about Van Gogh's "greedy easel"? To my knowledge, Mike Joyce has never made an artistic claim to the money earned by Smiths records, only a moral one-- that is to say, whatever money he is trying to seize now is money he was awarded in the court case where he claimed performance, not songwriting royalties. He didn't argue that he was a creator, merely a hired hand who wasn't paid his due. Whether or not Joyce lied or exaggerated his claim, it clouds the issue to paint Joyce as a thieving scoundrel the way Merck did.
There really isn't straight talk from any side at this point. The ugliness just goes on and on and on. I wish Morrissey would pay Joyce and end the whole squabble, but that'll never happen. Short of that, how about silence?
Last edited:
Vauxhall95
I Know It's Over...
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
I'm telling you, there is something very amiss in the Morrissey camp these days. Since when is Morrissey into "forgiveness" and "second chances?" He's booking Kristeen as his opening act again and now perhaps re-hiring Merck?! I'm speechless! I thought once his fax machine had transmitted your pink slip, that was that. What's next, a re-union with Stephen Street?
I'm telling you, there is something very amiss in the Morrissey camp these days. Since when is Morrissey into "forgiveness" and "second chances?" He's booking Kristeen as his opening act again and now perhaps re-hiring Merck?! I'm speechless! I thought once his fax machine had transmitted your pink slip, that was that. What's next, a re-union with Stephen Street?
nowherefast944
Banned
D
Dave
Guest
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
But Morrissey did pay him once, and he implies that he would have paid the second portion, but not more than twice the amount that Marr paid. I don't think Morrissey should pay. At one time he should have, but it's gone on too long now to pay. It would be embarrassing and would appear as an admission of ... not guilt, but an acknowledgment that the lawsuit had some validity. Now I think that Morrissey feels that he never owed Joyce another dime and that the original contract was perfectly reasonable, and that makes sense to me. However, he did agree once to pay, and then he took the ill-advised step of not appearing or being represented for the second dip into his pocket.
Once that happened, and Morrissey apparently tried to act like if he ignored it, that it would go away, I'd say that the fate was sealed on all of this. There is no way that Morrissey will ever agree to put money in Joyce's hands and no reason he should, except to end this, and he will survive and do very well for the rest of his life whether Joyce tries to get his nickel or not.
Sharon Osbourne had the right idea. When she had problems with two early band member's of Ozzy's wanting some money, they got the current band members and RERECORDED the parts. Of "classic" recordings! Problem solved. Morrissey ought to get Sharon round and get this sorted out.
Instead of trying to hire a new drummer for The Smiths old records, they should send the tracks to Kanye, RZA, and Dr Dre, and see what they come up with.
seriously, I hope Morrissey never gives Joyce another cent. I enjoy seeing someone more bitter than I am, publicly and unashamedly.
But Morrissey did pay him once, and he implies that he would have paid the second portion, but not more than twice the amount that Marr paid. I don't think Morrissey should pay. At one time he should have, but it's gone on too long now to pay. It would be embarrassing and would appear as an admission of ... not guilt, but an acknowledgment that the lawsuit had some validity. Now I think that Morrissey feels that he never owed Joyce another dime and that the original contract was perfectly reasonable, and that makes sense to me. However, he did agree once to pay, and then he took the ill-advised step of not appearing or being represented for the second dip into his pocket.
Once that happened, and Morrissey apparently tried to act like if he ignored it, that it would go away, I'd say that the fate was sealed on all of this. There is no way that Morrissey will ever agree to put money in Joyce's hands and no reason he should, except to end this, and he will survive and do very well for the rest of his life whether Joyce tries to get his nickel or not.
Sharon Osbourne had the right idea. When she had problems with two early band member's of Ozzy's wanting some money, they got the current band members and RERECORDED the parts. Of "classic" recordings! Problem solved. Morrissey ought to get Sharon round and get this sorted out.
Instead of trying to hire a new drummer for The Smiths old records, they should send the tracks to Kanye, RZA, and Dr Dre, and see what they come up with.
seriously, I hope Morrissey never gives Joyce another cent. I enjoy seeing someone more bitter than I am, publicly and unashamedly.
King Leer
Leering since '97
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
The problem is Joyce never deserved 25% of the performance royalties in the first place. Audiences paid to see the band The Smiths, but if Rourke (whom I do think has genuine talent) or Joyce were not on stage, the crowd would've been no smaller or less devoted whatsoever. Morrissey and Marr alone created the The Smiths, musically and beyond (artwork and the band's public image). Joyce and Rourke helped execute that in a live setting very well, but it doesn't warrant 1/4.
