Badfinger's Joey Molland birthday
Barb Alan Atkinson
birthday greeting, go to
http://www.joeymolland.com/guestbook.html
and post a message.
Best of Times
Barb
Nipperdog
Laine (professionally, that is)?
While it is true you can't always believe what you read, the combo of the
Without You book and the Badfinger video leave little doubt in my mind that
there is more truth than fiction to this story, hence the Joey (and Kathy)
bashing.
Barb Alan Atkinson <b...@webzone.net> wrote in message
news:376F1C0B...@webzone.net...
> You shouldn't believe everything you read. Or do you think Goldman's book
on Lennon
> is the Gospel?
> Barb
>
> D 28IF wrote:
>
> > >From: Barb Alan Atkinson <b...@webzone.net>
> > >
> > >Today is Joey Molland's birthday, If you would like to wish him a
> > >birthday greeting, go to
> > >http://www.joeymolland.com/guestbook.html
> > >and post a message.
> >
> > No offense but, I just got done reading "Without You, The Tragic Story
of
> > Badfinger," and a birthday greeting is the last thing I'd like to wish
Molland.
>
D 28IF
TBeatles67
>From: d2...@aol.com (D 28IF)
>No offense but, I just got done reading "Without You, The Tragic Story of
>Badfinger," and a birthday greeting is the last thing I'd like to wish
>Molland.
Yeah, I know. I felt the same way, and I used to like Joey a lot, met him
several times. But the face he puts on for fans is most likely a mask.
Trace
D 28IF
To see if I could find out anything more, I've visited a few Badfinger
websites, and read Kathie and Joey Molland's defense against the book and
incidents mentioned.
Seems anyone who doesn't agree with them is out to get them. They seem to think
the author had a vendetta against them because they wouldn't be interviewed for
the book, yet there are plenty of other people who back up stories told. The
Mollands make it seem like the only people present for anything were them and
the other members of the band, and anything anyone else says is speculation.
Barb Alan Atkinson
is the Gospel?
Barb
D 28IF wrote:
> >From: Barb Alan Atkinson <b...@webzone.net>
> >
> >Today is Joey Molland's birthday, If you would like to wish him a
> >birthday greeting, go to
> >http://www.joeymolland.com/guestbook.html
> >and post a message.
>
D 28IF
>Lennon
>is the Gospel?
>Barb
This was asked and answered in private email, since I didn't realize this was
also posted.
I told Barb that while I don't think the Goldman book is gospel, many of the
things he wrote have been substantiated by other sources, so it's not all
fabrication. He goes overboard in bashing Yoko at times, as well as John. Some
of those things even *I* can't believe. But that doesn't mean some of the facts
aren't true.
Just as I don't believe the Badfinger bio to be gospel, there are enough
sources who were there at events who counter what the Mollands claim, that lead
me to believe they, as well as Bill Collins, are spin doctors to the nth
degree. The more I read, the less I believed any of the three of them.
And I'll repeat what I told Barb - this is all my opinion.
Barb Alan Atkinson
know about. The author represents the estates of Ham and Evans. The book is
primarily told from the perspective and bias of the families and friends of the Ham
and Evans estates. While writing his book Matovina sent out letters insinuating Joe
and Mike Gibbins were claiming song writing credit to "Without You" and were
wrongly receiving royalties from said song. Imagine you went through a messy
divorce and your ex-spouse's attorney were to write a book about your marriage.
That's what the Badfinger book is! I could write a book telling the exact same
story but with a completely different spin on it. The problem is I couldn't get the
Ham and Evans estates to support me while writing it.
In the twenty five years I have been active with the band, I have never heard
anyone that knew Joe say anything bad about him. On the other hand, there is
another member who everyone seemed to dislike when he was alive but love now that
he's dead ("Everyone loves you when you're six foot in the ground")
I hope you don't take my response as hostile, but it always annoys me when people
only see things as black and white. We're all Jesus and we're all Hitler.
Please elaborate, what stories are you referring and who are the people backing
them up?
Sincerely
Barb
D 28IF wrote:
> >From: tbeat...@aol.com (TBeatles67)
>
> >>Subject: Re: Badfinger's Joey Molland birthday
> >>From: d2...@aol.com (D 28IF)
> >
> >>No offense but, I just got done reading "Without You, The Tragic Story of
> >>Badfinger," and a birthday greeting is the last thing I'd like to wish
> >>Molland.
> >
Barb Alan Atkinson
Kathie being a horrible person. Apart from that I can't comment on it as I don't
know anything about the incident (Apart from what's in the book)
Kathie may have a tendency to be a flakey hippie chick but that doesn't make her
a bad person. She is a real human being with faults, strengths and feelings just
like you and I and certainly doesn't deserve the verbal lashing she receives.
That's what Joe's letter to the fans was all about. A man standing up and
defending his wife.
Anyway, you're obviously a fan, so I'd like to invite you (And any other fans
reading this) to join my new Badfinger fan club at:
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/badfingerboogie
It's free to join and there are photos, chats, et al. Hope you check it out.
Best of Times
Barb
D 28IF wrote:
> >From: Barb Alan Atkinson <b...@webzone.net>
>
> >There is a lot more history between the author and the Mollands than you
> >obviously
> >know about. The author represents the estates of Ham and Evans. The book is
> >primarily told from the perspective and bias of the families and friends of
> >the Ham
> >and Evans estates. While writing his book Matovina sent out letters
> >insinuating Joe
> >and Mike Gibbins were claiming song writing credit to "Without You" and were
> >wrongly receiving royalties from said song. Imagine you went through a messy
> >divorce and your ex-spouse's attorney were to write a book about your
> >marriage.
