Talk:The Dave Clark Five

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


US-centric perspective[edit]

Someone needs to explain to me the rationale for a Wikipedia article on a British pop group being written from the first paragraph from the US-perspective ... complete with US discography, not UK discography. Another in a long list of examples of contributors assuming that a US-view is THE local view. --621PWC (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this - the band was a big success in the UK before anyone in the US had heard of them. Can anyone with access to the facts rebalance the article by covering more of the British angle? Rodparkes (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

The current article states : "Between 1975 and 1993, none of their music was available (Clark, who controlled the DC5 recordings, would not licence any of their hits); labels like Time-Life Records and Rhino tried to license DC5 hits without success, so the band's hits were never included in any of the late vinyl-era reissues or the early CD reissues. The 1993 double CD "History of the Dave Clark Five" was released with great fanfare and sold well, but Clark took it off the market after three years and again, no material was available until 2009, when the iTunes titles became available."

This is clearly not a neutral point of view, as it slants the article towards a negative viewpoint of Clark's latter day activity and influence. Now, this may be "factual", however there is no reliable source to substaniate these statemenets. Please note Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Specifically - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Wikipedia may be content to let the present situation continue until a more balanced, and much more importantly, referenced situation situation prevails, however please note Wikipedia:BLP.

I am well aware that various factions are attempting to slant this article, and those afflliated with it, towards the pro and anti Clark camp. Neither is sustainable without Wikipedia:Sources. Please note I am not biased either way on this point, nor is Wikipedia. Continual editing to try to substaniate either viewpoint will be removed unless those guidelines stipulated earlier are observed.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your problem with that quote. To me it seems like a simple statement of the known facts. Clark very sensibly kept the rights to the masters of everything he recorded, therefore the availability or otherwise of the band's records has to be down to him. There are no allegations in there as to his motives. Which was the part that you feel was slanted? Deke42 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Between 1975 and 1993, none of their music was available to be purchased in any commercial format, as the rights-holders declined to licence the band's recordings at that time. In 1993, the double CD "History of the Dave Clark Five" was released with great fanfare and sold well, but it was taken off the market after three years. No DC5 material was then legally available until 2009, when selections from the band's catalogue were released on iTunes." All observable facts, with no slant that I can see.... 74.12.85.72 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Clark date of birth[edit]

There is a dispute as to whether Dave Clark's date of birth is 1942 (as quoted in many sources) or 1939 (identified as a possible "true" answer). Mooncow (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources cited for the personal details of Dave Clark gives two possible birth years, namely 1939 and 1942, suggesting that there is reason to suppose the true date to be 1939 although 1942 is most often quoted (and appears in a number of reputable sources). On the Dave Clark page, there is considerable discussion about the date of birth issue, which also seems to come down on the side of 1939 as a "true" year. There are also numerous edits by Mrdubbing (talk), repeatedly changing occurrences of "1939" on that page and this one to "1942", but without adding any comment and without contributing to the discussion on either that page or this one. There seems to be, at very least, some disagreement as to the correct year. The preponderance of sources giving "1942" must be set against the probability that these sources are quoting each other rather than relying on first-hand evidence. Indeed, all the extant on-line sources may be anecdotal. On the other hand, criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If Dave Clark's date of birth is widely misquoted, somebody needs to research that and publish it somewhere reputable and then we can reference it from here!

  • Can anyone find a suitable verifiable source which definitively settles the matter one way or the other?
  • If not (and I'm guessing not), then based upon the current sources cited I would propose that both articles should give "15 December 1942" as the date of birth for Dave Clark, but include a note to indicate that there is some uncertainty and reason to think the true year may be 1939 (citing applicable sources).
  • OR, is there an argument for giving only 1942 and suppressing the suggested uncertainty from the article?

We certainly need to stop the ping-pong edits, which don't help anyone. Thoughts? Mooncow (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If as stated on the Dave Clark talk page his mother maiden name was Bartlett then his birth was registered in the fourth quarter of 1939 in Edmonton (the registration district for Tottenham). MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also compelling evidence that Clark was born in 1939 from the link to Companies House data. I believe this to provide Clark's true date of birth. Let's be honest - why would anyone pretend to be three years older when registering their company. On the other hand, there are any number of reasons, including vanity, why a few years might be knocked off. And let's not forget that in the internet age errors and lies are compounded, providing what appears to be a mass of evidence proving something, when in fact it does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.29.181 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age is a major issue when you are a rock & roll band and so, Dave Clark was about 24 in 1963? The Beatles were born, 1941-1943? Marvin Gaye was born around 1939 as was Smokey Robinson; Petula Clark was born 1932. Frankie Valli was born around 1934 - 1935. Hence, the Beatles were around 22-23 when I wanna Hold Your Hand was released; Valli was about 25 -27 when Sherry was released; Pet Clark was 32 when Downtown was released. The Supremes were asked their age during a concert in Scandinavia; they all answered "23" when in fact, Wilson & Ross were 24 and Cindy Birdsong, born in 1939, was 29. Americans are particularly twitchy about ages whereas Europeans are a bit more forgiving about age. Dave Clark has not aged well, in any manner or form, and has been accused of having had an unfortunate "Face Lift." The man looks dreadful! Upon looking as his face, it would be quite believable that Clark, today, would be 83 - 84. Valli is about 88; Clark is 91. Spenser - The Unknown (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Integrity of Wikipedia is being called into question regarding the Dave Clark page

