They're obviously skint because they hate each other.
?55 a ticket? 'i don't have to sell my soul'. Yeah right:
forgot where they came from.
The Stone Roses are back..
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The Stone Roses are back..
Here is a clip of the Roses in Blackpool in 1989. This is a great song. I especially like the dood on stage with them who does the crazy dance - this involves poking your head forwards and doing odd things with your hands. After the Roses broke up, the most prominent members were heard from for years but the less prominent members weren't. Apparently the drummer Reni, the dood with the bucket hat, disappeared off the radar for many years. So if that's the case, then the cat with the crazy hands on stage in this clip is particularly likely to have disappeared into ordinary-ness. He probably spent the next 20 years working in IKEA. lol. Anyway, I really like this song. I heard this evening that the NME regarded the Roses first album as the best album ever released in music.
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
The Smiths next?
People are bound to be asking this question, especially as every major British band of the 1980s and 1990s have reformed in the last few years - except them.
I think The Smiths reforming is the least likely of all, simply because certain members of the band don't just hate each other, they absolutely despise each other. Morrissey and Johnny Marr haven't spoken much in the last 20 years as far as I know, but they were both sued by the other two, Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce, some years back. As I recall both were offered out-of-Court settlements. Andy Rourke took that, about ?80,000, but Mike Joyce went all the way with the Court case and got ?1 million from Morrissey and Johnny Marr.
I heard that Andy Rourke went bankrupt a year or two later, and Mike Joyce has been laughing ever since. In a documentary about himself a couple of years ago, Morrissey referred to Mike Joyce getting the ?1million. He said "it was an appalling miscarriage of justice, and I wish Joyce all the very worst for the rest of his life!". He said it with real passion, and just referred to his former bandmate by his surname.
So it seem unlikely The Smiths will ever reform, although if Spandau Ballet did (and three of them sued bandmate Gary Kemp a few years back) and if The Stone Roses can reform too (after all the things they've said about each other over the years) then there is a chance The Smiths could too. Anything is possible, as these very unlikely reformations prove, but I am near as damn it certain we will never see The Smiths playing together again.
I think The Smiths reforming is the least likely of all, simply because certain members of the band don't just hate each other, they absolutely despise each other. Morrissey and Johnny Marr haven't spoken much in the last 20 years as far as I know, but they were both sued by the other two, Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce, some years back. As I recall both were offered out-of-Court settlements. Andy Rourke took that, about ?80,000, but Mike Joyce went all the way with the Court case and got ?1 million from Morrissey and Johnny Marr.
I heard that Andy Rourke went bankrupt a year or two later, and Mike Joyce has been laughing ever since. In a documentary about himself a couple of years ago, Morrissey referred to Mike Joyce getting the ?1million. He said "it was an appalling miscarriage of justice, and I wish Joyce all the very worst for the rest of his life!". He said it with real passion, and just referred to his former bandmate by his surname.
So it seem unlikely The Smiths will ever reform, although if Spandau Ballet did (and three of them sued bandmate Gary Kemp a few years back) and if The Stone Roses can reform too (after all the things they've said about each other over the years) then there is a chance The Smiths could too. Anything is possible, as these very unlikely reformations prove, but I am near as damn it certain we will never see The Smiths playing together again.
Re: The Smiths next?
As a huge Smiths fan, and someone who thinks the Smiths are "The Greatest Band of All Time" a reformation would be wonderful for me. But i can state with a figure of 99.99% that a reformation, a tour, hell even just a one of performance will never happen! I have left the 0.001% because you never know. But as i said i don't see it. And Max hit the nail on the head. Morrissey absolutely despises Mike Joyce & will never ever have anything to do with this man. What is not as commonly known is Johnny Marr can't stand Mike Joyce either. And the aforementioned court case is the root of it. From that court case Johnny & Andy Rourke who were best friends growing up, also stopped speaking to one another. Though thankfully their relationship has since mended. Though Rourke's relationship with Joyce has now cooled because of his patched relationship with Marr.