That doesn't mean Joyce isn't legally entitled to go after what the court ruled he's entitled to, but he's a bizarre man that's made a (failing) career out of it.
Is he more than an easel? Yes. He's the guy in the art supply shop who recommended which easel to buy.
The problem is Joyce never deserved 25% of the performance royalties in the first place. Audiences paid to see the band The Smiths, but if Rourke (whom I do think has genuine talent) or Joyce were not on stage, the crowd would've been no smaller or less devoted whatsoever. Morrissey and Marr alone created the The Smiths, musically and beyond (artwork and the band's public image). Joyce and Rourke helped execute that in a live setting very well, but it doesn't warrant 1/4.
That doesn't mean Joyce isn't legally entitled to go after what the court ruled he's entitled to, but he's a bizarre man that's made a (failing) career out of it.
Is he more than an easel? Yes. He's the guy in the art supply shop who recommended which easel to buy.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
If I borrow $1000 on my credit card but miss some payments or continuously pay less than I'm supposed to, and carry on with hostility toward my credit card company, the likelihood is that I'm going to end up paying back far more than the $1000 I originally owed. If I were particularly energetic and patient, I could probably string it out so that I'd owe my credit card company two or three times the original amount I borrowed. Can I then just say, "Sorry guys, I only borrowed $1000 to begin with and I've paid the outrageous sum of $1500-- I'm not paying the other $1500"?
Of course not. On the moral plane the bank might be screwing me over, but the fact is, if you get tangled up in borrowing money-- or in paying judgments to plaintiffs in court-- the least painful way out is to pay what you owe and move on. I don't say that's necessarily the just result in all cases, but that's the bare truth of the property/money/damages/etc system. Once these cases leave the court room and enter the realm of collections, there's no longer any room for questions of what is right and wrong. It would be like knowingly missing your car payments and then angrily arguing with the repo man as your Benz is hauled away.
Johnny knew all that. So he paid.
Morrissey didn't. Why not? Why couldn't he see it coming? As Jukebox has asked a couple of times, where was his legal counsel?
And let me pose a question to you. Who is enjoying the greater satisfaction right now? Marr, who can sit back and relax, knowing Joyce will never again buy a single tin of beans using his money? Or Morrissey, who had the initial satisfaction of stiffing Joyce but is now embroiled in a decade-long dispute that, among other things, made touring the UK problematic and has even menaced even his family? If they'd both paid Joyce way back when he might really be on a sidewalk with a tin cup. Instead he's still got one more meal ticket.
I feel bad for Morrissey but he was either too stubborn or he got really bad legal advice. The legal system probably did screw him over but that was an unfortunate situation that was pushed on him. I admire him for fighting the good fight, but at a certain point he ought to have been told that "winning" just meant getting screwed as little as possible by the courts.
But Morrissey did pay him once, and he implies that he would have paid the second portion, but not more than twice the amount that Marr paid. I don't think Morrissey should pay. At one time he should have, but it's gone on too long now to pay. It would be embarrassing and would appear as an admission of ... not guilt, but an acknowledgment that the lawsuit had some validity. Now I think that Morrissey feels that he never owed Joyce another dime and that the original contract was perfectly reasonable, and that makes sense to me. However, he did agree once to pay, and then he took the ill-advised step of not appearing or being represented for the second dip into his pocket.
Once that happened, and Morrissey apparently tried to act like if he ignored it, that it would go away, I'd say that the fate was sealed on all of this. There is no way that Morrissey will ever agree to put money in Joyce's hands and no reason he should, except to end this, and he will survive and do very well for the rest of his life whether Joyce tries to get his nickel or not.
Sharon Osbourne had the right idea. When she had problems with two early band member's of Ozzy's wanting some money, they got the current band members and RERECORDED the parts. Of "classic" recordings! Problem solved. Morrissey ought to get Sharon round and get this sorted out.
Instead of trying to hire a new drummer for The Smiths old records, they should send the tracks to Kanye, RZA, and Dr Dre, and see what they come up with.
seriously, I hope Morrissey never gives Joyce another cent. I enjoy seeing someone more bitter than I am, publicly and unashamedly.
If I borrow $1000 on my credit card but miss some payments or continuously pay less than I'm supposed to, and carry on with hostility toward my credit card company, the likelihood is that I'm going to end up paying back far more than the $1000 I originally owed. If I were particularly energetic and patient, I could probably string it out so that I'd owe my credit card company two or three times the original amount I borrowed. Can I then just say, "Sorry guys, I only borrowed $1000 to begin with and I've paid the outrageous sum of $1500-- I'm not paying the other $1500"?
