Here we are again, pop pickers, on the subject of ol' Morrissey Mullen himself, and if that was a typo we can make it Morrissey Sullen, which often seemed to be a more appropriate name for the lad. Don't get me wrong, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of "attitude" in music, and God knows that today we are sorely missing it, and I don't mean the kind of attitude that surrounds kids like Justin Bieber, or the more senior Kanye West.
There was a glorious time in modern music where one could honestly say that the music spoke volumes, and was enough. One didn't need to see our favourite artist splattered over all the trashy magazines, nor on talk shows all the time, nor getting killer free publicity by being serially involved with the police due to various minor infractions. It's an art form in and of itself - get into just enough trouble to keep the paps clicking furiously, and your name in the "news" everyday, yet never enough trouble to get in the way of the partying.
There are many examples such as LiLo and now the Biebs, and I ain't going to give them any further free publicity nor reduce this blog to that level, but you get the point. Maybe it's a British thing, as opposed to an American thing, wherein a lot of our major artists seemed content to put their music out and let it be - pop speaks for itself?! At one time, Led Zeppelin were the biggest, baddest band on the planet, and yet you never saw any interviews nor the boys prancing onto a primetime talk show out of their heads. Why?
I find it a rather refreshing thought that a primetime rock star who gets adulation showered upon them 24/7 during a year-long world tour has had enough attention, and comes off the road wanting to hide at home, hang out with (real) friends, and stay the hell away from the media. As Percy Plant so modestly said in reference to the above point, "Well, I didn't really feel like we had anything else to say, we said it in our music", or something very close to that effect. For someone who admitted even to the "Godhead" syndrome of the touring rock star, I found that to be admirably restrained.
Whatever happened to some mystery, intrigue and the elusiveness of a famous yet very private famous artist? Peter Grant and the lads from Zep were unusually smart in that they knew that creating an aura of mystery and inaccessibility to the band only drew more and more people to them, and to their live performances. Fast forward to today, and stars all have their own website, Facebook page, Twitter account and are pushed harder than ever by publicity/media reps of record companies to sell-sell-sell themselves all the time, even (especially?) when off the road.
How many celebrity embarrassments have we had in recent times, on Twitter in particular? Can you truly expect 20-somethings with way too much money, way too much fame, and way too much free time, to not post something outrageous at 3am after a big night of partying? It's almost a given, and many have fallen prey to the temptation to talk to "my peeps", because they are all sitting up at home, lonely and miserable, and they need to hear from me! Uh huh.
Although Morrissey was so voraciously pursued by the media at various points during The Smiths rise that he did pop up here or there from time to time, he definitely was aloof or above it all, and cleverly used various media situations to his advantage by promoting his personal passions and causes. But by and large he did maintain his aura of mystery, if not secrecy, and this is very much a positive. He has been around for a hundred years now, yet we still only know so much about him, and you can't help but feel there are all sorts of vaults still to be penetrated. By the eyes, by the ears - behaaaave, people!
One aspect that he covered very well was his appetite for the cash that came with the job. Very much was made of his humble upbringing and roots, but his desire for (musical) fame was pretty much always observed to have been an artistic hunger, not greed for the spoils of war. He himself seemed very content with the former image - yet if you believe what was written by Johnny Rogan (among others) in his book "Morrissey and Marr: The Severed Alliance" - well, you see a very different side to the man and his story.
I am all for major talent getting its just desserts, but I understand less the fact that from very early on, the two "worker smiths" were being royally screwed by the organisation known at "The Smiths" (read, The Smiths Inc.), if not by the actual individuals (friends?) themselves. It's all very well claiming that this happened only later on when cracks began to show in the Smiths family, or that when the amount of money became huge, that's when greed set in - but if you believe the story, then the separation of bass player Andy Rourke and drummer Mike Joyce from the money began at the signing of their very first record contract with Rough Trade - both were excluded from signatures i.e. they were not legally members of The Smiths; they were merely hired hands of the band (which thus was only Morrissey and Marr).