Its really difficult to put into words Morrissey's disgust about Joyce. But there are numerous examples & he still talks about & writes about the injustice of that court case in his song lyrics to this day. I think hell will freeze over before Morrissey would ever even be in the same room as Michael Joyce. But anyway Morrissey has released 10 albums since the demise of The Smiths, all which have sold better than The Smiths back catalogue. He has a hugely loyal fanbase, bordering on "hysteria" for most. He still has lucrative tours & he isn't in any financial difficulties, so i don't see a re-formation on the cards. Or a need for one. Also Morrissey had to leave the country and has never returned because of the Joyce court case as both he & Johnny Marr were ordered to pay Joyce ?1.5 million each. Marr paid his ?1.5 million, but to this day Morrissey still hasn't. So if he moves back his assets will be froze by a court order from Joyce. Also his touring is limited in this country as if he tours for so long, Joyce can again try and freeze his tour revenues. This is another peeve of Morrissey, whom i believe will never let up his hatred for Michael Joyce.
Here is a link to Morrissey's own statement regarding the court case, its well worth a read for those of you interested or those who have no idea what went on. (Sorry if its not clickable, i don't know how to, so i'll plead ignorance!).
http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_051130_01
Its really difficult to put into words Morrissey's disgust about Joyce. But there are numerous examples & he still talks about & writes about the injustice of that court case in his song lyrics to this day. I think hell will freeze over before Morrissey would ever even be in the same room as Michael Joyce. But anyway Morrissey has released 10 albums since the demise of The Smiths, all which have sold better than The Smiths back catalogue. He has a hugely loyal fanbase, bordering on "hysteria" for most. He still has lucrative tours & he isn't in any financial difficulties, so i don't see a re-formation on the cards. Or a need for one. Also Morrissey had to leave the country and has never returned because of the Joyce court case as both he & Johnny Marr were ordered to pay Joyce ?1.5 million each. Marr paid his ?1.5 million, but to this day Morrissey still hasn't. So if he moves back his assets will be froze by a court order from Joyce. Also his touring is limited in this country as if he tours for so long, Joyce can again try and freeze his tour revenues. This is another peeve of Morrissey, whom i believe will never let up his hatred for Michael Joyce.
Here is a link to Morrissey's own statement regarding the court case, its well worth a read for those of you interested or those who have no idea what went on. (Sorry if its not clickable, i don't know how to, so i'll plead ignorance!).
http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_051130_01
Re: The Smiths next? (Full Statement)
The link i put up wasn't clickable, so i'll just paste the statement
Statement from Morrissey
30 November 2005
Statement from Morrissey:
The latest statements from M Joyce on a BBC 6 radio interview as faithfully reported on the MorrisseySoLow site have been brought to my attention and I feel I should make this reply as an attempt to put the matter straight.
1. From '83 to '87 M Joyce happily and willingly received 10% of Smiths recording royalties.
2. In '89, as is documented, Joyce sued Morrissey & Marr for 25% of Smiths recording royalties.
3. In '96, Joyce took his claim to court - and on the basis of the 1890 Partnership Act the judge awarded Joyce 25%.
4. In '97, M Joyce was paid 215 thousand pounds from me, and 215 thousand pounds from Johnny Marr.
5. In '99, Joyce appeared on British television and made the statement: "There was no contract saying we were gonna get 25%."
6. In 2001, as a final payment of back royalties, Johnny Marr paid Joyce 260 thousand pounds, plus "costs." At this time I was in the US and was not served with court proceedings, so Joyce obtained a Default Judgment. He then put forward a claim from me for 688 thousand pounds - well above and beyond the amount Johnny Marr was ordered to pay. In my absence, the figure was not contested.
