Saturday, October 29, 2005

The Purpose Of This Blog

The purpose of this blog is to dispel the weak criticisms of one of the best rock biographies ever compiled. It is also a chance to escape the one-sided editing that can be found on some Badfinger fan sites.

For those uninitiated, Badfinger was possibly the first Power Pop band in history. Their 1970 hit single "No Matter What" was perhaps the first song to reach the airwaves that brought all the Power Pop ingredients together; a relatively short, melodically catchy, rock guitar-based song with smooth lead vocals and background harmonies. This catchy formula would be repeated many times by Badfinger throughout its history.

Badfinger (originally The Iveys) was signed by The Beatles to its Apple Records label in 1968. Their first Top 40 hit in 1970 was the Paul McCartney song "Come And Get It," which was soon followed by "No Matter What." They achieved more success with the singles "Day After Day" and "Baby Blue" in 1972; the last three were all written by band member singer/guitarist Pete Ham. Another Badfinger success was "Without You," a song written by Ham and bandmate Tom Evans that reached immense international stature when covered by Harry Nilsson in 1972 and Mariah Carey in 1995.

Six albums were released by Badfinger during its heyday between 1969 and 1974. At that time, the band consisted of Pete Ham, bassist Tom Evans, guitarist Joey Molland and drummer Mike Gibbins. Criminally poor management and band infighting caused the group to sputter in 1974, and by April of 1975 Ham committed suicide. After Molland and Evans conducted a brief resurgence between 1979 and 1981, the band dissolved again. Evans committed suicide in 1983. Mike Gibbins also recently passed away in October 2005 (due to natural causes).

In 1997, a biography of the band was published called "Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger." It was written by Dan Matovina and published by Francis Glover Books. Since the release of this book (and actually a little before its release) Molland denounced both the book and its author. Following suit, many of Molland's most diehard fans also jumped on the bandwagon to criticize the book and author. And because many of these Molland fans also operate Badfinger guestbooks, discussion of the book has been lopsided in favor of the critics - allowing criticisms to flourish while editing or silencing anyone supporting the book.

Without going too deeply into Molland's criticisms, he has basically stated that Matovina was ill suited to write the biography and that the book contains errors and "lies" about him and his wife. His first complaint about Matovina is a judgment call, but the results speak for themself. Matovina, a record producer who now is a representative for the Ham Estate, released a book that has garnered widespread acclaim among book critics. The book was voted the #2 Best Rock Biography of 1997 in a poll of book critics in Great Britain. Reviews of the book have been tremendously favorable across the board - from Rolling Stone Magazine, Record Collector Magazine, Goldmine Magazine and Discoveries Magazine, among many, many others. For a complete list of reviews, please visit the book website reviews section at:
This basically answers the question of whether or not Matovina was a capable author.

Molland's other complaint about errors and "lies" is even easier to address. More than 200 people were interviewed for the book, including Badfinger members, producers of the band, managers of the band, the presidents and executives of Badfinger's two record labels, Apple Records and Warner Brothers Records, and tons of family and friends of the group. In fact, the list of non participants who were sought for interviews is so short that it barely covers a paragraph in the Prologue. But the book participants (which includes an array of influential and notable names in the music industry) is so long that it covers two pages just to list them all.
Of these hundreds of people, nearly every incident which involves Joey Molland and his wife are detailed by more than one witness. Many of these witnesses often did not even apparently know each other, but the details were still consistent. These incidents were chronicled through quotes by the interviewees. Molland has claimed these interviewees were either misquoted or manipulated by Matovina to make him and his wife look poorly, but many of these intervieweess have since gone public to support what they said and the message they conveyed in the book. Not a single book participant has gone public and made any contrary claim.

Without the possibility of collusion of the author and/or the interviewees, or even a clear motive for Molland's assertions, his claims of "lies" can be easily dismissed. As far as errors, every book ever published most likely contains errors. But these appear to be in short supply here considering the multiple attributions supplied and documentation Matovina reproduces for the book. On the contrary, it is Molland who appears to be an unreliable source for information regarding the band. During decades of interviews for magazines, he has denied lawsuits that took place, denied concert tours that took place, changed his recollections of conversations that took place, intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented Badfinger contracts, has confused his timelines, and - most of all - has inflated the importance of his wife's positive influence on the band. Interviewees were unanimous that Mrs. Molland's influence was always negative, and often extremely so.