Much has been made of this, but that it is factually correct has been underlined by legal action taken by both Rourke and Joyce in later years. It took the matter to get to the High Court for all the dirt to come out, and for all to see how truly unequal, uncollegial and unpleasant was the alliance (collective might be a better word) known as The Smiths. It became clear that as far as that entity was concerned, Rourke and Joyce were "mere session musicians, as replaceable as the parts in a lawnmower", and someone claiming that Morrissey said precisely that would not have trouble convincing anyone - as it sounds like a classic Mozzer put-down.
M&M (hmm, sounds sweeter than it was in this combination!) quite naturally shared all publishing royalties arising out of their songs, and no one disputed that. What was at issue was the sharing of all the other income that arose from record sales, touring, merchandising etc. Now, given that the duo were raking in a truckload as it was, from the songwriting, one would readily imagine that the rest was shared equally. Not so. It turned out that all other income was funnelled into a vessel known as "Smithdom Ltd.", and the breakdown there was that the worker smiths would share in only 20% of the pot. M&M took a healthy 40%, each.
This might appear shocking in and of itself, but the part I find incredibly shocking is that Mike Joyce only found that out after the band broke up in 1987, when talking to his accountant! I agree that this was a staggering oversight on his part, due to his belief in M&M and their friendship/partnership, but it was an oversight born out of true business naivete that Morrissey (if not both M&M) clearly took advantage of. So, M&M took 100% of all songwriting-related monies, and 80% of everything else - does that seem fair to you?
Therein lies a much more difficult set of questions to answer, and a lot of it is subjective, because how can you guage the contribution of a drummer to the overall success of a group? There are no rules or guidelines to follow or legal criteria to judge it on. How critical was Ringo Starr to the success of The Beatles - did he deserve a quarter share, or way less? What about the (convenient, perhaps) claim by Noel Gallagher (Oasis) that no drum part or bassline ever made one of his songs better, so why should someone get paid extra for it? Ol' Moz was/is clearly in agreement with that philosophy, even if in his book, he gets a dig in at Noel about his songwriting!
It all comes down to what legally-binding deal is struck at the beginning, and I guess, whether the typical four members of a band are actual friends, or not. The best way around this problem is to do what U2 did from the start - four lads against the world - and split everything (in their case that includes songwriting, I believe) into four. These guys are Irish also, to boot, so any mumblings about Moz still remembering stories of the potato famine and the abject poor struggling for survival during bleak periods in Irish history, as causes for his fever over money, well, they just don't hold water. It's not background nor nationality-based, it's personal.
But it raises an excellent question - would one say that the contributions of Adam Clayton (bass) and Larry Mullen Jr. (drums) to U2 songs is significantly greater than Rourke/Joyce to Smiths songs? Without knowing the inner workings of each musical outfit it is hard to be definitive, but as a judgement call, I would say no. Mullen is a better drummer than Joyce, but Rourke is much more a virtuoso bass player than Clayton, who I also happen to enjoy by the way.
To go back to Noel's point, I actually disagree - somewhat. Without doubt, Andy Rourke produced basslines that did change, and did improve, and did make various Smiths songs. Where would I start, to illustrate? This Charming Man, This Night Has Opened My Eyes, Rusholme Ruffians, There Is A Light That Never Goes Out, and on and on. Some of those basslines I can hear in my head today sitting at this desk, so they clearly are an integral part of those songs. The problem is in quantifying it, and that's almost impossible. Additionally, not every listener hears the bassline at all, whereas I tend to go digging for it even if it's less than obvious.
But you know, I said it was important, and I was not wrong. In an interview where this entire situation came to light, Johnny Marr admitted that Andy Rourke had made an incredible contribution to Smiths songs, and claimed that he was willing to pull out his cheque book and write Andy a cheque for an unspecificed amount. Morrissey reputedly did not agree to match that amount, as expected, which blocked the settlement. It remains unclear to me (to many) to this day whether Mozzer truly was the evil financial maestro that even Johnny has implied him to be, or whether Johnny knew Moz was like that, and simply turned a blind eye to Moz funnelling the great majority of all monies into their two sets of hands.
It is clear that none of these rather affable lads from Manchester were business-minded (who would be at their tender age at that time) and maybe they were all so caught up in being in a famous band, with "trusted" pals, that no one was worrying about money? All except one, at any rate. Then when the band broke up, so did the income dry up, and then friends and family saw M&M still living the highlife, while the two worker smiths went back to being broke.