The issue of Dave Clark's age and the ping-pong effect that is going on has called into question the validity of Wikipedia and its ability to keep an encyclopedic, factual tone.

People are relating to me that they have been 'banned' from posting on this page. Clearly there is a huge issue with some poster's ability to keep over-riding the dates of Dave Clark's birth.

In reading the discussion page, it appears to me quite clearly, that Wikipedia has agreed that the proper and factual information has been submitted regarding the validity of Mr. Clark's birth, (1939) and yet as I read the page today, someone has once again edited the birth year to reflect 1942.

Does Wikipedia not have the ability to 'lock down' this issue and prevent others from editing it? I don't know, I am simply asking the question.

Would Wikipedia 'ban' people from posting on this page? I can understand if they continue to make false edits, or violate the rules of Wikipedia, but if this is the case, why can't Wikipedia ban this other poster who keeps changing the birth-year back to 1942, after Wiki has agreed that the birth year is 1939.

It is being stated on other forums that any individual has the ability to influence Wiki editors and Wiki itself regarding factual information, based upon financial donations to Wiki.

Is this possible?

I love Wiki and look to it as a primary source for information of all kinds. I understand that Wiki is only as accurate as those that create the pages are truthful and factual, however, when I see that Wiki agrees with certain facts and truths about any page, and then other posters can come and take away the historical records and insert their own records, that causes me to write to Wiki to find out what is going on.

I hate to see it being besmirched due to this ping-pong birth date that is continuing to this very day.

I would love for a gate-keeper of the Dave Clark page to enter into this discussion with me regarding what is taking place.

Beaconmike (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As support for User:MilborneOne's comment further up this thread, there is a record of a marriage between Edward Clark and Cissie Bartlett in 1928 in Edmonton. We know (from other sources) that Dave Clark's mother was born Cissie Bartlett, and his father was Edward or Edwin Clark. The only birth, over a ten year period, of a David Clark, in Edmonton, to a Clark née Bartlett, is the one registered in the last quarter of 1939. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki's dates of birth for the group are mainly incorrect.They were advised at the time of their becoming famous to knock a few years off their ages to appeal to the younger set. Clark was born in 1939.Huxley 1940,Davidson 1942, Payton 1943 and Smith 1943. All these dates have been verified by both family members and the UK Register of Births. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.159.119 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is probably true - but do you have written verifiable evidence for it? Most editors here, I think, know as a fact - from multiple primary sources - that Clark was born in 1939. The problem is that reliable secondary sources don't say that - they say that he was born in 1942. He apparently still claims he was born in 1942, and, per WP:BLP, unless there has been discussion of the point in reliable sources we go with what he, and the secondary sources, say. It would be good to put up a footnote by his "date of birth" along the lines of "Note: there is evidence that he was born in 1939", but so far editors have not wanted to go down that route. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that such a primary source as the UK Register of Births gives the birth years as I've stated should mean the dates are proven. "Reliable" secondary sources? What does that even mean? In the case of Dave Clark, regardless of what year he claims to have been born all his companies are registered at Companies House and his date of birth on the Companies Register is given as 1939. That is easily checked and is reliable proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.159.119 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 October 2013‎

See WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP. Basically, it means that something like a book or newspaper needs to have reported the 1939 date of birth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live in the sky[edit]