More than anything else, Molland's hostility about the book and its author appear to hinge on how he and his wife are portrayed. Perhaps because he is incapable of dealing with the massive amount of interviewees who were quoted making the charges, Molland has found Matovina a much easier solitary target. Further, Molland and his wife have admitted that they haven't even read the book, which reduces the credibility of their arguments to near zero.

I have always supported this book for myriad of reasons, and I believe anyone who is a fan of non-fiction will feel the same. It is tirelessly researched, packed with copies of documents and contracts, and goes well beyond what is merely satisfactory to verify facts.

So for those of you who may visit a Badfinger guestbook and read criticism of the book or author, and find little in response to it, please recognize the source and possible editing. These are mostly Molland fan sites that are eager to please the musician. They will parrot Molland's complaints without adding anything of real substance to the argument.

For those of you who feel capable of deciding for yourself, please read the book.


Kevin said...

Thanks for the kind comments, thanks for always being on the side of truth and facts in the saga of Badfinger. I have always felt like sometimes it was you and I and 3 others battling the tide of BS.

Feel Free to contact me whenever

your friend,


ßill said...

Thank you too, Kevin. I am enjoying the current up-to-date information provided on your blog.

Yeah, sometimes it is only you and I out there. The "3 others" need to come back out of hiding (remember Doug from New Mexico?).

Morten said...

Hi Bill!

I just want to compliment you with your new blog. Great that new places for serious and intelligent Badfinger discussion have come up. Like this one and Kevin´s.


ßill said...

Yikes Morten! My slip up. You have certainly been a consistent and fair Badfinger observant. Please accept my apologies, and notice my new link. Thanks.

Doug said...

Hi Bill,

I was lucky enough to catch your link before it disappeared off the other site.

Anyway, I'm here :-) Thanks to you and Kevin for creating your blogs - it's much appreciated!

ßill said...

Hi there Doug! Hey, your observations have been sorely missed. Please feel free to offer commentaries or new topics anytime.

Anonymous said...

Why is it, that after Pete took
Fergie's wife, son, job, and left
him stuck in the middle of nowhere
(Caribou Ranch), then put his loved
ones through great personal grief
by committing suicide as Tom also
would do (after his wife had to file desertion papers at one point)
that these are yours, and
Matovina's heroes of the band, and
act like they were the morally
upright ones?

ßill said...

Neither Pete or Tom are my "heroes." I am too old for "heroes." But neither are they claiming to be sole authorities regarding Badfinger history, and then twisting facts in an attempt to improve their public images while covering up facts.

Anonymous said...

Bill, I appreciate your comment.
In all honesty though, Pete and
Tom were never questioned about
their less than honorable moments,
so we have no idea whether they
would have represented them
truthfully or not.
I like the truth too, but not
when it's just the parts of the
truth that support your views (I
am referring to Dan here). Where
was Steve Craiter in Dan's book
when he was stealing the Badfinger
name, trying to extort money from
Badfinger newsletters so they
could continue to use Badfinger
in their title, and then turning
around and making Joey buy back
the name of his own band?
I'll tell you. NOWHERE. Did
Dan think this was not important,
or was he just not as informed
as many of us who don't write
books on the subject? He knew and
left it out. Why don't you ask him
why? I can think of a couple

ßill said...

I'd read about Craiter copyrighting/patenting the Badfinger name in an article somewhere. I thought I also read that in the book (maybe not?). I didn't write the book so I don't know what Matovina knew, what he didn't know, what he forgot to include, what he didn't have space for, or what he just decided to leave out. There are a lot of possibilities. You assume it was missing for a couple calculated reasons? Can you calculate them for me, because I don't understand how it alters the meat of the story. Please enlighten me.

Anyway, you are also putting forth an argument that because some people might have been dishonest had they lived, and that some peripheral people are dishonest, that I need to cut Joey a break? None of them are claiming to be the sole authority on the band while simultaneously making an incomprehensible pretzel out of the story. The book makes sense out of the story. The pieces fall together. Joey's version(s) of Badfinger history do not make sense. Timelines are blurred, huge gaps exist, and he contradicts himself and the documentation all over the place.

Anonymous said...

As far as S C goes, it's about
credibility. It's hard to expose
someone's dirty dealings when you
are using them as a prime source
in your attack on the person they
committed them against, ex: Joey
cancelling shows, the infamous
phone tapes (by the way, have Dan
play you the beginning of the tape,
where Tom's having a go at S C for
blaming everything on him to Joey).
Oh, I'm sorry, he won't be able
to, it wouldn't exactly line up
with the picture he wants to
portray. Incidently, this is not
a pro-Joey post, we're just trying
to get a little truth here, right?