Of course not. On the moral plane the bank might be screwing me over, but the fact is, if you get tangled up in borrowing money-- or in paying judgments to plaintiffs in court-- the least painful way out is to pay what you owe and move on. I don't say that's necessarily the just result in all cases, but that's the bare truth of the property/money/damages/etc system. Once these cases leave the court room and enter the realm of collections, there's no longer any room for questions of what is right and wrong. It would be like knowingly missing your car payments and then angrily arguing with the repo man as your Benz is hauled away.
Johnny knew all that. So he paid.
Morrissey didn't. Why not? Why couldn't he see it coming? As Jukebox has asked a couple of times, where was his legal counsel?
And let me pose a question to you. Who is enjoying the greater satisfaction right now? Marr, who can sit back and relax, knowing Joyce will never again buy a single tin of beans using his money? Or Morrissey, who had the initial satisfaction of stiffing Joyce but is now embroiled in a decade-long dispute that, among other things, made touring the UK problematic and has even menaced even his family? If they'd both paid Joyce way back when he might really be on a sidewalk with a tin cup. Instead he's still got one more meal ticket.
I feel bad for Morrissey but he was either too stubborn or he got really bad legal advice. The legal system probably did screw him over but that was an unfortunate situation that was pushed on him. I admire him for fighting the good fight, but at a certain point he ought to have been told that "winning" just meant getting screwed as little as possible by the courts.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
It doesn't matter that Joyce may have been replaceable-- in my view he wasn't, but never mind-- if you hire someone to do a job and don't pay him, that's that. John Cleese could've been behind the drums. The issue remains the same. Even though Joyce probably thinks he did contribute artistically to The Smiths (a claim I'd back), his primary contention was that he had a moral claim to be paid as an "employee" of a "business enterprise". Everyone laughs because Morrissey called him a lawnmower part but they fail to see that the significant thrust of Joyce's case was that he was a lawnmower part, just a lawnmower part that was still owed 'X' pounds.
Most of us are working stiffs and I don't understand why there isn't more sympathy for this point of view. "But anyone could've worked that french fry machine!" is not an excuse I'd accept from my boss on payday.
It doesn't matter that Joyce may have been replaceable-- in my view he wasn't, but never mind-- if you hire someone to do a job and don't pay him, that's that. John Cleese could've been behind the drums. The issue remains the same. Even though Joyce probably thinks he did contribute artistically to The Smiths (a claim I'd back), his primary contention was that he had a moral claim to be paid as an "employee" of a "business enterprise". Everyone laughs because Morrissey called him a lawnmower part but they fail to see that the significant thrust of Joyce's case was that he was a lawnmower part, just a lawnmower part that was still owed 'X' pounds.
Most of us are working stiffs and I don't understand why there isn't more sympathy for this point of view. "But anyone could've worked that french fry machine!" is not an excuse I'd accept from my boss on payday.
Last edited:
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
Legally speaking? Never. It never becomes extortion. You and I can call it that, and we can loathe Joyce as an extortionist if we see it that way, we can sing along with Morrissey that it's "legalized theft", but the fact is, once the judge orders the defendant to pay, the legal system can "extort" as much as it pleases. I'm sure that's as true in England as it is in the United States. I wouldn't be surprised if these days Joyce was claiming more damages because the time he's spent trying to collect has hurt his career-- and he could probably get away with it.
All of which could have been foreseen.
I respect Morrissey for fighting the original judgment, and maybe an appeal was in order, but he needed to cut his losses. Back in 1995 or whenever it was, I'd prefer to have heard, from Morrissey or his minders, "We don't accept the judgment and we aren't paying. The bills can stack up to the billions for all we care. We accept the consequences. The end". Instead we get all this dumb posturing-- "I praise the day that brings you pain" and "I hope somebody takes him out" and all the rest.
Legally speaking? Never. It never becomes extortion. You and I can call it that, and we can loathe Joyce as an extortionist if we see it that way, we can sing along with Morrissey that it's "legalized theft", but the fact is, once the judge orders the defendant to pay, the legal system can "extort" as much as it pleases. I'm sure that's as true in England as it is in the United States. I wouldn't be surprised if these days Joyce was claiming more damages because the time he's spent trying to collect has hurt his career-- and he could probably get away with it.
All of which could have been foreseen.