7. Since 2001, and because of the Default Judgment against me, Joyce has taken out Third Party Orders against the following societies: my personal bank account in England, Smiths royalties from Warner Music, my personal PRS royalties, my personal PPL royalties, and he has attempted to seize UK concert fees from venue to venue. This money, to date, totals 700 thousand pounds. This figure is in addition to the figures mentioned above.
8. By grabbing the full total of Smiths royalties from Warner Music (and this means that when the public buy a Smiths CD in the UK, the royalties go to Joyce, and have done so since 2001) Joyce has knowingly deprived Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and has deprived producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements. Joyce did not declare to the courts that others - namely, the above - were also beneficiaries to the Warner Music royalties.
9. In 2001, Joyce attempted to seize both my mother's house and my sister's house by claiming that I had taken my assets out of the UK; he made this claim even though he had direct access to all of the above ? which are in the UK. Joyce eventually dropped both of these claims due to lack of evidence, and he refused to pay the 150 thousand pounds that it had cost me to defend his groundless claims. Joyce also dropped his claim as co-composer with Johnny M on Smiths compositions, and Joyce also dropped his claim for Producer royalties on Smiths recordings, and Joyce also dropped his claim for a share of Artwork payments given to me for providing Smiths record sleeves. There were, in fact, no payments to me for Smiths Artwork. Joyce made a further claim for 25% of all Smiths t-shirts sold during the '83 to '87 period, even though there was no evidence that any royalty for t-shirts had been received by either myself or Johnny Marr.
10. In legal fees alone, Joyce has cost me 600 thousand pounds - this is quite apart from any payments made to him, and is quite apart from any money seized by him. In total, Joyce has cost me 1 million, 515 thousand pounds. This is an approximate figure - it could even be higher.
11. The Joyce action is continuous. Because of his Default Judgment he continues to take my royalties, and the royalties of others mentioned above, from Warner Music - consequently I have not received record royalties since 2001.
12. Since 2001, the money claimed by Joyce is charged, to me, at 100 pounds a day in interest.
13. During the Smiths' lifetime, when Joyce willingly took a 10% royalty, he did not contribute towards any expenses of any kind, did not take on any Partnership duties or responsibilities, and he received his 10% as gross earnings.
The point I wish to make is this: Joyce is not poor, unless, living as he does in the Cheshire green-belt, he lives beyond his means. Somehow, he appears to believe that he should have equal financial status to both myself and to Johnny Marr, even though Joyce has done dramatically less than Johnny and I to attain the positions we now have.
Joyce is not poor because of one reason - me. His career now is the fictitious position of an unpaid ex-member of the Smiths. He has also pursued all of his claims on Legal Aid.
I don't make this statement in search of sympathy from anyone, but I wish that the people at MorrisseySoLow who support Joyce would at least get their facts right before they say anything. Even with his 10% share, Joyce was wealthy. Now, he is extremely wealthy.
What more does he want?
I have fought the Joyce action as much as I could over the years, but the simple truth is that, under British law, the word of a judge will not be overturned. In the absence of any evidence from the 1980s, the judge in this case relied upon the Partnership Act of 1890 to help Joyce win his claim. Joyce has exploited the judge's final verdict in order to get as much as he can from me, from Johnny Marr, and also from Andy Rourke.
Finally, Joyce does not have the legal right to sell unreleased Smiths material - it belongs to Warner Music. Joyce did not pay for the recording time under which any demo material was recorded. Furthermore, Joyce cannot sell any unreleased work by Johnny Marr or Andy Rourke without, at very least, their permission.
Thanks for reading this,
MORRISSEY.
Statement from Morrissey
30 November 2005
Statement from Morrissey:
The latest statements from M Joyce on a BBC 6 radio interview as faithfully reported on the MorrisseySoLow site have been brought to my attention and I feel I should make this reply as an attempt to put the matter straight.