It must take some arrogance and selfishness to see a friend and co-member of a band you were in, broke and unhappy, afterwards, and you flush with cash, knowing you squeezed the beast dry and left them the drippings. And then when the ghost of the beast rears its ugly head and comes back to haunt you, rather than settling - which would be a de facto admission of some guilt -you point blank refuse to give them a penny. From pal and fellow band-member-against- the-world, to cold-hearted selfish businessman - in a heartbeat.
As it turned out, just prior to Joyve taking The Smiths to the High Court, Rourke (who was in debt, i.e. desperate) settled with M&M for a reputed 83,000 GBP and 10% of future royalties. That Andy was a nice guy and got taken advantage of, again, became apparent when Joyce won his case, and the judge ordered Morrissey to pay him a massive one million GBP (plus 25% of future royalties), and remember, that was back in the mid-90s! This shows you just how much money was at stake, and the fact that this amount could be considered as another band member's own slice underlined how much cash M&M were sitting on, while their "friends" were on the breadline.
Morrisey took this matter and his venom to the Court of Appeals. and lost again. I even heard something about him wanting the House of Lords in the UK to overthrow the judgement, which many simply scoff at. I don't doubt that Joyce has gone to town since the verdict and has done his best to file as many legal documents as needed to ensure that payments continued as scheduled, and at one point at least he actually had successfully placed a hold on all Mozzers's income and assets in the UK. One can only imagine the fire and brimstone this raised in Moz's loins, err, no, make that his wallet - something which seems very close to his heart. When you hear what he did say of Joyce, it's really rather hard to see any humanity in Morrissey at all:
"It was a terrible miscarriage of justice. I wish the very, very worst for Joyce, for the rest of his life."
It's a sad and sickly story, and one that should never have happened. Poor Andy Rourke didn't stick with it, and boy did he get screwed a second time. Imagine even $83,000 in comparison to $1M? And we are talking British pounds here! Sadly for Andy, and very cleverly for M&M, they got him to waive all future claims in return for his small settlement. It was Joyce who indeed had the last laugh, causing such fury in his former hero that he has even been heard in live shows as a solo artist encouraging the audience to not buy any of Johnny's remastered Smiths CDs -because it only puts more money into the hands of that "wretched drummer".
In the famous words of the man himself - "And heaven knows I'm miserable now...." - Kevin Mc
There was a glorious time in modern music where one could honestly say that the music spoke volumes, and was enough. One didn't need to see our favourite artist splattered over all the trashy magazines, nor on talk shows all the time, nor getting killer free publicity by being serially involved with the police due to various minor infractions. It's an art form in and of itself - get into just enough trouble to keep the paps clicking furiously, and your name in the "news" everyday, yet never enough trouble to get in the way of the partying.
There are many examples such as LiLo and now the Biebs, and I ain't going to give them any further free publicity nor reduce this blog to that level, but you get the point. Maybe it's a British thing, as opposed to an American thing, wherein a lot of our major artists seemed content to put their music out and let it be - pop speaks for itself?! At one time, Led Zeppelin were the biggest, baddest band on the planet, and yet you never saw any interviews nor the boys prancing onto a primetime talk show out of their heads. Why?
I find it a rather refreshing thought that a primetime rock star who gets adulation showered upon them 24/7 during a year-long world tour has had enough attention, and comes off the road wanting to hide at home, hang out with (real) friends, and stay the hell away from the media. As Percy Plant so modestly said in reference to the above point, "Well, I didn't really feel like we had anything else to say, we said it in our music", or something very close to that effect. For someone who admitted even to the "Godhead" syndrome of the touring rock star, I found that to be admirably restrained.
Whatever happened to some mystery, intrigue and the elusiveness of a famous yet very private famous artist? Peter Grant and the lads from Zep were unusually smart in that they knew that creating an aura of mystery and inaccessibility to the band only drew more and more people to them, and to their live performances. Fast forward to today, and stars all have their own website, Facebook page, Twitter account and are pushed harder than ever by publicity/media reps of record companies to sell-sell-sell themselves all the time, even (especially?) when off the road.
How many celebrity embarrassments have we had in recent times, on Twitter in particular? Can you truly expect 20-somethings with way too much money, way too much fame, and way too much free time, to not post something outrageous at 3am after a big night of partying? It's almost a given, and many have fallen prey to the temptation to talk to "my peeps", because they are all sitting up at home, lonely and miserable, and they need to hear from me! Uh huh.
