Friday, August 01, 2008

More Molland Nonsense

This isn't the first time this has happened nor will it be the last, but the author of a recent newspaper article was duped by Joey Molland. This article was positively riddled with inaccuracies, thanks to Joey. The following is the most noteworthy blather that is either direct quotes from Joey or paraphrases by reporter Ted Shaw. A link to the article is too long for this format, but it can be found by Googling "The Windsor Star" and "Badfinger."

(1) "Without much prompting, Molland will sound off at length on the subject of the band's demise. He reserves most of his ire for journalist Dan Matovina, whose unauthorized biography, Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger, is the only book to attempt to chronicle the band's history."
The book is only singularly "unauthorized" by Joey Molland. Mike Gibbins, Bill Collins, the Ham Estate and the Evans Estate never labelled the book in such a manner (especially in light of the fact that all of those parties contributed to the book). And as I have often stated in the past, the bulk of official "authorized" biographies that I have read are fluff pieces, tailored to keep the biographical subjects happy rather than to tell the truth.

(2) "Matovina assembled his history from third-party interviews of those who knew or worked with Badfinger. Molland did not co-operate, and blames Matovina for cultivating vicious rumours. 'I wish someone would just tell the truth in print,' he said."

Joey's convoluted and inconsistent Badfinger anecdotes are the reason he can't get anyone to write his "truth" for him. But foremost, one need only read the Foreward of the book to know that Matovina did not "assemble his history from third-party interviews." Every member of the band had been interviewed by Matovina personally (with the exception of Pete Ham who died early on). Joey and his wife were both interviewed by Matovina in the late 1970s for other publications, and this material was later utilized in the book. Did you mention any of this to Ted Shaw, Joey?

(3) "One outright lie, he claimed, was the suggestion that Molland's wife, Kathie, hastened Badfinger's demise. In a scenario that sounds like it was plucked from the mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap, it was alleged that Ham quit the band in 1974 because of Kathie Molland's increasing influence."
The motivation for Pete Ham's resignation is hardly "alleged." In front of several witnesses, Pete clearly stated that Kathie Molland's meddling was the reason for his resignation. Joey even stated as much in DISCoveries Magazine in 1991: "Well, Pete stands up and says 'I don't want Kathie managing this band! I'm leaving.'" Did you mention this to Ted Shaw, Joey? Or are you trying to sell a new story these days?

(4) "Molland denies his wife had any involvement. On the contrary, it was Ham who created the rift by striking up a solo deal with Badfinger's manager at the time, Stan Polley."

According to every quoted source, Pete never sought any solo deal. Stan Polley sought a solo deal for Pete during the brief period after he had quit the band. There is no indication Pete was even aware of what Polley was doing at the time. For Joey to now claim Pete created a rift in the band by seeking a solo deal is beyond incredible.

(5) "'I f***ing deny it all and challenge you to find any f***ing evidence my wife called any agents or did any business for us,' Molland said. 'I'd f***ing bet you $1,000 right now to find anything that backs that up.'"

Joey admitted in Discoveries Magazine that it was a telephone call his wife made to Warner Brothers in L.A. and that her past inquiries into the band's business prompted Pete's resignation. Kathie Molland takes credit for doing this during her extensive interviews for the Molland-endorsed video documentary, along with bragging about all sorts of other business intrusions. Good golly, Joey, the evidence is right from your very own mouths! You may send the $1,000 to my Paypal account

(6) "In fact, Molland and his wife are both working on memoirs which one day, he promised, will set the record straight."

Straight, like this article is straight? Anyway, The Mollands have been making this claim for 20 years and they have yet to release any such memoirs. All of their projects have fallen flat and the reason seems obvious: Publishers don't appear interested in their various illogical, inconsistent, self-serving accounts. A publisher need only do a scant amount of research to discover the Mollands can't keep even their simplest facts straight.

A comprehensive Badfinger story has already been published that brings all the pieces together; a biography that is consistent, logical, evidentiary and well sourced. Hopefully, Ted Shaw will somehow learn from his myopia, and the next reporter will question the integrity and honesty of his subject before running with whatever gibberish is laid on his plate.

88 comments:

protund said...

First, you really should provide links to these things you criticise. I was able to find it anyway but it could have been easier. Is there some reason why you have again decided not to link to the source?

Joey says there is no evidence that Kathie called any agents or did any business for Badfinger before Pete quit the band. I agree there is no evidence that Kathie was calling agents to book gigs or that she was writing up contracts, so in the strictest sense what Joey is saying is true. Now I admit Joey appears to be refuting accusations that were never made. Pete wasn't accusing her of actually managing the band, he was saying he didn't want her getting involved in Badfinger's business, and she was getting into Badfinger's business by calling the record company. So on this technicality I don't think you can collect from Joey.

Another part that is messed up is about Pete's solo deal. Joey isn't quoted so we don't know if the writer got his information straight. But your response to this is off anyway because you reacted as though Joey said Pete was seeking a solo record deal. The article doesn't say that. It says a solo deal was reached between Pete and Stan. See how a person can misread something? No matter, I don't think this is true anyway. All I remember reading was Joey and Kathie said they heard Stan was shopping Pete as a solo artist. I don't think they said if Pete was in the band at the time or not.

The article is clumsy. I don't know if it's Joey's fault as it may be more the fault of the writer.

ßill said...

I simply neglected to add a link. I will incorporate one in my main article.