1. From '83 to '87 M Joyce happily and willingly received 10% of Smiths recording royalties.
2. In '89, as is documented, Joyce sued Morrissey & Marr for 25% of Smiths recording royalties.
3. In '96, Joyce took his claim to court - and on the basis of the 1890 Partnership Act the judge awarded Joyce 25%.
4. In '97, M Joyce was paid 215 thousand pounds from me, and 215 thousand pounds from Johnny Marr.
5. In '99, Joyce appeared on British television and made the statement: "There was no contract saying we were gonna get 25%."
6. In 2001, as a final payment of back royalties, Johnny Marr paid Joyce 260 thousand pounds, plus "costs." At this time I was in the US and was not served with court proceedings, so Joyce obtained a Default Judgment. He then put forward a claim from me for 688 thousand pounds - well above and beyond the amount Johnny Marr was ordered to pay. In my absence, the figure was not contested.
7. Since 2001, and because of the Default Judgment against me, Joyce has taken out Third Party Orders against the following societies: my personal bank account in England, Smiths royalties from Warner Music, my personal PRS royalties, my personal PPL royalties, and he has attempted to seize UK concert fees from venue to venue. This money, to date, totals 700 thousand pounds. This figure is in addition to the figures mentioned above.
8. By grabbing the full total of Smiths royalties from Warner Music (and this means that when the public buy a Smiths CD in the UK, the royalties go to Joyce, and have done so since 2001) Joyce has knowingly deprived Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and has deprived producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements. Joyce did not declare to the courts that others - namely, the above - were also beneficiaries to the Warner Music royalties.
9. In 2001, Joyce attempted to seize both my mother's house and my sister's house by claiming that I had taken my assets out of the UK; he made this claim even though he had direct access to all of the above ? which are in the UK. Joyce eventually dropped both of these claims due to lack of evidence, and he refused to pay the 150 thousand pounds that it had cost me to defend his groundless claims. Joyce also dropped his claim as co-composer with Johnny M on Smiths compositions, and Joyce also dropped his claim for Producer royalties on Smiths recordings, and Joyce also dropped his claim for a share of Artwork payments given to me for providing Smiths record sleeves. There were, in fact, no payments to me for Smiths Artwork. Joyce made a further claim for 25% of all Smiths t-shirts sold during the '83 to '87 period, even though there was no evidence that any royalty for t-shirts had been received by either myself or Johnny Marr.
10. In legal fees alone, Joyce has cost me 600 thousand pounds - this is quite apart from any payments made to him, and is quite apart from any money seized by him. In total, Joyce has cost me 1 million, 515 thousand pounds. This is an approximate figure - it could even be higher.
11. The Joyce action is continuous. Because of his Default Judgment he continues to take my royalties, and the royalties of others mentioned above, from Warner Music - consequently I have not received record royalties since 2001.
12. Since 2001, the money claimed by Joyce is charged, to me, at 100 pounds a day in interest.
13. During the Smiths' lifetime, when Joyce willingly took a 10% royalty, he did not contribute towards any expenses of any kind, did not take on any Partnership duties or responsibilities, and he received his 10% as gross earnings.
The point I wish to make is this: Joyce is not poor, unless, living as he does in the Cheshire green-belt, he lives beyond his means. Somehow, he appears to believe that he should have equal financial status to both myself and to Johnny Marr, even though Joyce has done dramatically less than Johnny and I to attain the positions we now have.
Joyce is not poor because of one reason - me. His career now is the fictitious position of an unpaid ex-member of the Smiths. He has also pursued all of his claims on Legal Aid.
I don't make this statement in search of sympathy from anyone, but I wish that the people at MorrisseySoLow who support Joyce would at least get their facts right before they say anything. Even with his 10% share, Joyce was wealthy. Now, he is extremely wealthy.
What more does he want?