> >That's what the Badfinger book is!
>
> Understood. And you're right, I'm sure there's a slant. I tried to keep that
> in mind.
>
> I suppose what I should say it, it's probably Kathie I have the problem with,
> as Joey seems happy to sit back and let her be the mouthpiece.
>
> Things seemed fine until Kathie became involved, or rather, involved herself.
>
> The story that sticks out most in my mind, and shows so much disrespect that,
> were it this act alone I'd still dislike Mrs. Molland, is her behavior at Pete
> Ham's funeral.
>
> From the book "Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger," by Dan Matovina ~
>
> "On the day of Pete's funeral, a procession of vehicles traveled to the
> crematorium. Gaynor [Mike Gibbins then-wife] recalled watching from the window
> of a friend's home. The womenfolk stayed behind. The traditional Welsh custom
> was that only men attend a funeral service. But Kathie Molland - who had flown
> over from America with Joey - went anyway. She became the only female
> present...
>
> "Several people were not happy Kathie had attended the service, as even Pete's
> mother had decided not to break tradition..."
>
> Even giving her the benefit of the doubt that Kathie didn't know about the
> tradition, it didn't strike her that NO OTHER females were at the funeral? She
> didn't think to ask?
TBeatles67
I honestly don't know what to think about Joey. In person he has always been
the greatest guy, but I can't believe that everything in the book was a lie.
Personally, I get the impression that the problem is much more with his wife
than with him, and since just about everyone in the book has the same feelings
about her, they can't all be wrong.
>there is
>another member who everyone seemed to dislike when he was alive but love now
>that
>he's dead ("Everyone loves you when you're six foot in the ground")
You must be referring to Tom. He obviously had his problems, that is evident
even in the book. I don't think the book was overly rosy regarding Tom.
People seemed to either love him or hate him or both depending on the mood Tom
was in.
Trace
D 28IF
Booheis Brecht
(D 28IF) wrote:
> >From: Barb Alan Atkinson <b...@webzone.net>
> >
I saw a scary letter written by his wife that was posted on a Badfinger
website, ranting and raving. I think he has talent but he's gone too far
with touring as Joey Molland's Badfinger, it's pathetic to try to milk it
like that, like Spinal Tap.
Jason Czeskleba
> While writing his book Matovina sent out letters insinuating Joe
> and Mike Gibbins were claiming song writing credit to "Without You" and
were
> wrongly receiving royalties from said song.
Well, that is true, isn't it? They do receive royalties from the song (as
does Bill Collins), and Joey or Kathie have on occasion made statements
implying Joey contributed to the writing of that song, which isn't true.
MrPither12
Date: Wed, 23 June 1999 01:15 AM EDT
Message-id: <wooftweet-230...@coretel-120.charm.net
website, ranting and raving. I think he has talent but he's gone too far
with touring as Joey Molland's Badfinger, it's pathetic to try to milk it
like that, like Spinal Tap.>>
Why is that pathetic? What would you have him do, go hang sheet rock? Why does
no one lambast Al Jardine for touring as Beach Boys Family and Friends? Like
Joe, he didn't sing any hits either. Or how about Dave Gilmor still recording
as Pink Floyd? Like Joe, he wasn't a "founding member" either.
And as far as this "Joe and Mike didn't co-write any hits" stuff that's being
tossed around, the people who say this have obviously never been in a band.
Unless you are working with a Pete Townshend who does demos (of all parts) and
plays them for the Who, or else you are working with a Zappa who writes all
your parts out - most bands DO "co-write" songs in that they all write the
ARRANGEMENT together. The Beatles did it this way (with a few exceptions), the
Stones as do most bands. The only difference here is that Badfinger agreeded
up-front, before ANYONE wrote a hit, that they would acknowledge this important
aspect of songwriting by sharing "writing" credits equally. There are people
(especially in big band/jazz) who ONLY arrange music. It's a very important
part of writing a song.
D 28IF
>Maybe it's me but this story says a lot more for how backward Welsh custom is
>than
>Kathie being a horrible person. Apart from that I can't comment on it as I
>don't
>know anything about the incident (Apart from what's in the book)
No, it's not just you, I think it's backwards as well, but it's not up to you,
me, or Kathie Molland to decide to break that custom when the man's family is
honouring it. It's Pete's funeral, not Joey's. If it was a member of Kathie's
family, she can do whatever she likes, but she wasn't even a member of the
family.
Would you go into someone else's home and do what you thought you should be
able to do, if it's *not* done in their home?
I would hope not. You would respect the wishes of the person/people you're
visiting.
Anyway, if it helps at all, my favourite Badfinger song is actually a Joey
Molland tune, "Sweet Tuesday Morning" (although I have to admit, after reading
the book I was distressed at that fact).
And thanks for the Badfinger yahoo club info. Maybe I will check it out.
D 28IF
>Why is that pathetic? What would you have him do, go hang sheet rock? Why
>does
>no one lambast Al Jardine for touring as Beach Boys Family and Friends? Like
>Joe, he didn't sing any hits either. Or how about Dave Gilmor still recording
>as Pink Floyd? Like Joe, he wasn't a "founding member" either.
>
While I'm not crazy about Joey touring using the Badfinger name, either, I have
to admit - the man has to make a living and he's tried to get gigs under his
own name, but apparently no one's that interested. It's the Badfinger moniker
that people come to see, apparently.