Regarding your second paragraph, Joey simply blurted something out and you were able to carefully dissect it in his favor. But what Joey is claiming is there is no evidence that his wife was meddling in Badfinger's affairs. The evidence of her meddling can be found among the declarations of both Joey and Kathie. I still claim the $1,000.

As far as the solo deal, the sentence is extremely short and vague but it is blatantly obvious from every source that Pete wasn't seeking a solo recording deal while he was with the band. He apparently entertained the idea after he quit and Polley shopped him a bit, but that was short-lived and Pete quickly returned to the group. When the article says "a solo deal" between Polley and Pete it is only transmutable as a solo recording deal for Pete; no other interpretation is available. So no matter how you read it, the inference is that Pete was seeking a solo deal while he was still in Badfinger. This is an example of the Mollands' recent campaign to smear Pete and his family - nothing more. It has never been mentioned by them before. This solo deal and "rift" in the band was never mentioned by Tom or Mike. It is a brand new revision of history being introduced by Joey. Next he will claim Pete used to burglarize his neighborhood and throw rocks at cats.

Anonymous said...

Please excuse any ignorance on my part but I thought this Blog pertained to the book that was written. Why are you quoting newspaper articles? From what I can ascertain reading through this site you are hiding behind this book to try to discredit the only living member of the original Badfinger group. I think you have stated that you have not met this member but in your latest article you appear to be able to tell us what he is going to do next!!!!! Your interpretation of Protund's response makes not a lot of sense to be honest. I see you scrabbling in the dirt here. You state that Kathie Molland was meddling, that is YOUR interpretation. If you don't know these people where did you get your information? From a simple layman's point of view can I suggest that a wife who supports her husband should be applauded not lauded. I have also visited the site where the ex of Peter Ham has written an article. Now that is something else too. Although not naming them directly she has torn into Mr & Mrs Molland with a vengeance. Come on now, who else could she mean? I cannot find where they have reciprocated. Perhaps you can tell me if they did as you seem to know what they do.

ßill said...

"Please excuse any ignorance on my part but I thought this Blog pertained to the book that was written."

It does.

"Why are you quoting newspaper articles?"

Because Joey Molland says the book is inaccurate. I have read Joey's ever-changing versions of Badfinger history for nearly 30 years. I am pointing out that the inaccuracy resides with him, not the book. It always has.

"From what I can ascertain reading through this site you are hiding behind this book to try to discredit the only living member of the original Badfinger group."

He discredits himself. How many lies does he need to be caught in before I'm allowed to call a spade a spade?

"You state that Kathie Molland was meddling, that is YOUR interpretation."

No, that was Pete Ham's interpretation, along with nearly everyone else quoted that has ever been in the band.

"If you don't know these people where did you get your information?"

Ummm, their quotes?

"From a simple layman's point of view can I suggest that a wife who supports her husband should be applauded not lauded."

"Applauded" and "lauded" are both supportive terms. And there's a difference between supporting one's spouse and pumping him up to the point of destroying harmony within his band.

"I cannot find where they have reciprocated."

Then you haven't looked.

protund said...

I gather you're only kidding about collecting the money from Joey but I am saying you couldn't collect it anyway. He said he wanted evidence that Kathie called AGENTS or DID BUSINESS for Badfinger. This one phone call to the record company isn't either of those. You haven't said what other evidence you have and how it would apply to one of those two things.

I agreed with you that this newspaper article is screwed up but who is to blame? You have to blame the author because HE is the one writing it and HE is the one responsible for it being accurate. If he didn't understand something Joey said then HE should have asked him to repeat it. How can that be Joey's fault? Suppose the author interviewed and wrote an article about Eric Burdon and he got his facts messed up. Would you also blame Eric Burdon? You're always very quick to blame Joey for everything.

ßill said...

"I gather you're only kidding about collecting the money from Joey but I am saying you couldn't collect it anyway."

Of course I'm kidding. I'd probably have to turn around and give the money back to the Ham and Evans estates anyway, since it more than likely was siphoned from them in the first place.

"You haven't said what other evidence you have and how it would apply to one of those two things."

You are still splitting hairs with this interpretation. Anyway, Kathie brags about all sorts of business meddling in the Molland-endorsed video. She claims to have met with people in Los Angeles, brought Joey out to meet the same people, and then... "We (Joey and Kathie) approached Stan Polley after we talked about it; we went to meet him at his house. Joey arranged for a deal for Stanley to be bought out with the advance from the next record." How do you classify this?

"I agreed with you that this newspaper article is screwed up but who is to blame?"

Joey.

"You have to blame the author because HE is the one writing it and HE is the one responsible for it being accurate. If he didn't understand something then HE should have asked Joey to repeat it. How can that be Joey's fault?"

Because Joey is incapable of clearly stating anything. He is so busy sweeping certain facts under the rug and twisting others, that he messes up his timelines and melds far-flung events into the same story. I've read and heard some of his unedited interviews. They are a mess; he jumps all over the place and yet expects people to understand him. Why do you think after 30-40 years and tons of interviews, articles and documentaries, that you'd actually see Joey say "I wish someone would just tell the truth in print"? Because no author can understand his self-serving, convoluted garbage. I am going by the track record. Inaccuracies in Joey's articles are Joey's fault, because it happens far too often for it to be the fault of all of those authors.

"Suppose the author interviewed and wrote an article about Eric Burdon and he got his facts messed up. Would you also blame Eric Burdon?"

If Eric Burdon had the same consistent trouble for 30-40 years with interviews and authors, yes I would certainly blame him.

Anonymous said...