I have fought the Joyce action as much as I could over the years, but the simple truth is that, under British law, the word of a judge will not be overturned. In the absence of any evidence from the 1980s, the judge in this case relied upon the Partnership Act of 1890 to help Joyce win his claim. Joyce has exploited the judge's final verdict in order to get as much as he can from me, from Johnny Marr, and also from Andy Rourke.
Finally, Joyce does not have the legal right to sell unreleased Smiths material - it belongs to Warner Music. Joyce did not pay for the recording time under which any demo material was recorded. Furthermore, Joyce cannot sell any unreleased work by Johnny Marr or Andy Rourke without, at very least, their permission.
Thanks for reading this,
MORRISSEY.
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Meatus...
That is very intersting to read. I do wonder how Mike Joyce was able to pursue his claims with Legal Aid when, as Morrissey said, Joyce lives in affluent Cheshire and is far from poor. Morrissey doesn't seem to have any money worries AT ALL though if the following, which I've copied and pasted from Wikipedia, is true. These are amongst the highest monies offered to anyone in music history EVER for them to tour, and Morrissey said 'no':
STARTS
In August 2007, the NME reported that Morrissey had turned down a near ?40 million offer to reunite with Marr for a 50-date world tour in 2008 and 2009. The condition would only be that Morrissey would have to play the dates with Marr, meaning the deal could have gone ahead without Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke. According to an anonymous press release on true-to-you.net, an unofficial fan site tacitly supported by Morrissey, Morrissey was approached in summer 2007 by a "consortium of promoters" with a $75 million offer to tour during the next two years. The offer required Morrissey to make a minimum of fifty worldwide performances with Johnny Marr, under the Smiths' name. true-to-you.net reported that the offer had been refused. Other reports say that the whole $75 million tour was a hoax.
ENDS
Even if the $75m thing is a hoax, the ?40m offer (about $60m) seems true. Here is something that is also quite interesting, here Morrissey touches upon what he said in the statement, about how Mike Joyce now gets all the royalties from everything. I found this on YouTube, a clip of Morrissey telling his fans NOT to buy Smiths CD's:
[by the way, to make a link clickable you put arrow signs at either end, then it becomes clickable]
STARTS
In August 2007, the NME reported that Morrissey had turned down a near ?40 million offer to reunite with Marr for a 50-date world tour in 2008 and 2009. The condition would only be that Morrissey would have to play the dates with Marr, meaning the deal could have gone ahead without Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke. According to an anonymous press release on true-to-you.net, an unofficial fan site tacitly supported by Morrissey, Morrissey was approached in summer 2007 by a "consortium of promoters" with a $75 million offer to tour during the next two years. The offer required Morrissey to make a minimum of fifty worldwide performances with Johnny Marr, under the Smiths' name. true-to-you.net reported that the offer had been refused. Other reports say that the whole $75 million tour was a hoax.
ENDS
Even if the $75m thing is a hoax, the ?40m offer (about $60m) seems true. Here is something that is also quite interesting, here Morrissey touches upon what he said in the statement, about how Mike Joyce now gets all the royalties from everything. I found this on YouTube, a clip of Morrissey telling his fans NOT to buy Smiths CD's:
[by the way, to make a link clickable you put arrow signs at either end, then it becomes clickable]
Re: Meatus...
Great stuff Max, cheers for that.
They have been offered astronomical amounts to tour, i know they were offered ?15 million to do the Coachella Festival, which was confirmed by all 4 members & only Joyce showed an interest in it. I believe that deal with Morrissey & Johnny Marr plying together is also true, but again Morrissey doesn't seem at all interested.
It is also true about Morrissey on youtube, i listened to that clip, he's also posted many times on his website about not buying Smiths albums because Joyce gets all the royalties. For years Smiths fans have been crying out for re-masters of The Smiths albums as the WEA CD's have atrocious sound quality & have been bastardised with additional tracks. Also the covers have been cropped & changed, but Morrissey has constantly blocked this, until last year when WEA/Rhino & Johnny Marr got together to remaster them, and release them in the original covers which has just been released. And again this week Morrissey has said it has nothing to do with him, he wasn't asked about it or involved in it in any way & urged fan's to not buy it!