As far as Gilmour using Pink Floyd - he's got the everyone BUT one member in
that band. It's not like he's using a bunch of pick-up or session musicians to
fill in.
And the Beach Boys Family & Friends tour makes clear in its title it's not the
"Beach Boys". Joey does nothing to distinguish this isn't Badfinger, so a young
fan not knowing any better, may be going thinking they're seeing the whole
band. They may just have found Badfinger thru CDs, not even realize 2 members
are dead, and think they're seeing the originals when it's only Joey and some
others. It's close to false advertising, IMO.
>And as far as this "Joe and Mike didn't co-write any hits" stuff that's being
>tossed around, the people who say this have obviously never been in a band.
>Unless you are working with a Pete Townshend who does demos (of all parts)
>and
>plays them for the Who, or else you are working with a Zappa who writes all
>your parts out - most bands DO "co-write" songs in that they all write the
>ARRANGEMENT together. The Beatles did it this way (with a few exceptions),
>the
>Stones as do most bands. The only difference here is that Badfinger agreeded
>up-front, before ANYONE wrote a hit, that they would acknowledge this
>important
>aspect of songwriting by sharing "writing" credits equally. There are people
>(especially in big band/jazz) who ONLY arrange music. It's a very important
>part of writing a song.
>
Wrong, Badfinger did not decide to share any writing credits equally. To be
fair, they decided that, after a portion of the royalties went to the
songwriter(s), the remaining portion would be divided equally amongst the five
agreed-upon people (Pete, Tom, Joey, Mike and Bill Collins).
The songwriting CREDIT was NEVER supposed to be shared. That was the alleged
disturbance that Tom Evans' wife was so upset about at an ASCAP presentation
for "Without You," and Pete Ham's daughter was so upset about it, she refused
to attend the event.
IMO, if there was any integrity and respect, Joey, Mike and Bill would have
refused to take the stage, since the award was for the songwriting, and they
didn't really have anything to do with it.
Again, according to the book (I'm fully admitting I'm using that as my source),
Kathie Molland made claims about what Joey added to the song (a single word
change, for example), but it was found in the original demos made by Pete and
Tom, that Joey *hadn't* come up with those, as they were already included in
the solo demos.
As far as collaborative writing, of course, in a band, everyone usually has
some ideas to throw in. Mal Evans is supposed to have helped (in a bigger way
than Joey allegedly did with "Without You") write some songs on the Sgt. Pepper
album. He never received songwriting credit.
John often helped George with songs - George NEVER had a co-writing credit with
his songs in the Beatles years.
DJMangin
>the greatest guy,
too bad his brother is such a dick. I used to hang with him out in Mound, MN
(the Mollands being MN transplants now) and he was such a gawd awful
know-it-all drunk asshole
BigStar303
no one lambast Al Jardine for touring as Beach Boys Family and Friends? Like
Joe, he didn't sing any hits either. >>
Not that it matters to the overall argument, but this is untrue. Al sang "Help
Me Rhonda" and "Sloop John B." As a subsequent poster pointed out, however, Al
Jardine does not tour as "The Beach Boys."
<<The only difference here is that Badfinger agreeded
up-front, before ANYONE wrote a hit, that they would acknowledge this important
aspect of songwriting by sharing "writing" credits equally. >>
Again, someone beat me to it, but this is patently untrue. I'm going by memory
here, but there may have been ONE mid-period album ("Ass"? "Badfinger" on
Warner Bros.?) that had a group writing credit for the songs, but it's
certainly not true of any other Badfinger album except this one.
I don't begrudge Joey the right to make a living, but I also agree that it's
absurd not to indicate to unknowing ticket buyers that what you're getting when
you go see Badfinger today is 1/4 of the original band -- a fourth that sang
NONE of the groups hits.
I also cringe at the thought of how the legacy of a great band is handled.
Hell, well over ten years ago, Joey was performing "No Matter What" (again a
song he didn't write or sing lead on) in the key of G, for Christ's sake!
Blasphemy!
Booheis Brecht
mrpit...@aol.com (MrPither12) wrote:
> <<From: woof...@hotmail.com (Booheis Brecht)
> Date: Wed, 23 June 1999 01:15 AM EDT
> Message-id: <wooftweet-230...@coretel-120.charm.net
> I saw a scary letter written by his wife that was posted on a Badfinger
> website, ranting and raving. I think he has talent but he's gone too far
> with touring as Joey Molland's Badfinger, it's pathetic to try to milk it
> like that, like Spinal Tap.>>
>
> Why is that pathetic? What would you have him do, go hang sheet rock? Why does
> no one lambast Al Jardine for touring as Beach Boys Family and Friends? Like
> Joe, he didn't sing any hits either. Or how about Dave Gilmor still recording
> as Pink Floyd? Like Joe, he wasn't a "founding member" either.
I don't approve of what either of those people are doing. Their time has
passed, as has their creativity.
>
> And as far as this "Joe and Mike didn't co-write any hits" stuff that's being
> tossed around, the people who say this have obviously never been in a band.
> Unless you are working with a Pete Townshend who does demos (of all parts) and
> plays them for the Who, or else you are working with a Zappa who writes all
> your parts out - most bands DO "co-write" songs in that they all write the
> ARRANGEMENT together. >The Beatles did it this way (with a few
exceptions), the
> Stones as do most bands. The only difference here is that Badfinger agreeded
> up-front, before ANYONE wrote a hit, that they would acknowledge this
important
> aspect of songwriting by sharing "writing" credits equally. There are people
> (especially in big band/jazz) who ONLY arrange music. It's a very important
> part of writing a song.