WOW! Were you having a bad day Bill? Joey receives money from ASCAP not Ham or Evans estates. Would you say the same about Ellie Gibbins or Anne Collins?

ßill said...

"WOW! Were you having a bad day Bill? Joey receives money from ASCAP not Ham or Evans estates."

Joey receives money from "Without You", "Day After Day", "No Matter What" and "Baby Blue." The rest is chump change - including all of Joey's compositions combined.

"Would you say the same about Ellie Gibbins or Anne Collins?"

No need. Pete liked Bill and Mike. Pete didn't quit the band because of either of them, and they stayed with the band to the end. Joey didn't. Like Ringo, I'd expect the band to look after Mike. And elderly Bill invested his life into the band, he had no other avenues for income. Joey bailed out and joined another group before anyone died and while the band was still running. So Joey and Kathie are lining their pockets from Pete's talent while they're throwing stones at his family and his memory. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

It is from ASCAP Bill. What you are saying is that Bill, Mike and Joey are not entitled to the royalties. There is a legal agreement which you cannot dispute.

ßill said...

"It is from ASCAP Bill."

It doesn't matter who signs the check. The vast, vast majority of the money is from Pete Ham's (and Tom's) songs.

"What you are saying is that Bill, Mike and Joey are not entitled to the royalties."

That's correct. The 1972 contract that is evidenced in the book says royalty sharing was only vaild for two years. "This division of the writer's share will continue until April 11, 1974."

"There is a legal agreement which you cannot dispute."

I can dispute anything I want. The estate lawyers were duped in 1985 and the agreement should be voided. The attorneys were not shown this time-limited contract or the agreement never would have occurred. Shares from Pete's and Tom's music should not be going to the other parties. And having said this, I am also saying that Mike and his family and Bill and his family never trashed Pete Ham while they were collecting earnings from his music. The Mollands trash Pete and his family because they are unappreciative parasites. That's my opinion.

Steve said...

Wow! Joey Molland went off again! What a surprise! As you've pressed many times in these blogs, Matovina's book is nearly entirely from the words of the people who were involved. On the internet you can see their statements saying that they were quoted accurately and Matovina got their part right. What more could they ask?

Of course Joey Molland has every right to have a different take on things but he comes off as such an arrogant person. I've seen where Joey and Kathie Molland have stated they never read the book and never will. Boy, that lifts their credibility! Why would they not read the book? My guess, because they would have to answer to what others say in there.

The bottomline seems to be ego. It's ALL about the Mollands , how important THEY are, and they'll apparently use any tactic available including teaming up with that fawning woman that went after Anne Herriott and Pete Ham's daughter. I read her story about Pete Ham's last night. Totally refuted by Marianne Evans who was with Pete Ham that night.


As far as your point of any Badfinger agreement regarding sharing royalties, you do have me checking back to the book on this agreement between them and in the book and it says one meeting's documented minutes show a discussion of 50% to the writer and 50% split on airplay royalties (that's different than the settlement) .... and NO contract was signed there and then. Meaning nothing legal had happened yet. And you're right, what it alleges to say is the discussion entailed that whatever was agreed on was only to last TWO years. That is key. Obviously Pete Ham wasn't about to give away his songwriting royalties for a lifetime. Since this meeting happened in 1972, Pete's music was already gathering the lionshare of airplay other than "Come And Get It". He was amazingly generous to even have discussed such a deal at that time.

I'm sure if Pete Ham ever had any foresight his own daughter would end up being harrassed by friends of the Mollands, who are endorsed by the Mollands, I doubt any talk of any sharing of songwriting would have happened at all. Even if what this woman Cheryl said was true on Pete's last night, it seems obvious she wanted to do this to hurt Petera Ham any way she could. Why? What is the point? To get revenge for the Mollands because Anne Herriott criticized Joey's handling of Badfinger on her website? Why didn't this Cheryl tell this alleged story at the time Pete died? There was an inquest to determine what happened? Where was she then? Why do this? Because what she claimed obviously NEVER happened. She obviously concocted this to downgrade Pete's reputation and thus make the Molland's look even better in comparison. Everything about her intentions comes off as callous and fawning of her friends - the Mollands.

It's all really sad and depressing for me. People should read and hear the Mike Gibbin's interview that is on the internet. Check out his take on them.

ßill said...

Although your post is relatively long, Steve, there is little in it that requires any reponse from me.

I suppose your main thrust is about the 1985 settlement. That is something that might be worth exploring in a new article here. I believe there is evidence now that didn't exist in 1985 that sheds new light on the whole topic, but it would be too long to address now.

Steve said...

Even better would be to address the Mike Gibbins interview. http://hjem.get2net.dk/Badfingernews/
mike/index.htm

ßill said...

I just finished reading that 1998 Mike Gibbins interview. He offered comments there that he'd ordinarily reserve. What he says in that interview seems spot-on from what I can see. He said the Mollands would never put out a book, and 10 years later they haven't.

People should just go to that link and read it for themselves. Mike says it all so well that I wouldn't want to paraphrase him.

The Great R.E said...

I Love Badfinger music infact I rank Badfinger in the top 5 among the best bands of the 1970's

I have not read Badfingers book but I should if I get a chance.
It is a shame on what happen to Pete Ham and Tom Evens. If there is important lessons I have learn from Pete Ham's death is that limit your trust when it comes to bussiness. It is always imporant to watch your own back and never take for granit that someone will look after you. In this case Stan Polley drove Pete Ham over the edge.

This almost happen to John Forgerty when he was with CCR. His former Manger/Agent screwed him out of money and Forgerty almost went into the deepend.

Most importly depesstion is a very seriousy issue I should know because my Uncle killed him self back in 1981. It is important that if someone you know or love has a problem with depresstion, never ignore or sweep it under the carpet do somthing to help your friend or the one you love.

I am sure if Pete Ham was alive today he would agree on what I have said.

Bernie said...

You say publishers wouldn't be interested in the Mollard memoirs but I seem to remember that neither were they interested in the book you support. Wasn't it self-funded by the author and published by a family member?

ßill said...

I don't know what interest Matovina's book generated among potential publishers. I don't remember him saying anything about it. For all I know, he had several interested but they didn't offer decent compensation or distribution. I simply have no idea.

One difference, however, is Matovina isn't Joey, and the former didn't perpetually announce his book for decades beforehand.

Anonymous said...

There use to be a chat board for Badfinger and I can't find it anymore. Does anyone here know what I'm talking about and where to find it?
Thank you
David

ßill said...

There have been several Badfinger guestbooks throughout the years that got a lot of activity. Randy's was the last busy one, but that went down in late 2006. You might try Tom Brennan's discussion board at http://badfingertbbl.proboards84.com/
I believe you'll have to register to post comments there.

scooter said...

Actually William, Bill Collins did trash Pete, in his letter to Stan
saying it wasn't Stan's fault, and
blaming Pete for drinking so much, he
couldn't write hit songs anymore.

ßill said...

I haven't seen this letter. Where can I read it?

Anonymous said...

That letter is posted on the web. Written a month after Pete died. And then to hear Collins trying to sound emotional about it all? It ain't good news really is it?

ßill said...

OK, I read it. It is a little surprising. However, it is detailed in the book that Bill's allegiance to Polley was misplaced (he later admitted that) and lasted longer than one might expect. I'm not sure I would say Bill was "trashing" Pete, but I admit the letter wasn't particularly sympathetic - especially since Pete had only been gone for about a month or so at the time.

steve said...

Whatever this letter said, Joey Molland has completely dismissed Bill Collins in a number of interviews I've seen and claimed he was much a responsible party to the demise of Badfinger. A lot of blame being passed around. Collins wanted to kiss up to Stan Polley and was offered money to get out of Polley's way. Clearly an agenda to take heat off Polley so Bill would get paid. Read the book by Dan Matovina!

Anonymous said...

Having also read the Bill Collins letter, I'd agree, it sounds as though he was currying favor with Stan Polley. Pete was the goose that laid the golden Badfinger eggs, so to speak, and no one wanted the responsibility for his decline and demise.

Pete had shouldered the band's burdens and withstood more pressure than anyone else in the group for many years with little or no support. Sad they chose to blame the victim, but from what the book recounted and what others have said, Bill later changed his point of view.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe this blog is still here and being updated. Hey Bill, Badfinger is dead, dude. Why bother writing about this one survivor - who must be what? 70 years old now?

ßill said...

Ah, maybe for the same reason people are still interested in The Beatles - despite Ringo's age. Beyond that, I doubt you'd understand.

Anonymous said...

Badfinger's dead? Sure alot of interest around for a dead band. Maybe we should all talk about Britney Spears instead.

leesa said...

Hiya:

I've read Dan's book and it's not only an entertaining read... but it never insults Joey or his writing or playing.

Joey's is pissed that he didn't get enough kudos... I think he got more than his share.

I know Dan M. is getting harassed these days by some real schmucks... but a friend of his is trying to reach him. If anyone knows Dan's whereabouts, please tell him that his bud, Al is looking to get in touch with him.

Thanx!!!

ßill said...

Matovina isn't difficult to locate. His email address is posted on his website at http://www.mindspring.com/~crimson3/

Anonymous said...

Hi Bill, Why are you afraid to post my comments! The main reason Joey does not like Dan's book is how it trashes his wife Kathie! Who can blame him?????

ßill said...

"Hi Bill, Why are you afraid to post my comments!"

Afraid? Nauseated is more accurate. You're a troll and you have other websites to spew on.

"The main reason Joey does not like Dan's book is how it trashes his wife Kathie! Who can blame him?????"

The book doesn't trash her. The participants
- those who were interviewed
- those who were there
- those who lived it
- including members of Badfinger
- including their spouses
- including their families
- including their business associates
- including their friends and neighbors... THESE are the people who describe Kathie Molland in the book. THESE are the myriad people you and Joey and Kathie have a gripe with. You can go ahead and try to wrap them all up into one tight little package and call them "Dan Matovina" or "the book" but the fact remains, and it is obvious, that the Mollands are-not/were-not well liked people. The vast majority of Badfinger fans realize this. It's only you and a handful of Joey cultheads who continually deny or ignore the reality of it.

leesa said...

My friend just got a hold of Dan...

Thanx Bill!

ßill said...

No problem.

Anonymous said...

hooray!

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry Bill but it IS the book that trashes Kathie Molland. I understand from my enquiries that the author had serious issues with the Mollandds going back into the 1980's. Both the author and the Mollands have confirmed this. This would seem to suggest that the author got what he wanted from the book.

ßill said...

And my inquiries say otherwise, that there was no rift until the book project was proposed. The Mollands didn't want an independent book written about Badfinger because they knew full well what people would say about them personally. They wanted to keep everyone silenced. They wanted to control the story so they could paint themselves in some illusionary light. Like how their endorsed video documentary was nothing more than Joey, Kathie, Mike and Richard Lush - and even Mike later claiming he regretted cooperating with that Molland project. No one else will speak up for the Mollands except for the Mollands (and a few myopic Joey fans).

It's all part of the Mollands' history-revising technique, like Joey claiming Pete Ham caused a rift in the band by seeking a solo deal and that Kathie wasn't part of it. Joey has ALWAYS said Pete quit because of his wife, but now he suddenly has a new version. When the facts work against them they simply re-invent the facts, like now claiming Matovina was always out to get them. And by playing a troll for them (for whatever reason) you are a tool toward their end. You come on here pretending to be some long-lost friend of theirs who will defend them, but you are simply a dufus who recently linked up with them because you share some mutual disdain for the author. Two years ago you were blathering endlessly like a lunatic about what a menace Joey Molland was and now you are doing the same about Matovina. You have no credibility and you really need to go back to your own website and vent there.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry I am not who you seem to think I am. I do not have a website and I don't vent!!! I was just making an honest comment. You are calling me a liar. I have been told by the author by email that there were problems between him and the Mollands going way back. So is HE lying?? Interesting that one isn't it?

ßill said...

You are correct, I am calling you a liar. For anyone to defend or ignore the Mollands' revisionist history and to suggest that EVERYONE in the book made false statements about the Mollands just to assuage the author is absurd beyond stupidity.

I reiterate, my information (including public comments made by the Mollands and Matovina) is that there were no problems between them until the book project was launched. Period.

leesa said...

Dear Annon:

No offense, but the argument you make is irrelevant... none of this matters because if you've read the book (I have... twice), you'll not see even one nasty comment about Joey from Dan... maybe a few observations from others... but Dan never comments on Joey being an ass.

Joey is obviously a paranoid and is afraid that since a biography has been published that represents, most likely, the true events seen through the eyes of most of the participants... then he (Joey) can't just have a few pints and make stuff up as he sees fit.

Suitcase is a great song... but Joey isn't, and probably will never be, a Pete Ham, no matter how many times he covers Pete's songs in his Pseudo Badfinger cover group. (No offense to Joey, but it's not even remotely Badfinger if only one of the 4 are in the band)

Pete was a gifted songwriter and likely an individual a little too sensitive for the world. I guess I see him as Vincent in McLean's beautiful tune about a man too sensitive to live in a world of greed.

ßill said...

Leesa, you reminded me of another Joey fabrication. He used to claim that the whole band knocked "Without You" together while in the studio recording No Dice. This was obviously tailored to support his claim to a share in the song's royalties. Then lo and behold, the working demos of the song are released and it shows it was always two COMPLETED sections by Pete and Tom that were put together at Pete's suggestion - BEFORE entering the studio. So today, Joey can't remember which story he likes best and you'll hear him jump between the true version and his fake one during his concert banters.

Just one of many Molland revisions.

Anonymous said...

Maybb
Mayene Molland returns expect upon you posting what is sent to you.

ßill said...

Could you rephrase that?

Anonymous said...

Without You WAS put together in the studio but was two different songs at one stage. You are all such experts but were never there. I'd prefer to listen to Joey anyway. He was there, you weren't Bill. Peter Ham was a gifted songwriter at the time but he's dead. We'll never know what might have been. He'd lost the plot. Maybe nothing else would have happened. But you are so against Joey on this blog site that it doesn't matter what he has done or does you will diss him and make him out to be an idiot. He is not an idiot which probably accounts for the fact that he's alive. Unlike other weak people he chose to ride it out.

ßill said...

"Without You WAS put together in the studio but was two different songs at one stage. You are all such experts but were never there.

And neither were you. They were two COMPLETED songs that required NOTHING from Joey. There is a recording of the completed song where it is all put together that is obviously from before No Dice. The evidence, as usual, makes Joey a liar.

"I'd prefer to listen to Joey anyway. He was there, you weren't Bill."

Fine. But which version of Joey's do you "prefer" to listen to? He has at least two of them.

"Peter Ham was a gifted songwriter at the time but he's dead. We'll never know what might have been. He'd lost the plot. Maybe nothing else would have happened. But you are so against Joey on this blog site that it doesn't matter what he has done or does you will diss him and make him out to be an idiot."

Probably not "an idiot." I believe he is dishonest, and I point out why I believe that with the available evidence.

"He is not an idiot which probably accounts for the fact that he's alive. Unlike other weak people he chose to ride it out."

Stan Polley is still alive, too. People whose main concern is latching onto other people's money appear to have quite a bit of staying power. People who are the artistic types are more self destructive and don't last as long.

ßill said...

I was thinking...

You say this blog is totally against Joey. You know why? Because he has never read the book and claims everything in it is a lie, and then he goes off and tells thoroughly unsupported stories that are contrary to the facts. If he'd simply acknowledge that people in the book are expressing THEIR views (not the author's) and that he disagrees with them, I would have no reason to maintain this blog. But that will never happen because the Mollands can't stand any sort of criticism whatsoever. So he claims it's all lies and that the author put everybody up to it. As I've said before, this is absurd beyond stupidity. His handful of blinded fans (which apparently includes you) echo his sentiments because they have difficulty thinking for themselves or admitting fault with their hero. Michael Jackson also has fans that are in denial and will defend him to the end, too.

Anonymous said...

Actually I was there. Also for your information I am neither a liar or blind. I just find it incredible that your hatred of someone you've never met comes over so badly. And what's Michael Jackson got to do with anything? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and that's all you have.

ßill said...

"Actually I was there."

Oh really? That makes you either Pete, Tom, Joey, Mike or Bill. I know you aren't Joey and the others are dead. And if you (anonymous) are that crackpot woman who has been thoroughly discredited by having her lies exposed, I wouldn't trust you to give the time of day.

"Also for your information I am neither a liar or blind. I just find it incredible that your hatred of someone you've never met comes over so badly."

I just call like I see it. When the evidence constantly points to the Mollands fabricating history, I say they are lying. It's not "hatred" it's simply a complete lack of respect.

"And what's Michael Jackson got to do with anything?"

Michael Jackson's fans defend their hero and deny he's a pedophile. Joey's fans defend their hero and deny he's a mercenary liar. It's a comparison. It's the blindness of fans.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and that's all you have."

Oh please! Why don't you concoct a new telephone call where you spoke with Stan Polley and he says "Oh Cher, where did it all go wrong? I just wanted to steal everyone's money but those Molland masterminds figured me out all by themselves, while everyone else was clueless." That would make a good bookend with the other bogus conversation.

ßill said...

An excerpt from one of several recently rejected posts...

"We know you won't print this because the truth hurts!"

There are approximately 2 to 6 people who send posts here on a continual basis that always tend to declare the following:
1) That I am Dan Matovina (which, for the millionth time, is false).
2) Try to promote some nefarious names and activities.
3) Trash Badfinger members and their families while using anonymous identities (curiously, the only member and family exempt from these attacks are the Mollands).

For those who do not see their comments: I am responsible for what is posted on this site. I will stand by whatever claims I make because I know the evidence will back me up. The "comments section" here is for people to challenge me on my articles and claims. It is not for a handful of Molland-backed whackos to post their anonymous "truths." This isn't a guestbook or a discussion board, and it bothers me not if it is silent for weeks on end. I'm sorry if it gets boring for anyone.

And for you whackos specifically: Just keep typing away. I enjoy hearing that flushing sound-file when I reject your posts.

ßill said...

"Would you like to interview the witnesses who say Joey is telling the truth?????

Sure. Steer them over this way. Forgive me if I don't expect them to ever show up. In the past 20 years they haven't shown up.

ßill said...

"Ahhh I see, You only print what you want others to see!"

Duh! Why are trolls so stupid?

"What is your address coward and I'll send the witnesses!"

Or send pizzas and mail bombs? I don't give my address out to psychopaths. You can direct your non-existent witnesses to this blog or to my email address, which your buddy should have.

Anonymous said...

"Michael Jackson's fans defend their hero and deny he's a pedophile. Joey's fans defend their hero and deny he's a mercenary liar. It's a comparison. It's the blindness of fans."

This is interesting Bill. I thought Jackson was found not guilty but you have blatantly stated he is a paedophile (you spelt it wrong too). You get a lot wrong don't you?

ßill said...

"I thought Jackson was found not guilty but you have blatantly stated he is a paedophile (you spelt it wrong too)."

http://www.allwords.com/word-pedophile.html
Has it ever occurred to you that Americans and Britons have different spellings? And seeing as you are such a literary genius, you may like to know that "spelt" is a form of wheat. You meant "spelled." As I said, trolls are stupid.

Anyway, O.J. Simpson was acquitted and we all know he was guilty. The same with Jackson. He's as guilty as that 'TROLL' stamp on your forehead.


"You get a lot wrong don't you?"

I am spending so much time correcting you that I haven't had time to be wrong.

Anonymous said...

Spelt
Verb
a past of spell

Just for your information and seeing as I was referring to something you had already done I would class that as a past tense of a verb. But of course you won't agree.

Oh yes, spelt is also a wheat but as usual you only showed what you wanted to impress these 2-6 people that read your blog.

ßill said...

"Just for your information and seeing as I was referring to something you had already done I would class that as a past tense of a verb. But of course you won't agree."

It is archaic in that sense but I'll let it slide this time. You're still guilty of assumptions regarding regional spelling.

"Oh yes, spelt is also a wheat but as usual you only showed what you wanted to impress these 2-6 people that read your blog."

You must really love me to keep coming back, eh?

ßill said...

"Just like I thought! You go to name calling when you are challenged! You are very much a coward and you can't even give out your address so I can send my very inportant witnesses! belive me they will show up to meet you and show you they are telling the truth!"

Your very imaginary witnesses? I told you to send them to this blog or to my email. Which portion of that can't you understand?"

"Like I said you don't even have the Balls, guts, or decency to print what all I have to say!"

And it drives you crazy, doesn't it? Well, that's a short drive for you anyway.

Anonymous said...

I thought this blog was to defend your book, why all these insults and is this all off topic?

Regarding the VH1 documentary I noticed that one of the later Badfinger members mentioned that drugs were a problem especially during the Say No More time and I'm sure drugs must have been present during the whole of Badfingers time. What I don't understand is why drugs was never mentioned in the book to any extent, was this a conscious decision by the author or was Badfinger kept away from this scene by management.

If it was a decision made by the author can I ask why, was it to protect the group?

ßill said...

I also noticed it, that considering the time period I would expect more talk of drugs during the late 60s and early 70s. I have for some time been compiling a list of questions regarding the book that I plan on asking Matovina about one of these days. I'll add that one.

ßill said...

It appears that Blogspot may have made a change recently to their format. I noticed that once this article exceeded 50 submitted comments, I am no longer notified when new comments come in. This is forcing me to log in and hunt for submissions instead of just getting my usual notifications. I assume that the application isn't built to exceed 50 submissions, I don't know. Therefore, I will continue to leave the comments open on this one but there may be delays in their being posted, and I will need to use more discretion in what is approved.

Hopefully this problem will be resolved by my next article.

Anonymous said...

Another thing I don't remember alot of detail on in the book(although it has been sometime) is the "free love" spirit that prevailed during that time period. I know Pete had quite a few love interests (Dixie,etc.) but I'm not sure any attention was given to all the love interests of the guys

Cat said...

Bill,

I saw mention of the BIll Collins letter to Polley. Is that posted somewhere that I could read it?

Thanks!

Cat said...

One additional comment:
I have read the book twice and I agree that the book does not trash anyone except for Stan Polley, who deserves it. It is not always complimentary of any of the various players, since we know that no one is perfect. I don't understand why this has to get so ugly as it only serves to make everyone involved in the band look bad. Such a shame.....
Every member made good solid contributions to the music, which seems to be the only part of this story that remains pure.

ßill said...

I did a Google search for the letter and found it had an outdated ebay link. You'll have to access the Google archive to view it.

leesa said...

Re: BIll Collins letter to Polley.

If you find it in google... It may let you access it as a cached file... check it out.

~leesa

leesa said...

Let em know if you find it... i'd like to see it too.

ßill said...

I stand corrected. I said "archive." Leesa is right. I accessed using the Google cache.
Thanks.

Ricky said...

Hi Bill,

I just stumbled onto your blog and had a nice look around. I read (and own) Dan's book a few years ago and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed (if not also very saddened by) it. While I can agree with those that say Joey did obviously contribute to Badfinger's music, he was a far less important piece of the quartet than either Pete or Tom. After listening to Pete's demo albums you can clearly see that many more of his outstanding compositions could have been on the officially released Badfinger albums, had not Joey been putting himself before the best interest of the band.
In closing I just hope that the masses do not forget the great music of Badfinger as we get farther away from the time of the recordings and that those who seek out knowledge of the band will pick up Dan's book for a wonderful, but sad read in testamentof one of the most unfortunate bands in history.

Anonymous said...

"Ricky"- Joey had nothing to do with Pete's music being selected or not for inclusion in Badfinger albums. This is another example of how misleading statements are used to confuse others into thinking that Joey was the root of all of Badfinger's evils. I'm surprised Bill in his quest for the truth hasn't made any statment here correcting your "error".

ßill said...

Were you there, "anonymous"? Then how would you know? Ricky's interpretation of quotes from others is about the same as mine, that the J&K Molland team were pushing hard for Joey's songs on the LPs and 45s and (as a result) Pete's songs took a backseat.

Was it wrong of the Mollands to push for Joey's songs? No. I happen to like Joey's songs from that era - probably more than Pete's. If you weren't so defensive of Joey you wouldn't be getting bent out of shape about it.

Anonymous said...

Bill - Pete was going through a dry spell. The strength of Badfinger was that they also had Joey and Tommy to count on for songwriting and to a lesser extent Mike. I don't think the powers at Apple would have used/recorded and included any of Joey's or Tommy's tunes if they weren't suitable. Conversely, they would have included more Pete tunes had they thought they were better. BTW, I'm not bent out of shape but for some reason you sound pretty upset.

ßill said...

"Pete was going through a dry spell."

Judging by the Ryko CDs he wasn't.

"The strength of Badfinger was that they also had Joey and Tommy to count on for songwriting and to a lesser extent Mike. I don't think the powers at Apple would have used/recorded and included any of Joey's or Tommy's tunes if they weren't suitable."

The Ass album was under direction of the band, according to every Badfinger member. Apple pressed up vinyl for whatever was given to them.

"Conversely, they would have included more Pete tunes had they thought they were better."

I already stated that (in my opinion) Joey's songs were strong during that period.

"BTW, I'm not bent out of shape but for some reason you sound pretty upset."

You said Ricky's interpretation was in error. His interpretation is correct, in my opinion, and according to Badfinger members and others involved who were quoted in the book.

Anonymous said...

Bill, The Ryko CDs are interesting looks into some of Pete's (who I absolutely love) other material. Keyhole street and other songs sound more like of the Ivey's era, not Badfinger. The Ass album was put out by Apple as a spoiler at the same time to the much stronger WYWH Warner album. I doubt Apple would have put it out otherwise. Just because in your opinion you believe "Ricky's" interpretation is correct and I don't believe "Ricky's" interpretation is correct doesn't mean I'm bent out of shape. That you make this state leads me to believe you're upset about something. BTW, I'm glad you like Joey's music.

ßill said...

"The Ass album was put out by Apple as a spoiler at the same time to the much stronger WYWH Warner album. I doubt Apple would have put it out otherwise."

Ass was released on 11-19-1973. Wish You Were Here was released almost a year later.

"Just because in your opinion you believe "Ricky's" interpretation is correct and I don't believe "Ricky's" interpretation is correct doesn't mean I'm bent out of shape."

Ricky obviously read the book and understood what the people were saying. Judging by your "opinion" about the Ass album, I would say you didn't.

Anonymous said...

Bill, Obviously a mistake, the album that Ass collided with was the first Warner album - originally to be titled "For Love or Money" - launched simply as "Badfinger" see pages 230,and especially page 233 of your hard cover edition. "Ricky" read the book but I don't think he understood it. You still sound upset

ßill said...

"Obviously a mistake"

Obviously.

"the album that Ass collided with was the first Warner album - originally to be titled "For Love or Money" - launched simply as "Badfinger" see pages 230,and especially page 233 of your hard cover edition."

Yes, I know about the first WB album.

"Ricky" read the book but I don't think he understood it. You still sound upset"

Ricky didn't make the mistake. You said Ass was released as a "spoiler" for WYWH. It wasn't. It wasn't even released as a spoiler for the Badfinger album because the band wasn't even finished mixing it when Apple put Ass out. Apple had a record in the can that wasn't making any money for the company while it sat on the shelf. They put it out to make money.

Anonymous said...

Making a mistake and misunderstanding something are two different things. BTW if "Rick" had understood the book correctly, he would have seen that Joey as well as Pete had songs refused for inclusion in their albums.

Anonymous said...

Regarding "Ass", re-read page 233 for clarification.

ßill said...

"Making a mistake and misunderstanding something are two different things."

And you have experience with both.

"Regarding 'Ass', re-read page 233 for clarification."

On that page the author states that the release of Badfinger was delayed because Ass was released late. He didn't say anything about Apple putting the album out as a "spoiler," which is what you said. You strated off here by criticizing Ricky, saying "Joey had nothing to do with Pete's music being selected or not for inclusion in Badfinger albums. This is another example of how misleading statements are used to confuse others..." Ricky simply repeated what the participants in the book said. But you accused Apple of being vengeful and playing a "spoiler" - even referencing page numbers in the book - when the book says no such thing. So who is using misleading statements in an attempt to confuse others?

Anonymous said...

Since you stated you like Joey's music, which are your favorite Joey songs?

ßill said...

Since you asked...

Most of his songs from Ass to WYWH are exceptional, except for Love Is Easy (sux), Got To Get Out Of Here (boring) and Constitution (tedious). My favorites are Some Other Time, Give It Up, Island, Icicles, I Can Love You, and Should I Smoke.

Anonymous said...

You write I'm experienced in mistakes and misunderstanding. Haven't you ever made mistakes or misunderstood? Ass did spoil the release of "Badfinger".

ßill said...

"You write I'm experienced in mistakes and misunderstanding. Haven't you ever made mistakes or misunderstood?"

Of course I have been guilty of both. The difference is I didn't launch into a discussion board accusing others of being wrong or negligent while my own facts were severely messed up. Go back and check your first statement after Ricky's. Notice your tone toward both he and I.

"Ass did spoil the release of "Badfinger"."

You see, and instead of simply admitting a mistake here you continue to try to spin out of it. What you said was (quote):"The Ass album was put out by Apple as a spoiler at the same time to the much stronger WYWH Warner album. I doubt Apple would have put it out otherwise."

(1) You claimed an INTENT by Apple to "spoil" when there is no evidence of such intent.
(2) You later cited page numbers at me as though there was evidence there to back up your assertions. There wasn't.
(3) You stated the wrong WB album.
(4) You claimed Ass was put out at the same time as a WB album when it was not - it preceded any album release by WB. The band wasn't even finished with its first album when Ass was released.

You are reminding me of Randy Justesen. No matter how many times he would be caught out wrong he would conveniently brush it aside and continue as though he was right all along. I wouldn't care about your mistakes if your attitude wasn't that we were wrong, or the book was wrong.

Anonymous said...

First, Randy died. I would have expected a bit more respect from you for those who are no longer around. I see I was wrong about you. Second, the tone of the first post to "Ricky" was not disrespectful nor hostile. In your stated quest for truth, it was expected you correct the broad comment that Joey was the cause for more of Pete's music not getting recorded or included on their albums when there is evidence even in the book that proves it is not true. However, as in the past you come out swinging ready to minimize and ridicule anyone who comes here with a different point of view or opinion. Strange way to convience people of your side of the argument. As Pete sang " successful conversation will get you very far..."

steve said...

To me Molland had a lot of good songs throughout, even better maybe in the post-Pete days, but the production was missing the magic. Except maybe "Dreams Of Thunder." Really like that tune in every aspect. But the quote's in the book on Pete's confidence; why can't some people accept these? The past friends who made the quotes endorsed that Matovina accurately quoted them in the book, context and all!. It's on the internet and they've never refuted their words over a decade later! Glowing from participants, press and fans! Mollands blew it when they acted like a**es, especially at Bangladesh tribute event WHICH THEY ADMITTED! Mike Gibbins said it all about them and you can HEAR his words right out of his mouth! Those words cannot be taken back and no one other than Pete and Tom is more important in the overall story of the band.

Ricky said...

I didn't know I would open up yet another can of worms! lol

Just for the record I like quite a few of Joey's contributions to the band, and was not trying to belittle his contribution to the band, I was just stating what many others at the time had said about the situation. I also immensely like the Golders and Park demo albums and would have loved if the boys could have recorded a few of them.

They were a fantastic band.

Anonymous said...

I have been talking to Kathie Molland! I'm going to make sure the Fans Know the truth and not lies started by you!!!! You might feel much better about yourselve if you give up the hate and search the truth!

ßill said...

"I have been talking to Kathie Molland! I'm going to make sure the Fans Know the truth and not lies started by you!!!!"

Oh, the irony is just too much. Thanks for the chuckle.

Anonymous said...

I have to respond to the anonymous
person's comment also. I was a huge
Joey fan, and used to give the Mollands benefit of any doubt regarding past matters. I felt as
though this Matovina guy was
attacking a member of my family.
So, I just listened to the Molland
camp. And after a LOT of listening to
just them (ESPECIALLY KATHIE) I am
convinced that the book was kind in
it's portrayal of her. Though some
huge things were missing in the
book, I don't think you can argue
with what's there.
signed a passerby