They have been offered astronomical amounts to tour, i know they were offered ?15 million to do the Coachella Festival, which was confirmed by all 4 members & only Joyce showed an interest in it. I believe that deal with Morrissey & Johnny Marr plying together is also true, but again Morrissey doesn't seem at all interested.
It is also true about Morrissey on youtube, i listened to that clip, he's also posted many times on his website about not buying Smiths albums because Joyce gets all the royalties. For years Smiths fans have been crying out for re-masters of The Smiths albums as the WEA CD's have atrocious sound quality & have been bastardised with additional tracks. Also the covers have been cropped & changed, but Morrissey has constantly blocked this, until last year when WEA/Rhino & Johnny Marr got together to remaster them, and release them in the original covers which has just been released. And again this week Morrissey has said it has nothing to do with him, he wasn't asked about it or involved in it in any way & urged fan's to not buy it!
Re: The Stone Roses are back..
I think that Morrissey protests a bit too much. The judge found him to be "devious, truculent and unreliable" in court, which sounds like the Mozza we know and love.
As far as I know, the issue here is not over the authorship of the songs, written by Morrissey and Marr, but the split of royalties for the band. Morrissey and Marr claimed it was 40% each for them, 10% each for the other two, but clearly did not convince the judge that this was the case. In the absence of any evidence he believed, the judge applied the 1890 Partnership Act, which presumes that all partners in a business have equal shares, unless they arrange things differently. Clearly, Morrissey and Marr were the dominant personalities in the band, and wrote the material, but if they wanted to claim 80% of the band royalties between them they did not do a good job of it. Morrissey has surely got enough money to pay up and put this behind him, but I think he prefers to nurse a grudge. If that's what makes him happy, or at least as near to happy as he can get, then fair enough.
As far as I know, the issue here is not over the authorship of the songs, written by Morrissey and Marr, but the split of royalties for the band. Morrissey and Marr claimed it was 40% each for them, 10% each for the other two, but clearly did not convince the judge that this was the case. In the absence of any evidence he believed, the judge applied the 1890 Partnership Act, which presumes that all partners in a business have equal shares, unless they arrange things differently. Clearly, Morrissey and Marr were the dominant personalities in the band, and wrote the material, but if they wanted to claim 80% of the band royalties between them they did not do a good job of it. Morrissey has surely got enough money to pay up and put this behind him, but I think he prefers to nurse a grudge. If that's what makes him happy, or at least as near to happy as he can get, then fair enough.
-
Arginald Valleywater
- Posts: 4288
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: The Stone Roses are back..
A few decent tracks but really one of the most overrated bands of all time. Live they were fucking rubbish on stage so the 225000 ticket buyers better be easily pleased.
-
Marie-Louise
- Posts: 660
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
The Stone Roses Put The Mad Into Madchester
i love the stone roses & im so happy they have reformed i never got to see them first time around but i have seen ian brown at the homelands dance festival the roses put the mad into madchester & are one of the first & best indie bands ever i love ian mani john & reni true mancs legends i am the resurrection and i am the light fools gold i wanna be adored sally cinnamon the list goes on & on now if ride reform ill be so happy & embrace whom i think are making a comeback which makes me very happy danny mcnamara has a bootiful voice well im happy all round might just have to get my arse to a gig or festival asap yes yes
love & Kisses Marie-Louisexxx
MELLONS XXXXXXXXXXXX
love & Kisses Marie-Louisexxx
MELLONS XXXXXXXXXXXX
you only got one life so live it & be happy!!
im like marmite you either love me or you hate me lols
Love 'n' Kisses Marie-Louisexxxx (36gg boobies)
im like marmite you either love me or you hate me lols
Love 'n' Kisses Marie-Louisexxxx (36gg boobies)