ßill said...

"As far as S C goes, it's about

Yes, I say the very same thing about Joey. But anyway...

"It's hard to expose
someone's dirty dealings when you
are using them as a prime source
in your attack on the person they
committed them against, ex: Joey
cancelling shows, the infamous
phone tapes (by the way, have Dan
play you the beginning of the tape,
where Tom's having a go at S C for
blaming everything on him to Joey)."

So you're apparently floating one of two theories (I'm not sure which, so I will address both): The first is that Matovina didn't include information about Craiter's copyrighting because he wanted to stay on Craiter's good side to get information? That doesn't work logically. Before the book was ever published, Matovina would have gotten all the information he needed from Craiter. Matovina could have skewered Craiter and not lost a thing. Your possible second theory is that for Craiter's information to be credible, Craiter had to be credible, so the copyrighting info was left out. That doesn't work either. Joey admitted to canceling Tom's gigs on the VH1 show, so that was verified. And anything Pete or Tom said on Craiter's tapes are from Pete's and Tom's mouths - not from Craiter's mouth. It could have been Ted Bundy recording those tapes and it wouldn't have mattered.

"Oh, I'm sorry, he won't be able to, it wouldn't exactly line up with the picture he wants to

The picture I see portrayed in the book is corroboration from many parties who are all in agreement with each other. It just so happens that these many parties don't have much good to say about the Mollands. Whether or not Tom "had a go" at Craiter isn't particularly important in that vast scheme of things.

"Incidently, this is not
a pro-Joey post, we're just trying
to get a little truth here, right?"

Right. You're theories about why a specific piece of information is absent from the book is interesting, but that's about all. Theories aren't "truth," they're speculation. From my perspective, these Craiter theories aren't very logical. And even if they WERE true (Matovina wanted to stay on Craiter's good side or he didn't want to pollute the integrity of a source), the information Craiter provided turned out to be verified by Joey himself.
P.S. A simple request: The anonymous option is a good resource for people who just want to make a single passing comment and then move on. But for actual discussions, and I think this one qualifies, some kind of name is in order. Even if you don't want to use your real name, just make up a pseudonym. It makes the discussion easier for everyone to follow. Also, I would have moved this discussion to the main page if not for the "anonymous" label. Thanks.

dexy said...

Bill, you seem like a pretty
intelligent person, (a little
one-track mind you) yet, this does
make me wonder why you keep the
company you do.
It seems as though you are
indifferent as to the actual
events, as long as people don't
say anything over the top because
that's the way they're feeling at the time, or make a mistake, or
correct themselves later on, or
say ANYTHING rather than "You don't
know me, what business is it of
yours?" I can accept that. To some,
I guess actions do not speak louder
than words. You also seem to be in
the any means to an end mode, or
you would not like Dan.Did you ever
wonder about the other guy who was
doing the book with him? Do you
think he might have had an attack
of conscience when he found out
what Dan was up to? I know, that
was just innuendo, things like
that don't deserve to be considered
do they?

dexy said...

I have seen a link to what
these people have said, as far
as they were happy to see a book
come out and soforth, with not a
single person attesting to the
accuracy of the accounts.
A lot of people were upset
by this book, not just Molland fans. I have an issue as far as
Joey goes, but I won't air it here,
as this is already a totally
one-sided negative website. You
don't need any more fuel for the
As far as removing statements
from the record, as you say a
certain website does, to alter
what's been said, sometimes
authors do this under the guise
of revision. In the 2nd edition
paperback book it says there had
been changes (I beleive with a
statement Mike was supposed to
have said) and this would be
addressed. Of course it never was.
It glaringly contradicted the
statement made in the first issue
(paperback). From the first issue
to the second, Joey went from being
arrogant and lacking of
playing ability, where they just
figured Pete could cover it, to
being someone good looking, who
could play to boot! Quite a
different story, huh? I'm sure
you will try to rationalize it, but
it was either Dan purposely trying
to make Joey look bad, or Mike
had changed his mind on what he
wanted said on the subject, in
which case Dan altered the record,
omitting it the next time around,
and adding something very
So, was Dan a Joey saying things
to attack people, or was he just
a Randy Justesen, willing to alter
the record because he was a fan?
Either way, it seems to totally
go against the very foundation of
your beleifs, and this website.
Funny, isn't it?

ßill said...

"I have seen a link to what these people have said, as far as they were happy to see a book come out and soforth, with not a single person attesting to the accuracy of the accounts."

Which link? I doubt it contains the statements I am referring to.

"A lot of people were upset by this book, not just Molland fans."

Can you name a couple? I mean, a couple besides people associated with the Mollands?

As far as your comments on the book revision, you will need to point me to these passages. If Mike described Joey one way and then completely turned it around afterward, then that's a problem. Theoretically, Mike should have described what he thought about Joey AT THE TIME of the INCIDENTS being described, not what he thought of him at the time of the interviews. If he did an about-face then it sounds like that's what he was doing - at least during one of the interviews. But I will need to review the passages first.

"So, was Dan a Joey saying things to attack people, or was he just a Randy Justesen, willing to alter the record because he was a fan? Either way, it seems to totally go against the very foundation of your beleifs, and this website. Funny, isn't it?"

Actually, I don't see it as either of those. Revised books are supposed to correct errors. If Mike told the author something was in error and wanted it changed, and a revision was about to happen anyway, then it was Matovina's obligation to make the change.

Also, I did not criticize Randy for removing Joey's posts - assuming Joey requested they be removed. I asked if Joey is going to try to hide his dirty laundry in published books, the same way he presumably does on guestbooks. Joey is poised to publish one or more books, and his track record, in my opinion, is to be muddy and evasive about Badfinger's history.

dexy said...

you are incredible. So it's
alright for an author to make
conflicting statements as long
as he publishes them for the world
to see? Like I said, under the
guise of revision.
As far as your Ted Bundy tape
comment, yes I do have a problem
with it, when he's doing the editing as well. Especially
when it's done at key moments.
As usual, with Matovina, you get
the part of the truth he wants
you to hear. Do you hear Bill
Collins name after the know why
Peter died comment? Of course not,
or you might have to hear Tom
take it back a second later, just
deciding he was a f++king +++hole
instead. Do you hear Tom rambling
on about death, mentioning dying,
doing people a death, and having
a vendetta against Joey Molland?
(Tom's own words). Of course not!
It would show intent. Matovina
is as slimy as they come as far
as I see it. Some people, it will
just have to fall on their heads
before they realize it.

ßill said...

Dexy, you said...
"Bill, you are incredible. So it's alright for an author to make conflicting statements as long as he publishes them for the world to see? Like I said, under the guise of revision."

No. What I asked for were passages or page numbers that I can review. I also asked for a link to the statements you had mentioned. I also asked for the names of some non-Molland people who were "upset" by the book. I also asked for some clarification on your earlier comments. I assume you want to convince me that my defense of this book is misplaced. For this to happen, I would need far more to work with than what you have supplied thus far.

"As far as your Ted Bundy tape comment, yes I do have a problem with it, when he's doing the editing as well. Especially when it's done at key moments. As usual, with Matovina, you get the part of the truth he wants you to hear. Do you hear Bill Collins name after the know why Peter died comment? Of course not, or you might have to hear Tom take it back a second later, just deciding he was a f++king +++hole instead. Do you hear Tom rambling on about death, mentioning dying, doing people a death, and having a vendetta against Joey Molland? (Tom's own words). Of course not! It would show intent. Matovina is as slimy as they come as far as I see it. Some people, it will just have to fall on their heads before they realize it."

Again, you are referring to something which I cannot reference. You are claiming there are edits in the Craiter tapes, performed by either Craiter or Matovina, that tell a different story than what was presented in the book. You need to tell me what "story" is missing and quote the edited passages (or direct me to the quotes). A person might claim they spoke to Stan Polley recently and they are relaying some exclusive "information" from him. Without evidence to support the claim, I have no way to consider the information.

dexy said...

as far as giving you a page
number in the book, you will have
to look for yourself, as I had to
do, as I don't and won't own a copy
anymore. Maybe if Dan HAD addressed
it, it would be easier to locate.
In the 2nd version, he makes the mention about the change, and says
he will address it, in the first
pages before the story starts (I
beleive after the list of names
for references). It shouldn't be too hard to find. The comment appears (to the best of my
recollection) when they talk
about Joey joining the band. I just
skimmed through, comparing the two
to save time. Also noticed a cheap
shot at Kathie was added if memory
As far as the tape goes, I
gave you the info, there is of
course rambling, as if he were
out of it, as well as inability
to comprehend, SC mentions wanting
to meet up with him on tour, and
Tom says"YOU TRY AND STOP US!" This
even throws SC for a minute.
Certainly this was one of the
lowest points in Tom's life, and
Dan went and exploited it for his
own use. Tom never knew he was
being taped, and certainly not that
it would go public. Only a true
sleaze would have taken advantage
of this. There can be no doubt of
intent here, that was all Dan's.
And what business did this have on
a Badfinger music & interview cd?
This was no interview. It was
nothing more than an invasion of
privacy, promoted to everyone by
Dan. Whether this changes your
mind about anything in the book,
I really don't care at this point,
but if it doesn't change your
mind about Dan, then you are a
moral vacuum.