An arrangement is an important part of how a song ends up sounding.
Co-writing an arrangement is not the same thing as co-writing a song. They
are two totally different things. Period. A great song with a mediocre
arrangement is still a great song.
MrPither12
the
"Beach Boys". Joey does nothing to distinguish this isn't Badfinger,>>
Wrong. He tours as Joey Molland's
<<The only difference here is that Badfinger agreeded
>up-front, before ANYONE wrote a hit, that they would acknowledge this
>important
>aspect of songwriting by sharing "writing" credits equally. There are people
>(especially in big band/jazz) who ONLY arrange music. It's a very important
>part of writing a song.
>
Wrong, Badfinger did not decide to share any writing credits equally. >>
No, you are wrong because the book is wrong. I have know Joey since 1975, long
before Mantavena or whatever his name is was outta diapers, and I know that
they DID have this agreement before anyone wrote a song, hit or not. The
bottom line is, if you don't like/resent Joey = don't see/support him. I,
however, do not understand why some of you people are so affronted by all of
this as if this is heresy. He's just a decent guy trying to make a living. This
is from a guy who knows Joe and who does not have a slant, unlike Mantavena.
Barb Alan Atkinson
agreement the band had from the beginning. Joe has never claimed to have any
participation with the writing of the song "Without You". On the contrary, he
has told the story in countless interviews and public appearances how Pete
took a chorus of a song Tommy wrote and used it as the chorus of a song he
wrote. Kathie has never publicly claimed Joe authored any of the song, but she
allegedly sent a private e-mail to one of her biggest detractors that said she
believed Joe suggested changing the "live" to "give" in the chorus. This is
hardly claiming authorship of any kind even if it were true (It's not)
Dan's letter suggested that Joe, Mike, and Bill Collins were wrongly
receiving royalties on the song due to the fact that they were claiming
authorship of the song. Neither claim is true. They have never claimed any
authorship and they legally receive royalties due to the bands long-standing
agreement. No mention of said agreement was mentioned in the letter.
Barb
Jason Czeskleba
D 28IF <d2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> I'd also like to know how you know they DID have an agreement to share all
> songwriting. I've never read this anywhere. And if the source is only
Joey,
> then let's face it, that, too is slanted. :-)
My understanding of the dispute is this:
A. In 1972, the members of the band agreed to split all songwriting
royalties this way: the writer(s) of the song would get 50% of the
royalties, and the remaining 50% would be split equally between all band
members and Bill Collins.
B. The Ham/Evans estates claim that this agreement was only intended to
last for the duration of the time the band remained together. The minutes
of the 72 meeting state this. Molland contends that the agreement was a
permanent one, intended to exist in perpetuity.
C. When Badfinger's royalties were finally released in the mid-80s, they
were broken down as 25% to the writer, 75% split among the rest of the band
and Collins. There was no precedent for doing this. Even if you agree with
Molland that the royalty split was intended to be a permanent agreement, the
change in percentages was unprecedented and done only because Molland,
Gibbins, and Collins were there to argue for their own interest while Ham
and Evans obviously were not.
Obviously, Molland prefers to keep the royalties split this way, rather than
just receiving royalties for the songs he wrote, because "Without You"
generates more royalty income than the entire rest of the Badfinger catalog
combined.
Regardless of what agreement they had, in my opinion it is very unfair for
Molland, Gibbins, and Collins to make thousands of dollars in royalties (if
not millions) for a song they did not in any way contribute to the writing
of.
BigStar303
<< No, you are wrong because the book is wrong. I have know Joey since 1975,
long
before Mantavena or whatever his name is was outta diapers, and I know that
they DID have this agreement before anyone wrote a song, hit or not. >>
If this is so, why is there only one Badfinger album with original songs
actually credited thusly: "(Badfinger)" -- while all others carry songwriting
credits for individual members of the group (i.e. Ham-Evans; Molland, etc.).
MrPither12
Date: Wed, 23 June 1999 08:47 PM EDT
Message-id: <19990623204755...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
If this is so, why is there only one Badfinger album with original songs
actually credited thusly: "(Badfinger)" -- while all others carry songwriting
credits for individual members of the group (i.e. Ham-Evans; Molland, etc.).>>
Those were credited BADFINGER to keep the songs away from Stan Polley. It had
nada to do with the band's internal agreements.
D 28IF
> The
>bottom line is, if you don't like/resent Joey = don't see/support him. I,
>however, do not understand why some of you people are so affronted by all of
>this as if this is heresy. He's just a decent guy trying to make a living.
>This
>is from a guy who knows Joe and who does not have a slant, unlike Mantavena.
>
>
No offense but, if you like Joey, obviously you, too, have a slant.
D 28IF
In reading this over, I think we're confusing two things, and I may have
assumed you were referring to something you weren't.
I know each Badfinger member shares in royalties for every song. I was talking
just about taking credit for the *songwriting*. The songwriter gets more
royalty than the rest of the group. And deservedly so, IMO. That's what I
thought you were talking about, but I'm beginning to think you weren't. Rather,
you were only referring to the royalties all the band members share, which is
what's left over after the writer gets their share.
Sorry for the confusion, as well as the confusion I'm sure THIS post caused.
=:-O
Barb Alan Atkinson
> And the Beach Boys Family & Friends tour makes clear in its title it's not the
> fan not knowing any better, may be going thinking they're seeing the whole
> band. They may just have found Badfinger thru CDs, not even realize 2 members
> are dead, and think they're seeing the originals when it's only Joey and some
> others. It's close to false advertising, IMO.