Although Morrissey was so voraciously pursued by the media at various points during The Smiths rise that he did pop up here or there from time to time, he definitely was aloof or above it all, and cleverly used various media situations to his advantage by promoting his personal passions and causes. But by and large he did maintain his aura of mystery, if not secrecy, and this is very much a positive. He has been around for a hundred years now, yet we still only know so much about him, and you can't help but feel there are all sorts of vaults still to be penetrated. By the eyes, by the ears - behaaaave, people!
One aspect that he covered very well was his appetite for the cash that came with the job. Very much was made of his humble upbringing and roots, but his desire for (musical) fame was pretty much always observed to have been an artistic hunger, not greed for the spoils of war. He himself seemed very content with the former image - yet if you believe what was written by Johnny Rogan (among others) in his book "Morrissey and Marr: The Severed Alliance" - well, you see a very different side to the man and his story.
I am all for major talent getting its just desserts, but I understand less the fact that from very early on, the two "worker smiths" were being royally screwed by the organisation known at "The Smiths" (read, The Smiths Inc.), if not by the actual individuals (friends?) themselves. It's all very well claiming that this happened only later on when cracks began to show in the Smiths family, or that when the amount of money became huge, that's when greed set in - but if you believe the story, then the separation of bass player Andy Rourke and drummer Mike Joyce from the money began at the signing of their very first record contract with Rough Trade - both were excluded from signatures i.e. they were not legally members of The Smiths; they were merely hired hands of the band (which thus was only Morrissey and Marr).
Much has been made of this, but that it is factually correct has been underlined by legal action taken by both Rourke and Joyce in later years. It took the matter to get to the High Court for all the dirt to come out, and for all to see how truly unequal, uncollegial and unpleasant was the alliance (collective might be a better word) known as The Smiths. It became clear that as far as that entity was concerned, Rourke and Joyce were "mere session musicians, as replaceable as the parts in a lawnmower", and someone claiming that Morrissey said precisely that would not have trouble convincing anyone - as it sounds like a classic Mozzer put-down.
M&M (hmm, sounds sweeter than it was in this combination!) quite naturally shared all publishing royalties arising out of their songs, and no one disputed that. What was at issue was the sharing of all the other income that arose from record sales, touring, merchandising etc. Now, given that the duo were raking in a truckload as it was, from the songwriting, one would readily imagine that the rest was shared equally. Not so. It turned out that all other income was funnelled into a vessel known as "Smithdom Ltd.", and the breakdown there was that the worker smiths would share in only 20% of the pot. M&M took a healthy 40%, each.
This might appear shocking in and of itself, but the part I find incredibly shocking is that Mike Joyce only found that out after the band broke up in 1987, when talking to his accountant! I agree that this was a staggering oversight on his part, due to his belief in M&M and their friendship/partnership, but it was an oversight born out of true business naivete that Morrissey (if not both M&M) clearly took advantage of. So, M&M took 100% of all songwriting-related monies, and 80% of everything else - does that seem fair to you?
Therein lies a much more difficult set of questions to answer, and a lot of it is subjective, because how can you guage the contribution of a drummer to the overall success of a group? There are no rules or guidelines to follow or legal criteria to judge it on. How critical was Ringo Starr to the success of The Beatles - did he deserve a quarter share, or way less? What about the (convenient, perhaps) claim by Noel Gallagher (Oasis) that no drum part or bassline ever made one of his songs better, so why should someone get paid extra for it? Ol' Moz was/is clearly in agreement with that philosophy, even if in his book, he gets a dig in at Noel about his songwriting!
It all comes down to what legally-binding deal is struck at the beginning, and I guess, whether the typical four members of a band are actual friends, or not. The best way around this problem is to do what U2 did from the start - four lads against the world - and split everything (in their case that includes songwriting, I believe) into four. These guys are Irish also, to boot, so any mumblings about Moz still remembering stories of the potato famine and the abject poor struggling for survival during bleak periods in Irish history, as causes for his fever over money, well, they just don't hold water. It's not background nor nationality-based, it's personal.
