The Rourke/Joyce Aziz Interview
Mike Joyce and Andy Rourke interviewed
Posted on the Johnny Marr Mailing List, 1/21/2000

Obviously you're both known as the bass player/drummer with the Smiths - now you're working with Aziz. What have you both done in-between this?

Mike: We both worked after the demise of the Smiths with Sinead O'Connor. There was Morrissey immediately after the Smiths, but it was very nearly the Smiths apart from Johnny. We did that for a while and then we drifted apart.

Andy: I stayed on for a bit longer with Morrissey and also Sinead a bit longer.

M: I also played with the Buzzcocks and Julian Cope for a while, and P.I.L. More recently I worked with Pete Wylie. I did an album with him. Andy did a few rehearsals with him and that was like a Baptism after not playing together for about 6 or 7 years.

A: We did keep in touch during that time, but we both had other things: Marriage, Kids etc. I was in a band called Delicious with the drummer from the Happy Mondays, Gaz Whelan. The first year we were together we had Simply Red's management, and there were loads of record companies after us, but the manager had a nervous breakdown but forgot to tell us. Apparently he was asking for extortionate amounts of money. Two years went past and a record company would come to see us and say, "We like you but why hasn't any other record company signed you yet?". All the companies must have thought there was some flaw somewhere.

Obviously everyone's heard about the case between you and Morrissey. (Morrissey and Marr claimed 80% of all [performance] royalties between them while Mike and Andy were obviously left with only 20%. The case revolved on whether Mike and Andy knew about this.) Did you know about the division of royalties?

M: That's what the whole case was about. He said we knew all along and we said we didn't all along and if we had know all along the amount of evidence that was put forward on the case would have proved that. Lots of people think that we all went in a room and the judge looked at Morrissey and said, "I don't like him, yes here's your 25%". That's nonsense.

The court case lasted 7 full days. I was in the witness box for 4 or 5 hours and I was cross-examined by two well-respected high court barristers. This isn't something where the Judge thought, "I don't like Morrissey because he's the lead singer of the Smiths". I don't understand why he seems to think that. It's as if it's a personal vendetta against him - everybody hates him and everybody wants to freak him out and make him do things that he doesn't think are right.

The case was as you said it was - like we knew. If I knew I wouldn't have bloody taken him to court!!!!! And stand up and say, "No I didn't know" (stands up and does Pinocchio impression). In a court of law it wasn't just that. There was a lot of other discrepancies in evidence that was given. So the judge took into consideration that Morrissey wasn't a very good witness. I'm sorry but that was his fault. If he wants to start answering back to a judge and being flippant with a barrister then that's his problem. Obviously he's not going to do himself any favours. It's like turning up in court with an Hawaiian shirt and a mohican; the judge won't be like, "Nice shirt, where did you get that?".

It's like what the judge said in that statement; a lot of people don't think about the second part of that statement. The judge's statement wasn't only "Devious, truculent and unreliable" because there's a second part to that, and it's the same sentence. The judge said he was "Devious , truculent and unreliable where his own interests were at stake". What exactly he means in that is that he was being devious in what would help him in his evidence, so basically he's embroidering his evidence. If you're telling the truth then why do you need to embroider your evidence? It's ridiculous, almost laughable. The reason why I went to appeal was that Morrissey disagreed with the judge's decision. Well, there were 3 judges there who all agreed with the judge's decision. It's not as if it's gone before some lad in the playground and gone, "What do you think, can you sort this out for us". This is why it's gone before an appeal court to make sure that judges don't error in law, and the judge didn't. He made a decision. Obviously judges do make mistakes that's why there's an appeal court there. So once I was successful at the first trial, I went before the appeal judges and they just verified what exactly I was saying. It was thrown out of the House of Lords as well; they said stop wasting our time. If he doesn't like it then tough. A: He still isn't letting it lie though. M: He's just being ridiculous, but that's Morrissey for you. If he just let it lie people might turn round and say, "ahhh maybe". The fact is he can fight it. He's a multi-millionaire. Cases cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. If he's prepared to waste his money on that then fine. He obviously hasn't got better things to spend his money on.

What's your relationship with Johnny Marr now after the court case? After all, he didn't seem to fight the appeal.

A: There isn't really a relationship anymore. I think perhaps there's a little less animosity because Johnny's thinking all along was it's a fair cop.

M: Everyone went for Morrissey anyway because he's the singer although it was a two pronged defense. It was exactly the same case for them both although they went for Morrissey which I'm sure Johnny was very pleased about. Morrissey appealed against the decision and Johnny didn't. It's as if people were thinking well he's accepted it for the way it is, but it's quite interesting that if Morrissey would have been successful at the appeal then automatically Johnny would be. He didn't have to stand there with a placard saying "Mike and Andy are wrong," he just let Morrissey take all the flack.

Recently in the national media, Andy, your name has been mentioned more to do with a specific incident (the alleged attack on Andy's ex-wife by Manchester United footballer Roy Keane) than your music. Could you comment on that?

A: We were separated when all that happened. What happened was that my pager went off and it was some guy from the evening news. At the time I just happened to be walking through a newsagent and saw my wife on the front page. I believe that Roy Keane did kick her, pulled her off the chair and pulled her hair, and the man's a great galute as they say. He's a fuckwit basically because I don't believe in any sort of violence, especially towards women. I really don't care what she said to him, you just don't do that - especially not in a public place.

Heck if I know where this interview originally came from (mail me if you know!), but I snagged it from the Johnny Marr mailing list (OneList). Reprinted without permission for non-profit use only.