Joe bills himself as Joey Molland's Badfinger
>
> The songwriting CREDIT was NEVER supposed to be shared. That was the alleged
> disturbance that Tom Evans' wife was so upset about at an ASCAP presentation
> for "Without You," and Pete Ham's daughter was so upset about it, she refused
> to attend the event.
The mistake on songwriting credit lies with ASCAP. They were told in advance about
errors in credit but didn't correct it.
>
>
> IMO, if there was any integrity and respect, Joey, Mike and Bill would have
> refused to take the stage, since the award was for the songwriting, and they
> didn't really have anything to do with it.
The award is not a songwriting award, it is an award for radio airplay
>
>
> Again, according to the book (I'm fully admitting I'm using that as my source),
> Kathie Molland made claims about what Joey added to the song (a single word
> change, for example), but it was found in the original demos made by Pete and
> Tom, that Joey *hadn't* come up with those, as they were already included in
> the solo demos.
>
According to the source (Dan's sidekick Sean and a major Kathie adversary), Kathie
said in a private e-mail to him that she thought he may have suggested the "give".
This hardly constitutes "claims" of authorship. Joe's account of the writing of the
song has been documented a dozen times over and he has NEVER remotely hinted at
having any input in the writing of the song. The point he stressed most was Bill
Collin's input. Collin's obviously thought it was a very strong song and told the
band they really needed to do a big arrangement on it.
>
Barb Alan Atkinson
I was talking about Tommy. It's not my intention to turn this into a trash Tommy
post. I don't believe any of these guys were/are horrible people. They all made
mistakes and had faults. We all do. Tommy obviously was more erratic the last
couple of years of his life. I think drugs and alcohol played a major role in
that.
My point was that there are people quoted in the book saying what a great guy
Tommy was, who told me, when he was alive, they couldn't stand him. I guess it's
the martyr syndrome.
Barb
TBeatles67 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Badfinger's Joey Molland birthday
> >From: Barb Alan Atkinson
>
> I honestly don't know what to think about Joey. In person he has always been
MrPither12
From: "Jason Czeskleba"
...Regardless of what agreement they had, in my opinion it is very unfair for
Molland, Gibbins, and Collins to make thousands of dollars in royalties (if
not millions) for a song they did not in any way contribute to the writing
of.>>
And in my opinion I think it is unfair that any "songwriter" (from McCartney to
Costello) take most - if not all- of the credit and cash when it is usually a
band collaboration. But opinions aside, I know from Joey and Tommy that the
band had an agreement about splitting the money and credits 4 ways from the
start because they TOLD me this in person (1976 or 77). What most are
forgetting here is that Badfinger was a true "hippie" band who lived together
and ate together and suffered together. It's hard in today's I-Me-Mine world to
remember the hippie ethic, but Badfinger personified it. At the time NO one in
the band had written any hits, all wrote songs, and none knew who might end up
penning a hit - thus the agreement. But, as hippies were want to do, they just
agreeded, they didn't sign anything thus todays controversy. It's never been a
question of who actually wrote anything, it a question of living up to a hippie
agreement in a 90s corporate culture.
D 28IF
> My point was that there are people quoted in the book saying what a great
>guy
>Tommy was, who told me, when he was alive, they couldn't stand him. I guess
>it's
>the martyr syndrome.
>Barb
>
The thing is, I never read it that way. I thought the book was pretty
even-handed as far as dealing with the good and bad points of each band member.
Tom clearly comes off as an ass at times, as do they all. I never got the
feeling he was being "martyred."
And, for someone who supposedly dislikes him so much, Matovina gives a lot of
kudos to Joey's talents.
D 28IF
>My understanding of the dispute is this:
>A. In 1972, the members of the band agreed to split all songwriting
>royalties this way: the writer(s) of the song would get 50% of the
>royalties, and the remaining 50% would be split equally between all band
>members and Bill Collins.
>B. The Ham/Evans estates claim that this agreement was only intended to
>last for the duration of the time the band remained together. The minutes
>of the 72 meeting state this. Molland contends that the agreement was a
>permanent one, intended to exist in perpetuity.
>C. When Badfinger's royalties were finally released in the mid-80s, they
>were broken down as 25% to the writer, 75% split among the rest of the band
>and Collins. There was no precedent for doing this. Even if you agree with
>Molland that the royalty split was intended to be a permanent agreement, the
>change in percentages was unprecedented and done only because Molland,
>Gibbins, and Collins were there to argue for their own interest while Ham
>and Evans obviously were not.
>
>Obviously, Molland prefers to keep the royalties split this way, rather than
>just receiving royalties for the songs he wrote, because "Without You"
>generates more royalty income than the entire rest of the Badfinger catalog
>combined.
>
>Regardless of what agreement they had, in my opinion it is very unfair for
>Molland, Gibbins, and Collins to make thousands of dollars in royalties (if
>not millions) for a song they did not in any way contribute to the writing
>of.
>
>
See! As I said in my follow-up post to this original one, I *knew* we must have
been talking about two different things.
I completely agree with what you've written above!
Booheis Brecht
mrpit...@aol.com (MrPither12) wrote:
> <<And the Beach Boys Family & Friends tour makes clear in its title it's not
> the
> "Beach Boys". Joey does nothing to distinguish this isn't Badfinger,>>
>
> Wrong. He tours as Joey Molland's
>
>
> <<The only difference here is that Badfinger agreeded
> >up-front, before ANYONE wrote a hit, that they would acknowledge this
> >important
> >aspect of songwriting by sharing "writing" credits equally. There are people
> >(especially in big band/jazz) who ONLY arrange music. It's a very important
> >part of writing a song.