Can anybody tell me what they were thinking prominently mixing crowds from the 1936 Nazi Olympics chanting Sieg Heil! into their 1968 single Live in the sky, not just once, but into the intro, middle part, and outro alltogether? Why no mention of this in the article? Wouldn't you suspect it to spark some controversy at least back then? --79.193.32.123 (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange to say, it sparked off very little controversy at the time. Hippies and peaceniks were annoyed, but they already didn't like the DC5 (They were 'Breadheads'). As far as I know the 5 never commented on the subject, they were always very much 'On message'. In truth Clark didn't really like the rest of the group doing interviews, he saw himself as the spokesman and at times almost seemed to be working from a script (Very much like today's politicians in fact). Most people assumed that the chanting was just the DC5 trying to be psychedelic and presumably just dismissed it, and all its connotations, from their minds.
Pretty amazing considering the reaction it would cause today. --Deke42 (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is incorrect in his assumption that the chanting is "Seig Heil" and from the 1936 Olympics. The chants actually "England" and is taken from the 1966 World Cup Final. Clark bought the rights to the crowd soundtrack from that game and used parts of it in the recording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.159.119 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did they become the Five?[edit]

I don't know enough about the early history of the DC5 to make any alterations, but I do know that they didn't change their name to The Dave Clark Five twice as stated in the 'History' section. Which was it, 1958 or 1962? --213.208.117.47 (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree on this one. The "History" section mentions both dates for the name change. Certainly, as mentioned above, the change did not happen twice. If anyone out there that has better knowledge the correct info would be appreciated.THX1136 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name changes for the DC5 are as follows, 1957 first appeared as the Dave Clark Quintet,1958 The Dave Clark Five plus one, 1959 The Dave Clark Five with Stan Saxon. 1962 onwards, The Dave Clark Five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.159.119 (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Graham and Ron Ryan[edit]

Neither of them are mentioned in the article. Graham claims to have done most of the drumming; Ryan most of the songwriting. People largely accept Graham's claim; I'm not sure about Ryan. Should this be in the article? Has it been added in the past? Carlo (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I've come across the same thing: On Ron Ryan's claim from his own site http://www.ronryanmusic.net/ronryan.htm

There is also an article about both Ryan and Graham called "The Curious Story of The Dave Clark Five" on hubpages that I can't figure out how to link directly to.

I think we would need a notable source to repeat these claims such as a book made by a publishing house or a newspaper article talking about the issue. It could be mentioned in a controversy section, but as of now we would need more refs to include the info. --Wowaconia (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These claims surface and re-surface over the years, BUT as Wowaconia correctly points out, it is the lack of viable reliable sources that cast grave doubt over their whole validity.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming to have an answer, but it is worrying to find stuff that I know from my own past not to be true are printed in Wikipedia simply because someone has gone into print with false facts. History is being written by those who can be bothered to go into print. When I saw Clark live it was obvious that he wasn't as good as whoever was drumming on some of this records. I've met a couple of drummers 'after hours' who claimed to have drummed for Clark, along with a clause in their contracts not to reveal the fact. One of them may have been Bobby Graham, I wouldn't know, but I could probably still point out the songs that Clark didn't play on.
I guess the bottom line here is that I'm not sure what to believe in Wikipedia any more. Clark's certainly not the only one whose biog bears little reference to the truth, he's not even in the first division. How do I know that things I read about subjects I know nothing about are factual? (Incidentally, my sister used to give tuition to new recruits at her library on how to tell which articles in Wikipedia were reliable, maybe I should call around...) --Deke42 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single source from the 1960s which refers to Ron Ryan? As busy as he supposedly was, there should be? JoeBotterill — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeBotterill (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First "British Invasion" group to tour the US?[edit]

As the article mentions the DC5 appeared on Sullivan after the Beatles it may cause confusion in the minds of readers that they were the first to "tour" the US. I understand that the Beatles appearance on Sullivan and the Washington concert does not constitute a tour, but some readers may not know this information. Perhaps a qualifier as to the true nature of the tour - "extensively tour", etc. - might be appropriate to give the reader an understanding that the Beatles true extensive US tour happened later than the DC5's. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article's wording could be far better and clearer in this aspect. A reliable source to amplify the undoubted validity of the text would be useful.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel[edit]

Do we really need to know what hospital Mike Huxley was born in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.56.20 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Vale[edit]

Don Vale was never at any time pianist or arranger for the DC5. The first ever pic of the group performing clearly shows Roger Smedley on piano as do subsequent photos right up until he left to join the RAF and Mike Smith took over. This needs amending, many other sites copy wiki and the Vale myth is being perpetuated.

Not being photographed isn't proof that Vale wasn't in the group. This is the problem with trying to prove a negative. You're going to need to find something to back your claim up I'm afraid. --Deke42 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I quote Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Specifically - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..... so how did you verify Don Vale was in the group there is no written record of this , we only have his say so. No other people involved in the DC5 group at that time, and I spoken to them in the past, have ever heard of him. DC5 historians have never heard of him either, so Wiki where is your proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.24.64 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Dave_Clark_Five&oldid=1206887352"