But it raises an excellent question - would one say that the contributions of Adam Clayton (bass) and Larry Mullen Jr. (drums) to U2 songs is significantly greater than Rourke/Joyce to Smiths songs? Without knowing the inner workings of each musical outfit it is hard to be definitive, but as a judgement call, I would say no. Mullen is a better drummer than Joyce, but Rourke is much more a virtuoso bass player than Clayton, who I also happen to enjoy by the way.
To go back to Noel's point, I actually disagree - somewhat. Without doubt, Andy Rourke produced basslines that did change, and did improve, and did make various Smiths songs. Where would I start, to illustrate? This Charming Man, This Night Has Opened My Eyes, Rusholme Ruffians, There Is A Light That Never Goes Out, and on and on. Some of those basslines I can hear in my head today sitting at this desk, so they clearly are an integral part of those songs. The problem is in quantifying it, and that's almost impossible. Additionally, not every listener hears the bassline at all, whereas I tend to go digging for it even if it's less than obvious.
But you know, I said it was important, and I was not wrong. In an interview where this entire situation came to light, Johnny Marr admitted that Andy Rourke had made an incredible contribution to Smiths songs, and claimed that he was willing to pull out his cheque book and write Andy a cheque for an unspecificed amount. Morrissey reputedly did not agree to match that amount, as expected, which blocked the settlement. It remains unclear to me (to many) to this day whether Mozzer truly was the evil financial maestro that even Johnny has implied him to be, or whether Johnny knew Moz was like that, and simply turned a blind eye to Moz funnelling the great majority of all monies into their two sets of hands.
It is clear that none of these rather affable lads from Manchester were business-minded (who would be at their tender age at that time) and maybe they were all so caught up in being in a famous band, with "trusted" pals, that no one was worrying about money? All except one, at any rate. Then when the band broke up, so did the income dry up, and then friends and family saw M&M still living the highlife, while the two worker smiths went back to being broke.
It must take some arrogance and selfishness to see a friend and co-member of a band you were in, broke and unhappy, afterwards, and you flush with cash, knowing you squeezed the beast dry and left them the drippings. And then when the ghost of the beast rears its ugly head and comes back to haunt you, rather than settling - which would be a de facto admission of some guilt -you point blank refuse to give them a penny. From pal and fellow band-member-against- the-world, to cold-hearted selfish businessman - in a heartbeat.
As it turned out, just prior to Joyve taking The Smiths to the High Court, Rourke (who was in debt, i.e. desperate) settled with M&M for a reputed 83,000 GBP and 10% of future royalties. That Andy was a nice guy and got taken advantage of, again, became apparent when Joyce won his case, and the judge ordered Morrissey to pay him a massive one million GBP (plus 25% of future royalties), and remember, that was back in the mid-90s! This shows you just how much money was at stake, and the fact that this amount could be considered as another band member's own slice underlined how much cash M&M were sitting on, while their "friends" were on the breadline.
Morrisey took this matter and his venom to the Court of Appeals. and lost again. I even heard something about him wanting the House of Lords in the UK to overthrow the judgement, which many simply scoff at. I don't doubt that Joyce has gone to town since the verdict and has done his best to file as many legal documents as needed to ensure that payments continued as scheduled, and at one point at least he actually had successfully placed a hold on all Mozzers's income and assets in the UK. One can only imagine the fire and brimstone this raised in Moz's loins, err, no, make that his wallet - something which seems very close to his heart. When you hear what he did say of Joyce, it's really rather hard to see any humanity in Morrissey at all:
"It was a terrible miscarriage of justice. I wish the very, very worst for Joyce, for the rest of his life."
It's a sad and sickly story, and one that should never have happened. Poor Andy Rourke didn't stick with it, and boy did he get screwed a second time. Imagine even $83,000 in comparison to $1M? And we are talking British pounds here! Sadly for Andy, and very cleverly for M&M, they got him to waive all future claims in return for his small settlement. It was Joyce who indeed had the last laugh, causing such fury in his former hero that he has even been heard in live shows as a solo artist encouraging the audience to not buy any of Johnny's remastered Smiths CDs -because it only puts more money into the hands of that "wretched drummer".
In the famous words of the man himself - "And heaven knows I'm miserable now...." - Kevin Mc
No comments:
Post a Comment