> >
>
> Wrong, Badfinger did not decide to share any writing credits equally. >>
>
> No, you are wrong because the book is wrong. I have know Joey since 1975, long
> before Mantavena or whatever his name is was outta diapers, and I know that
> they DID have this agreement before anyone wrote a song, hit or not. The
> bottom line is, if you don't like/resent Joey = don't see/support him. I,
> however, do not understand why some of you people are so affronted by all of
> this as if this is heresy. He's just a decent guy trying to make a
living. This
> is from a guy who knows Joe and who does not have a slant, unlike Mantavena.
Just because that's what he may have told you doesn't mean it is fact. Duh.
Barb Alan Atkinson
than in the sixties. Most of the new bands I know share the songwriting publishing
equally. As Mike Gibbin's said, if not for this communal philosophy, five years
later the drummer will be pumping gas. REM shares all their songs equally. If you
ask around you'll find it's become a very common practice.
Barb
MrPither12 wrote:
> <<Subject: Re: Joey Molland
> From: "Jason Czeskleba"
>
> ...Regardless of what agreement they had, in my opinion it is very unfair for
> Molland, Gibbins, and Collins to make thousands of dollars in royalties (if
> not millions) for a song they did not in any way contribute to the writing
> of.>>
>
Barb Alan Atkinson
this too unfair?
Barb
Barb Alan Atkinson
the Ass album because he realized that Joe still hadn't signed the publishing
agreement and half the songs on the record were Molland songs. Joe signed soon
thereafter and the current cd lists the song writing credits.
Barb
gary parker
a band's legacy for personal gain as egregious
as Molland's efforts might be the chutzpa demonstrated
by Mike Clarke when he hired on a bunch of sidemen
and went out as the Byrds. And he was the drummer!
No McGuinn, no Gene Clark, no Crosby. Now that takes
grease!
Later brethren,
-Gary Parker
Booheis Brecht
mrpit...@aol.com (MrPither12) wrote:
> <<Subject: Re: Joey Molland
> From: woof...@hotmail.com (Booheis Brecht)
>
> Just because that's what he may have told you doesn't mean it is fact. Duh.>>
>
> So you'd rather believe some half-talented, totally-biased and bitter hack
> writer versus 2 of the actual parties involved? DUH yerself.
Unless it was written on paper and signed by the parties no one can claim
to "know" the truth about this as you have.
MrPither12
D 28IF
>this too unfair?
>Barb
>
If the two hadn't had a verbal agreement they each held to for the duration of
The Beatles, then "yes."
And just to reiterate for the tenth time what I'm talking about here, it's the
sharing of songwriting credit.
The royalties everyone shared in was what was left AFTER the songwriter got
their percentage upfront. And that amount, mysteriously, changed after Pete and
Tom died. Funny, since they were the ones who wrote/co-wrote the band's hits.
Nice of Joey, Mike and Bill to help themselves to more than was originally
agreed upon.
Barb Alan Atkinson
they didn't have a hand in writing in spite of an agreement to do so. John and Paul
agreed to share co writing credit on all of their songs which means they receive
royalties for songs they didn't have a hand in writing.
You seem to be implying that Joe, Bill, and Mike just changed the agreement and
the Ham and Evans estates didn't have any say so. The division of monies was
decided in a London court in '83 by all parties, including the estates of Ham and
Evans. I don't claim to know the details of said agreement but it's ludicrous to
suggest that the percentages were suddenly changed and the Ham and Evans' estates
didn't notice or care.
Barb
MrPither12
to "know" the truth about this as you have.
>>
I only claim to "know" what Joe and Tom told me 23 years ago. What you claim to
"know" you read in a book. Signing a piece of paper and signing it does not
always equal the truth. If it did then sign confessions would always be true.
The thing here seems to be that you are unwilling to listen any other view on
this but what a spiteful man wrote in a biased book. Why do you accept this as
the "truth"? Merely because it's on paper? That's nonsense.
D 28IF
>decided in a London court in '83 by all parties, including the estates of Ham
>and
>Evans. I don't claim to know the details of said agreement but it's ludicrous
>to
>suggest that the percentages were suddenly changed and the Ham and Evans'
>estates
>didn't notice or care.
>Barb
>
There is a documented band agreement, dated 1972, which states the royalty
splits as, "50%" to the writer(s), the other "50%" divided amongst the four
band members and Bill Collins. Also, the minutes of the meeting showed that
this was meant to exist while the band was still together.
In the agreement reached in 1983, supposedly anything voted on, Joey, Mike and
Bill had a 3-2 majority vote over the estates of Ham and Evans.
The agreement reached was supposedly after much compromise.
I'm not saying the two estates didn't agree to the new terms. I'm saying it
shows how selfish and money-hungry the other three were/are.
Booheis Brecht
mrpit...@aol.com (MrPither12) wrote:
> <<Subject: Re: Joey Molland
> From: woof...@hotmail.com (Booheis Brecht)
> Unless it was written on paper and signed by the parties no one can claim
> to "know" the truth about this as you have.
> >>
>
> I only claim to "know" what Joe and Tom told me 23 years ago. What you
claim to
> "know" you read in a book.
I haven't read the book. You are making assumptions here.
>Signing a piece of paper and signing it does not
> always equal the truth.
It would indicate a mutual understanding at the time. What you have now is
half the band who are not disinterested parties. They would have something
to gain by changing history. Whether they tried to or not is another
question but there would be something to gain
>If it did then sign confessions would always be true.