I respect Morrissey for fighting the original judgment, and maybe an appeal was in order, but he needed to cut his losses. Back in 1995 or whenever it was, I'd prefer to have heard, from Morrissey or his minders, "We don't accept the judgment and we aren't paying. The bills can stack up to the billions for all we care. We accept the consequences. The end". Instead we get all this dumb posturing-- "I praise the day that brings you pain" and "I hope somebody takes him out" and all the rest.
Last edited:
King Leer
Leering since '97
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
Let me put it another way -- someone who is not one of the song writing partners or creative forces behind a band's image does not deserve 25% of performance royalties, even if they are the greatest player in the world. It's a stupid default, but they definitely should've written something on a chip shop napkin in the least and all this would've been avoided.
I agree with your part about a simple statement from the Morrissey camp rather than silly songs like Sorrow... But the spoken word style threw me for a loop when I first heard it though, which was cool!
Morrissey never called Joyce and Rourke lawnmower parts, he just didn't disagree when the judge accused of him of regarding them that way.
Let me put it another way -- someone who is not one of the song writing partners or creative forces behind a band's image does not deserve 25% of performance royalties, even if they are the greatest player in the world. It's a stupid default, but they definitely should've written something on a chip shop napkin in the least and all this would've been avoided.
I agree with your part about a simple statement from the Morrissey camp rather than silly songs like Sorrow... But the spoken word style threw me for a loop when I first heard it though, which was cool!
Morrissey never called Joyce and Rourke lawnmower parts, he just didn't disagree when the judge accused of him of regarding them that way.
D
Dave
Guest
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
time out. you're acting like this whole thing is logical.
time out. you're acting like this whole thing is logical.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Re: Truth or rumour: Moz hires Merck back
Well, point taken about the credit card analogy. It isn't perfect. But one thing you're not taking into account with credit cards is that the terms can change suddenly, as most people who have fallen afoul of banks can attest. If you don't keep up your payments, APRs can fluctuate suddenly, and rarely in your favor. The point being, once you leave the straight and narrow, they've got you. The contract works against you and anything goes. After the judgment came down and they were ordered to pay up, Morrissey left the straight and narrow. Marr didn't.
I should clarify that I don't approve of Joyce carrying on like a bloodsucker. The thing is, I don't know for sure that he is. If he has legal backing to go after the money, I wouldn't assume that he's making up stories to get more money. All of these actions he's taking are within the law. Yes, he might be exploiting the law unfairly-- clearly he's taking it personally-- but I don't know enough to say for sure that he's completely evil for not giving up and backing off. I'm also sympathetic on a certain level because his position, professionally speaking, is a lot like an "average Joe's" would be; I honestly believe that if the names were removed from this story many of us would back Joyce's actions.
I guess I keep coming back to this argument because I'm ticked off that once again I'm being asked (first by Mike and then Merck) to sympathize with either party. This is like being trapped between warring parents and I'm exhausted by it. Joyce might be wrong to pursue the money the way he is but-- whoever's to blame-- it should never have gotten to this point in the first place. Leave us out of it. We're enjoying Morrissey's peak as a singer, on the verge of what will be the third and (I'm guessing) best of his post-millennium albums, and here we are debating the court case again-- and all because a bill went unpaid.
Well, point taken about the credit card analogy. It isn't perfect. But one thing you're not taking into account with credit cards is that the terms can change suddenly, as most people who have fallen afoul of banks can attest. If you don't keep up your payments, APRs can fluctuate suddenly, and rarely in your favor. The point being, once you leave the straight and narrow, they've got you. The contract works against you and anything goes. After the judgment came down and they were ordered to pay up, Morrissey left the straight and narrow. Marr didn't.
I should clarify that I don't approve of Joyce carrying on like a bloodsucker. The thing is, I don't know for sure that he is. If he has legal backing to go after the money, I wouldn't assume that he's making up stories to get more money. All of these actions he's taking are within the law. Yes, he might be exploiting the law unfairly-- clearly he's taking it personally-- but I don't know enough to say for sure that he's completely evil for not giving up and backing off. I'm also sympathetic on a certain level because his position, professionally speaking, is a lot like an "average Joe's" would be; I honestly believe that if the names were removed from this story many of us would back Joyce's actions.
I guess I keep coming back to this argument because I'm ticked off that once again I'm being asked (first by Mike and then Merck) to sympathize with either party. This is like being trapped between warring parents and I'm exhausted by it. Joyce might be wrong to pursue the money the way he is but-- whoever's to blame-- it should never have gotten to this point in the first place. Leave us out of it. We're enjoying Morrissey's peak as a singer, on the verge of what will be the third and (I'm guessing) best of his post-millennium albums, and here we are debating the court case again-- and all because a bill went unpaid.
Last edited:
