Last edited by a moderator:
Ha ha, brilliant!
But screwing someone out of royalties isn't?
only 10 percent Joyce and Daesh would stoop so low.
And taking TWO people, JOHNNY AND MORRISSEY, to court for something I agreed with in the first place, isn't?
Legalized theft
leaves me bereft
I get it straight in the neck
(somehow expecting no less)
a court of justice
with no use for Truth
Lawyer ...liar
lawyer ...liar
you pleaded and squealed
and you think you've won
but Sorrow will come
to you in the end
and I'm gonna get you
so don't close your eyes
don't ever close your eyes
you think you've won
oh no
If Joyce and Rourke were equal partners(as they believed they were) wouldn't they with M and Marr be there making decisions and shaping with the accountants documents that they then would all together agree on to sign? Why was it left up to M and Johnny to do this work if they were all holding the same reins of power in the Smiths finances?
.
'Rourke and Joyce DIDN'T have the same reins of power in all finances within The Smiths.'
meaning they were not equal partners,meaning why would they expect 25 percent?
' They ONLY complained about live fees and mechanical royalties.'
o.k. fine. And I'm not agreeing with M, but by his trial account no documents could be provided that any money made from live shows went into M and Marr's pockets. As for 'mechanical royalties' fine, give them the 10 percent
from sales... Didn't they get the 10 percent from those royalties?
'If you are a frontman, you have much more on your shoulder, more responsibility, more work, more time invested etc. In return you get much more from songwriting royalties (financially) and you get much more recognition (morally).'
True. But why forget about Marr in all this? Did he not have a hand in this also? In sharing the decisions and responsibilities in the band? And I don't understand what you mean by 'robbing' ? Didn't they get their due 10 percent?
help me... 'grasp it'.
again...
If Joyce and Rourke were equal partners(as they believed they were) wouldn't they with M and Marr be there making decisions and shaping with the accountants documents that they then would all together agree on to sign? Why was it left up to M and Johnny to do this work if they were all holding the same reins of power in the Smiths finances?
Look, many tried to explain it to you but you just can't grasp it.
Rourke and Joyce DIDN'T have the same reins of power in all finances within The Smiths. They ONLY complained about live fees and mechanical royalties. If you are a frontman, you have much more on your shoulder, more responsibility, more work, more time invested etc. In return you get much more from songwriting royalties (financially) and you get much more recognition (morally). Robbing the rhytm section on live and mechanical royalties is pitiful and pathetic and makes you seem you are a greedy bastard.
Morrissey got screwed by the judge, Joyce cashed a 10% check over and over , so he agreed it was 10%, US law. STUPIDITY isn't a defense.
contracts seen/unseen, signed/unsigned... If Joyce and Rourke were equal partners(as they believed they were) wouldn't they with M and Marr be there making decisions and shaping with the accountants documents that they then would all together agree on to sign? Why was it left up to M and Johnny to do this work if they were all holding the same reins of power in the Smiths finances?
And shouldn't that read.. If you believe this true..'So Morrissey AND MARR wouldn't have to tell them that they were only recieving 10%.'
It's as if saying it's all M's fault... You may as well say that M was the Smiths.
Because Morrissey is an asshole and they didn't want to fight with him every day. They probably thought wrongly that they could trust Johnny but he has flip-flopped repeatedly over the years and was more interested in how to get his hair cut and what shade of shoe polish to dye it with than he was with loyalty to his bandmates.
Just stop. This was all settled in court and even if whatever you believe to be the truth is the reality of it, Morrissey has spent far more, and lost far more, than he would have if he had accepted the judgment of the court. Being caught in your scheme, legal or not, and then spending years whining about it is not in any way respectable or defensible. I happen to side with the courts but either way, when you lose one you lose, and who cares? As a (former?) fan of The Smiths I don't listen to the songs thinking about what percentage everyone got paid. Morrissey is known to be an unfair, greedy, cheapskate, and haha, yes, that's sort of amusing as a character trait to a point, but really to keep this going this long? To ruin the memories of his greatest success because of money when he already got rich off of it? He's a fool. That's fine. He is a songwriter. He doesn't have to be good at anything but writing and singing songs, but on the other hand there is no need to pretend he is a victim or that he is logical.
When you throw good money after bad for 20 years, and trash your band's legacy because you didn't get as rich as you'd hoped at the expense of people that were once your close associates, you are not a victim. You're a fool.