ßill said...

I assume(?) Tom's comments were placed on the CD to prove Tom actually made them, since the comments also appeared in the book. If I recall correctly, VH1 also used some of those comments on their "Behind The Music" show. Does that make VH1 "sleaze" and invaders of privacy?

"Whether this changes your
mind about anything in the book,
I really don't care at this point,
but if it doesn't change your
mind about Dan, then you are a
moral vacuum."

My opinion of Matovina extends only to how he presented the Badfinger story in his book, and I think he did an excellent job. I also think Joey did an excellent job on "Wish You Were Here." I also think O.J. Simpson did an excellent job with the Buffalo Bills. This doesn't mean I want to socialize with any of them. I can separate a person's work from the person, and then judge the work separately. If this makes me "morally vacuous" in your eyes, so be it.

dexys said...

as far as Vh1 goes, of course
they are no more sleazy than their
videos, I do not blame them. They
had taken Dan for some sort of
authority, which he always claims
to be. I have seen posts, where
no one there seemed to really
know the subject.He of course
provided the tape (again), this
time for a national tv audience.
This was no place for it. There
was no other info as to the
personal feelings between these
guys. Just another bigger
opportunity for a smear job.
What decides if you are
morally vacuous, is if knowing
this, you still support the guy.
Let's check his record, now that
he has gotten everything he wanted.
There is no Pete statue (granted
I never expected one, but I think
he owes an update, or apology to
the truly desperate people who
might have felt they needed one).
There is no Tom Evans cd of rare
(or otherwise) material which Dan
has been talking of for quite a
while. At this point, you might
say, "give the guy a break, it's
only a couple years", well fine.
So, how about the Iveys album Dan
told Ron he was putting together
5 YEARS AGO? Well, I have to say
in Dan's defense, he has been quite
busy. He has been schmoozing at
events he has no business
attending, been wheeling
and dealing with Pete's
catalogue, trying to play
Uncle Dan to the kids, all the
while causing a rip right down
the middle of the fan base those
guys worked so hard to achieve.
What a guy!

Dexy said...

P.S., I don't plan on coming
back, so I'll let you know.
"The company you keep" refers to
your buddies, who congratulated
you on this site, yet didn't
raise a finger to a keyboard to
try to help you out on this.
Not that it would have mattered,
to what I've said. I have been
absolutely truthful with you.

ßill said...

I realize you said you aren't coming back, but I will respond in case anyone else is interested.

Subject 1) You don't like Matovina. OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Subject 2) Pete statue. I have no clue what you are talking about. I don't remember any discussion about a Pete statue.
Subject 3) Tom Evans CD. I've heard this mentioned. I don't recall hearing any solid plans for it.
Subject 4) Iveys CD. I've heard this mentioned, too. I haven't been following it.
Subject 5) Matovina "schmoozing" at events. I gather you are talking about the recent Bangla Desh DVD unveiling. I understood he was invited by the Ham Estate. He does work for them now, you know.
Subject 6) Pete's catalogue. Well, isn't that what a Ham Estate representative is employed to do?
Subject 7) Playing "uncle" to the "kids." Social interaction between adults is a two-way street. Petera Ham is what, 30 years old? I give her enough credit to know who she wants to socialize with.
Subject 8) Fan base division. I've never been one to hold hands and sing "cumbaya" anyway.
Subject 9) The company I keep. I don't need assistance in defining my thoughts.

One additional note regarding delayed projects: In all the years I have been reading Kathie Molland's announcements of pending projects, I never once cared when they didn't materialize. From my personal experience in the business world, I fully appreciate that projects are often dependent on entities outside our control. I think she often jumps the gun with her announcements, but that's not a criticism. Apparently delayed projects bother you. OK.

Kevin said...


Dan found out about a business opportunity for Ham & Evans, was hired to "wheel-and-deal" the American/Canadian copyrights, and landed a great deal, which they are happy with. He also was already HIRED to be a music-related representative of Ham. You don't know crap about the business dealings Dan does, so don't even comment on them.