> The thing here seems to be that you are unwilling to listen any other view on
> this but what a spiteful man wrote in a biased book.
Again I haven't read that or any other book about the band. You seem to
have though.
Coz
Booheis Brecht wrote in message ...
IDISM
>I think he has talent but he's gone too far
>with touring as Joey Molland's Badfinger, it's pathetic to try to milk it
>like that, like Spinal Tap.>>
"Even Mike Gibbins admitted he had to stop the "charade" of pretending to be
Badfinger. that is wasn't right.
See interview at sean seivers site.
>Why is that pathetic? What would you have him do, go hang sheet rock?
I doubt his ego would allow him to...but hey if the shoe fits...
>Why does no one lambast Al Jardine for touring as Beach Boys Family and
Friends?
I believe Al has bowed out since the death of Carl.
>Like Joe, he didn't sing any hits either.
i believe al sang "Help Me Rhonda"
>Or how about Dave Gilmor still recording
>as Pink Floyd? Like Joe, he wasn't a "founding member" either.
Gilmour is pathetic as well, but still successful!!
>The only difference here is that Badfinger agreeded >up-front, before ANYONE
wrote a hit, that they would acknowledge this
>important>aspect of songwriting by sharing "writing" credits equally. There
are people.
That is a totally inaccurate statement regarding the badfinger agreement.
What is most pathetic to me is when Joey
explains on the video "the bfinger Story"
exactly what his & Bill Collins's contributions we're in the "writing" of
Without You.
Barb Alan Atkinson
loved Tommy and that all these awful things he did was just his way of testing
you. A couple of these individuals told me they hated him when he was alive. Now
they say how much he meant to them. The martyr syndrome!
Barb
D 28IF wrote:
> >From: Barb Alan Atkinson <b...@webzone.net>
>
Barb Alan Atkinson
IDISM wrote:
> "Even Mike Gibbins admitted he had to stop the "charade" of pretending to be
> Badfinger. that is wasn't right.
> See interview at sean seivers site.
>
> Mike's bullshitting. He quit in '87 because he was tired of touring.
>
>
> What is most pathetic to me is when Joey
> explains on the video "the bfinger Story"
> exactly what his & Bill Collins's contributions we're in the "writing" of
> Without You.
What are you talking about? Joe has never made any claims to writing any of
"Without You"! He talks about the recording of it in the video!
IDISM
>they say how much he meant to them.
Maybe time has healed some old wounds
ya know? Maybe they're lookong back at
the good things about Tommy there might have been now?
wtr...@my-deja.com
"Nipperdog" <nipp...@ibm.net> wrote:
> Is it just me or is it getting harder to tell
Joey Molland apart from Denny
> Laine (professionally, that is)?
>
> While it is true you can't always believe what
you read, the combo of the
> Without You book and the Badfinger video leave
little doubt in my mind that
> there is more truth than fiction to this story,
hence the Joey (and Kathy)
> bashing.
When confronted by several Badfinger fans who
questioned Joey's continued use of the name,
Kathie Molland lashed out on his guestbook,
calling the fans "termites." A lovely
condescending attitude from the wife of a man who
pays his bills through Pete Ham's art.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Barb Alan Atkinson
and out liar in my book. There were a couple of posters who continuously
saying derogatory things about Kathie and Joe (I can't even repeat the
profanity from one of them). These were the posters to whom Kathie
referred to as termites and not the individual questioning Joe's use of
the Badfinger name. Judging from your fake e-mail address, I believe you
were one of them. You were most likely the fictitious Suzie as well. I
find the use of pseudonyms a cowardly characteristic.
If you are not a fan of Molland's, fine, don't listen. There are plenty
of us that are and we tire of the offensive remarks from rude immature
people (Termites!) You are entitled to worship Pete Ham to your heart's
content. But this constant mean spirited attacking of Kathie serves no
purpose and shows your true character.
If you are unable to voice your opinions in a respectful and adult
manner, then expect people to retaliate in kind.
Barb
P.P. Glasscock
> In article <376f...@news1.us.ibm.net>,
> "Nipperdog" <nipp...@ibm.net> wrote:
> > Is it just me or is it getting harder to tell
> Joey Molland apart from Denny
> > Laine (professionally, that is)?
> >
> > While it is true you can't always believe what
> you read, the combo of the
> > Without You book and the Badfinger video leave
> little doubt in my mind that
> > there is more truth than fiction to this story,
> hence the Joey (and Kathy)
> > bashing.
>
> When confronted by several Badfinger fans who
> questioned Joey's continued use of the name,
> Kathie Molland lashed out on his guestbook,
> calling the fans "termites." A lovely
> condescending attitude from the wife of a man who
> pays his bills through Pete Ham's art.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
I'm convinced she has a screw loose. I saw some of her vitriol posted on a
bf website where she used lots of profanity and made threats to the
webmaster there
--
Please don't make fun of my name. I have feelings too.
David Wren
I. P. Glasscock ????
But on the subject of Badfinger, I wish all of the combatants in this
argument in the pro Joey and anti joey camps would stop wasting time and
effort (and thus $$$) and help get the LPs released on CD which have not as
yet been made available to the public... viz "Headfirst" & "Say No More"
or convince EMI/CAPITAL to make available in the US "Ass" , so all those in
the USA can get access to a brilliant CD.
in the end, it just seems like a whole group of relatives (who hate each
other) figting over some dead persons will...... basically the lawyers are
the only winners..... and the public misses out on the LPs being
released..... how long has it been since "Headfirst" was recorded ?
ahhhhhh that's right, only 25 years!!!!!!!! Let It Be only took 18 months
to get out to the public...
d
P.P. Glasscock wrote in message ...