Why was he at the Bangladesh event? Petera and her family ASKED Dan to attend with her. Why? One of the reasons, because they were concerned about the Mollands dragging her around and laying their BS on her. They also felt better having Dan around to do the introductions to the people there, since he knows many of them already. And since it turned out Joey decided to act like an ass, it looks like their decision was a smart one. If you aren't happy Dan showcased Petera, Stephen and Owen, Adam and David Gibbins in their shining moment on a webpage, it just shows you to be a whining, frustrated loser . What is it? Are you upset because the Molland kids weren't there, too! Why don't you ask Kathie the answer to that.

dexy said...

Ah, you invoke the name of the
devil (Dan), and one of his
disciples is sure to show.
First off, if the kids were
there to honor their dads, great.
If they weren't, fine, this was
in honor of the people who took
part in it.
Now, you say Joey acted like
an ass? Were you there, or did
you hear about it from Dan?
Alternatively, I could just ask you
if you are the one who keeps
spreading this shit, or if it
is Dan, and he's just using you
for a trowel? This has been
your intent, either way.
I have also posted on Randy's
site that you called Joey an
asshole. If you want to tell
them you just said he was acting
like an ass, I'm sure they'll
be real sympathetic (LOL). Either
way, they'll know you for who you
are. Not so smart now, are you?
What was it you said to Jose?
Oh yeah, go to bed Kevin, the
bar's open.
Dexy DJ

dexy said...

P.S. This time will be my final
transmission here, unless you have
something you'ld like to add

D. Armstrong said...

I have read the Matovina written biography and it is one of the most objectively put together rock-oriented sagas I've read, and I've read many. I've dealt with Molland on a few things, too and he is a radical case. I work for an arm of WMG and was at the Olivia Harrison/UNICEF event to honor the Concert For Bangladesh. At one point, Molland ran out into the concourse crowd screaming obscenities and made a complete ass of himself. I had no idea he was yelling at Matovina (until later), who was passively standing there the whole time I saw. Molland charged him and people got in his way, though he had his finger in Matovina's face for awhile. To be honest, people were laughing at Molland, and when he gave up his tirade and left, it as if the drunk uncle from the wedding had sprang up and been whisked away. Molland has done nothing but validate what a jerk he is considered by most people I've talked to in the record business. A most telling thing about him was that he was the only person who actually played at the Bangladesh concert who was not invited to jam onstage at the event with Dhani Harrison, Ringo and Billy Preston. Jim Horn, Klaus Voorman, everyone else played but Mr. Molland

ßill said...

Thanks for your input, D. Armstrong.

I had pretty much pieced most of that together judging from the accounts posted by Matovina and Joey. Although I can't fault Joey for being angry about the book, his anger is obviously misdirected. He apparently refuses to acknowledge that Matovina quotes his interviewees, so the opinions of those people are the real origin of his anger. Matovina served as the messenger.

He may one day own up to what the interviewees actually said, and not keep denouncing pretty hardcore facts.

James D. said...

It makes me pretty ill to keep
reading comments like Dan was
just the messenger. Nothing could
be further from the truth.
Who SENT the message, Rowan
Atkinson? Who decided what info
to use?
Who decided there was a need for
the message in the first place?
Who's family even printed the
words on the paper the message was
written on? And lastly, who WROTE
the frickin' message? Are you
Yet you act like, don't blame
Dan for using no discretion, and
just being a tactless git, he heard
it from someone else. You hold him
totally unaccountable, and clearly
he has no intention of putting
himself in the position of
answering any questions, as I've
never seen him post and give people
the opportunity.
P.S. to D. Armstrong
Thank you for sharing your
account of the B. Desh event. It's
always nice to hear about
something from someone who was
actually there. I would have
laughed, after I saw who he was
yelling at, probably cheered too.

ßill said...

James D., so what is your point? Your loaded questions can't even be answered, unless you are suggesting that no one should have written this book except Joey. "To hell with the truth or objectivity - let Joey write about himself (or let one of his cronies do it)." You trust Joey to be an accurate messenger? I have provided evidence time-and-again about how inaccurate he is about Badfinger's past. But hey, if that floats your boat. Michael Jackson's autobiography should be a good laugh, too.

james d. said...

I would hardly expect a well-
rounded book coming from any band
member, so I am not suggesting this
would have been a great idea.
I thought I made my point
pretty clear. I think you are
focusing on my P.S. that was to
D. Armstrong, not yourself.
My whole point was your Dan
was just the messenger statement
which I have clearly disproven,
not that you shouldn't have seen
it already.
Would it surprise you to know
that to some of us, the book did
not impart a lot of info that
we didn't already know? Yet, I've
got to tell you, no one was
fighting, taking sides, name
calling and the like, because we
were true fans of the band, and
this was considered THEIR
BUSINESS. It was not for anyone
to decide who was right or
wrong, as WE were humble enough
to know that we were not sitting
there when it happened, so we
couldn't know EVERYTHING.
The trouble starts when you
begin imparting personal stuff
to the unenlightened general
public, who really didn't know
the story at all. They are always
ready to think the worst, and they
only have one source to base
everything on. You give Dan a
total green light, with
absolutely no accountability,
and just act like because you
were let in on a few secrets,
that they somehow are yours now,
and you should have a voice in
presiding over the whole mess,
and point fingers. That's what
Dan provided with his book. It's
just a shame that there is still
no Badfinger book that the fans
who went on the ride with them
can be proud of. It could have
been so different, but instead
Dan gravitated to the dirt.
James D.

ßill said...

First, I wasn't focusing on the P.S. since it did not address the book.
Second, you haven't disproven anything; you stated an opinion. Third, the possibility you previously were aware of info that was included in the book is hardly an argument against it. Not everyone is you.
Fourth, the info included in the book is of the same type you find in most rock biographies. You protest that it gets into band politics, but that's what biographies do. They don't just yap about the music - AND ESPECIALLY when the band experienced some major troubles and suicides.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion you are just parroting the Mollands' stance, that Matovina is to blame for everything. The author relayed what his interviewees had to say. The fact that you don't like what they said is another matter.

evolver said...

It is a curious thing, but after reading "Without You", I didn't really find that Joe Molland was really portrayed all that badly. He seems to be portrayed as a tad over-ambitious in some of the dark times, but that can come off as him having the strength needed to survive the worst run of bad luck any band ever had. In particular, towards the end of the Ham era, Molland seems to be the only one who, for whatever reason, got past whining about Polley to actually moving on from it.

Of course, Kathy is portrayed horribly - a moody, violent harridan if this account is to be believed. Now kick a man's wife, and any decent husband is going to come to her defence - that's just human nature. I don't blame Joe Molland for having some antipathy to DM over that, and I don't see how anyone could - surely no sane person could expect him to be pleased with that.

I met Mike and Joey a long time ago. They both seemed like nice guys. A situation like what Badfinger repeatedly went through is a test of character that few of the rest of us have ever had to deal with. How many of us would have done much better?

Joe and Mike found a way to survive it. And no matter what anyone says about Joey, that will always be to their credit, even if he was not always perfectly behaved... they all deserved a better fate. The real villian remains Polley and the rest of the music industry, whose soul killing antics robbed us of one of the brightest lights the music business ever shone out with...

ßill said...

Well said, Evolver. I would only add that the portrayal of Kathie Molland was dictated by the interviewees. Matovina couldn't have (assuming he even wanted to) trashed her with innuendo and fabrications. No one could take that seriously. But when witness after witness, after witness, after witness paint the same picture of a person, one must assume accuracy is close at hand.

Should Joey be upset at Matovina? That's his choice, but some introspection on his part appears to be long overdue. Again, the accusing voices about his wife are not Matovina's voice, but the Mollands' past friends.

Kevin Erickson said...

God, I can't believe what I'm reading here.Dan Matovina did not gravitate to the dirt. It's a clean book. It's all others words, not his editorial. Read the reviews on Matovina's book website, read the reviews on Amazon. I read the book myself. I've heard interviews from Joe and Kathie Molland. They had a DVD bio and outtake interviews easily available for years.Everything they've said or claimed that's important is in this book. I checked because of this stupid controversy i discovered. Joey was screaming about it at a gig I saw two years ago like some lunatic. My first Badfinger gig. That made me check out the book. I had to see what ticked him off. And I loved it. I went and got the two gold discs for a pretty penny because I was so moved and inspired. I cried reading about Pete Ham's death.

Why does Joe and his wife not read the book and say he never will? Then he'd have to face up to some of the facts I suspect? It's gotta be ego and maybe skeletons in his closet.? He's proven nothing against Matovina so far and he is a huge disappointment to me.

ßill said...

Nicely observant, Kevin. Joey obviously has no idea what is in the Badfinger book. He doesn't know nor does he want to know. He prefers to argue from ignorance, which is rather odd.

His wife still pops up with tidbits that are supposed to be earthshaking news, insinuating that Matovina didn't know about some point in Badfinger history, unbeknownst to her Matovina printed the same facts back in 1997. The only data she's offered that I didn't find in the book sound rather peripheral to me (stuff about her sister's death, which seems to stray beyond Badfinger's music and story).