P.P. Glasscock
<woo...@ains.net.au> wrote:
> to stop people making fun of your name, have you considered changing it to
> I. P. Glasscock ????
I'll give it some serious thought. Either that or U.P.
>
> But on the subject of Badfinger, I wish all of the combatants in this
> argument in the pro Joey and anti joey camps would stop wasting time and
> effort (and thus $$$) and help get the LPs released on CD which have not as
> yet been made available to the public... viz "Headfirst" & "Say No More"
> or convince EMI/CAPITAL to make available in the US "Ass" , so all those in
> the USA can get access to a brilliant CD.
>
> in the end, it just seems like a whole group of relatives (who hate each
> other) figting over some dead persons will...... basically the lawyers are
> the only winners..... and the public misses out on the LPs being
> released..... how long has it been since "Headfirst" was recorded ?
> ahhhhhh that's right, only 25 years!!!!!!!! Let It Be only took 18 months
> to get out to the public...
Hear hear. No matter what people think about them as people they all were
very talented and produced some terrific music. I personally love Joey's
music and one of my favorite BF songs was written by him. Can't we all
just get along?
wtr...@my-deja.com
b...@webzone.net wrote:
> You are intentionally distorting the facts and that makes you an out
> and out liar in my book.
I am not distorting the facts. There were many witnesses to this event.
>There were a couple of posters who continuously saying derogatory
> things about Kathie and Joe (I can't even repeat the profanity from
> one of them). These were the posters to whom Kathie referred to as
> termites and not the individual questioning Joe's use of
> the Badfinger name.
All of the attacks on Kathie Molland came after her derogatory posting,
including the solitary profane one.
> Judging from your fake e-mail address, I believe you
> were one of them. You were most likely the fictitious Suzie as well. I
> find the use of pseudonyms a cowardly characteristic.
I don't know who "Suzie" is, I have not offered any email address in
here, and if you find my use of pseudonyms cowardly that is your
privilege.
> If you are not a fan of Molland's, fine, don't listen. There are
> plenty of us that are and we tire of the offensive remarks from rude
> immature people (Termites!)You are entitled to worship Pete Ham to
> your heart's content. But this constant mean spirited attacking of
> Kathie serves no purpose and shows your true character.
My comment was rude, immature and offensive? I stated a simple fact,
coupled with an informed opinion about Badfinger's earnings. The Ham
& Evans composition of "Without You" is the big bread-winner for all
Badfinger members - it eclipses all the other Badfinger hits combined
monetarily. And Joey Molland earns money from the publishing of this
song, although it was not written by him. And I don't worship Pete Ham.
As far as a "mean-spirited attack" on Kathie Molland, she damages
herself far more than this humble person could aspire to.
> If you are unable to voice your opinions in a respectful and adult
> manner, then expect people to retaliate in kind.
> Barb
Well said, Barb. I will use your comments as a role model in all my
future postings.
John Doe
> There is a lot more history between the author and the Mollands than you obviously
> know about. The author represents the estates of Ham and Evans. The book is
> primarily told from the perspective and bias of the families and friends of the Ham
> and Evans estates. While writing his book Matovina sent out letters insinuating Joe
> and Mike Gibbins were claiming song writing credit to "Without You" and were
> wrongly receiving royalties from said song. Imagine you went through a messy
> divorce and your ex-spouse's attorney were to write a book about your marriage.
> That's what the Badfinger book is! I could write a book telling the exact same
> story but with a completely different spin on it. The problem is I couldn't get the
> Ham and Evans estates to support me while writing it.
> In the twenty five years I have been active with the band, I have never heard
> anyone that knew Joe say anything bad about him. On the other hand, there is
> another member who everyone seemed to dislike when he was alive but love now that
> he's dead ("Everyone loves you when you're six foot in the ground")
> I hope you don't take my response as hostile, but it always annoys me when people
> only see things as black and white. We're all Jesus and we're all Hitler.
> Please elaborate, what stories are you referring and who are the people backing
> them up?
> Sincerely
> Barb
> D 28IF wrote:
> > >From: tbeat...@aol.com (TBeatles67)
> >
> > >>Subject: Re: Badfinger's Joey Molland birthday
> > >>From: d2...@aol.com (D 28IF)
> > >
> > >>No offense but, I just got done reading "Without You, The Tragic Story of
> > >>Badfinger," and a birthday greeting is the last thing I'd like to wish
> > >>Molland.
> > >
> > >Yeah, I know. I felt the same way, and I used to like Joey a lot, met him
> > >several times. But the face he puts on for fans is most likely a mask.
> > >Trace
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To see if I could find out anything more, I've visited a few Badfinger
> > websites, and read Kathie and Joey Molland's defense against the book and
> > incidents mentioned.
> >
> > Seems anyone who doesn't agree with them is out to get them. They seem to think
> > the author had a vendetta against them because they wouldn't be interviewed for
> > the book, yet there are plenty of other people who back up stories told. The
> > Mollands make it seem like the only people present for anything were them and
> > the other members of the band, and anything anyone else says is speculation.
And ... rightfully so for the estates to shut you down on your "book."
No one in their right mind, especially the ones who represent the artists and their important legacy, wants to support gossip "books" like yours. You already proved this with your BS remark that no one loved one guy in this band until he died. How disgusting. You had a vendetta all along!