I doubt they'll ever read the book. It would rattle their perception of reality too much.

mister x said...

I beleive that even though the
Mollands never actually "read"
the book, they know exactly what's
in it. I'm sure Randy read all the
important bits to Kathie over the
phone, therefore showing a lot of where his hundreds of hours talking
to Kathie on the phone claim comes
from. I don't think for a minute
that they wouldn't want to know what was said. Saying that they
never read it, was an easy way to
avoid answering specifics.

Anonymous said...

The message is out. Dan is
upset now about Badfinger
getting recognized through
a Grammy certificate as he
was not included to preside over
the deal. He has made several
phone calls to try and have them
recinded, and is even trying
to impose some legal action.
What a Badfinger fan!

Anonymous said...

I just ran into this site and am quite amazed. I was with JM and SC both in 82 and 83. I can tell you from first hand that there is no love lost between these two. SC did all he could do to screw JM out of money as he was upset that he was dropped from the band. He started doing shows as"Badfinger" around the Atlantic City area. I left because it was just wrong and I wanted no part of it. Yes, I am friends with Joey to this day. We only contact each other about two or three times a year. He still tours at times as JM's Badfinger, but is pushing his own music under his name, NOT Badfinger and trying to get away from that headache. Badfinger was a long time ago and now it is time to move on with new ideas and let those who desirve it, Rest in Peace.

Gary Hays
Tour Manager/Sound Eng.
Badfinger(JM) 82' 83'.

ßill said...

I'm sorry I missed these posts and did not respond. I rarely monitor these older articles anymore. You may want to post comments on the newer articles that are referenced on the right column. Thanks.

Giordan said...

A problem I'm having with this blog: if 'Bill' is not Dan Matovina, why does he care so much what the Mollands think of Matovina's book?

Giordan said...

Another problem I'm having: since the sad part of the Badfinger story is the fact that a hugely talented group who made a great many wonderful records did not get the rewards they deserve, why is the focus of this blog on one of the four musicians who did not get out of Badfinger what his talent and contribution entitled him to rather than on the factors actually responsible for the fiasco. In other words, why are we being asked to demonise Molland rather than, say, Stan Polley?

michaelguru said...

My name is Michael and I am a new member to this website.I am from Swansea and want to push the council in having some sort of plaque in recognition of exactly what Badfinger achieved.I have spoken to a lot of people that knew Pete and Mike and they suggested i contact you.Can you help us thanx.

ßill said...

Hi Michael,

Pete's and Mike's friends recommended me? I'm surprised they even know I exist.

I notice you are subscribed to the Badfinger Library Board at

I suggest you find an appropriate spot on that board and tell them your desire. All the people that organized the Badfinger Convention are on that board, and they're the ones who can best assist you.

Gina said...

Wow. I really can't believe what people are saying when trying to discredit Dan. What part of the word "interviewees" doesn't Molland's zombies get? Dan included anecdotes from people who experienced them. He very easily could have written a fiction book about Badfinger and not talked to anyone and just published his own point of view. Then you can discredit him for not having firsthand knowledge and simply taking "cheap shots" at Kathie and Joey. I haven't had the energy to read Molland's guestbook entries yet. This one gets my blood pressure up enough. Blind devotion is not based on anything even close to truth or common sense. I have no desire to associate with people like that. I guess the (credible and relevant) people who support Dan will always be out-whined and out-bludgeoned over the head with ignorance by the rest to ever be able to mend the rift in the Badfinger universe. I do enjoy reading about Joey's public acts of stupidity. I hope Dan realizes he IS supported and will not let unfounded accusations bother him.

P.S.-I wonder why so many Joey supporters are named Anonymous? Is that Latin?

Anonymous said...

i just came across this blog and to be honest i find it quite amusing. if it weren't for dan matovina badfinger songs wouldn't have appeared in recent movies like 'the departed'... he's the one who's been trying to keep the music of the band alive. i guess joey somehow forgets all the time that he gets a cut of the royalties everytime a badfinger songs gets used in a movie or soundtrack or what have you. joey can be bitter about what 'others' have said about his wife or whatever, but dan is only relaying what they said in interviews. joey seems like a very bitter individual...

Anonymous said...

A legend indeed. Only the good die young and tragically none more so than within this Great Rock Band BadFinger. Let the music speak for itself and the creators behind the words. The truth will sing for all who are willing to notice. Pete, Tom, and Mike ... God Bless you... and thanks for the music !!