Talk:Dave Clark (musician)

Fair use rationale for Image:Daveclark.jpg
Image:Daveclark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Year of Birth?
The Dave Clark Five page says 1939, but this page says 1942. Which one's right? Yoshiman64 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Dave Clark Five page was changed to 1942, which is the correct year. --Bruce1eetalk 13:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This year is NOT correct - a search can be made on the information Clark himself would have lodged with Companies House by doing a director search at ukdata.com. The results show that Dave Clark was born 15 December 1939, and is therefore 70. There is no reason to believe that he would have falsely inflated his age but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.22.153 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a director search for "Dave Clark" at ukdata.com and found 8 hits, one of whom was born 15 December 1939, but there is nothing there to say that this person was of the Dave Clark Five. Searching the web yields his DOB as either 15 December 1942 or 15 December 1939, but I can't find a reliable source that states positively what his DOB is. --Bruce1eetalk 06:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you didn't search properly - I've just done it again and find 13 results (eight for Dave Clark and five for Dave Clarke). At the very bottom of the first page is indeed a Dave Clark with the folowing details Date of Birth: 15-12-1939 NW1 0AD. And that postcode fits in with the Dave Clark we are talking about here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.22.153 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 8 April 2010 UTC
 * Yes, I saw that here, and you're probably right that it is the Dave Clark referred to in this article. But it does not positively say that it is, and Wikipedia requires verifiable sources. --Bruce1eetalk 15:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It can't really be any clearer - that is THE Dave Clark in question, and he runs his business empire from said address in Camden. In further evidence, Clark owns the DCFiveBitsandpieces.com website, which whois shows as registered to him at the same address, with the same postcode. How much less circumstantial do we need to be? I have no agenda against Clark but dislike rock starsforgetting their real ages, or hiding them. The whois data is as follows:

domain:                         dc5bitsandpieces.com created:                        12-Jun-2007 last-changed:                   26-Feb-2010 registration-expiration:        12-Jun-2011

nserver:                        ns67.1and1.co.uk nserver:                         ns68.1and1.co.uk

status:                         CLIENT-TRANSFER-PROHIBITED

registrant-firstname:           Dave registrant-lastname:            Clark registrant-organization:        Dave Clark London registrant-street1:             1 Pratt Mews registrant-street2:             Regent House registrant-pcode:               NW1 0AD registrant-city:                London registrant-ccode:               GB registrant-phone:                +44.2075544840 registrant-fax:                 +44.2073888324 registrant-email:

admin-c-firstname:              Dave admin-c-lastname:               Clark admin-c-organization:           Dave Clark London admin-c-street1:                1 Pratt Mews admin-c-street2:                Regent House admin-c-pcode:                  NW1 0AD admin-c-city:                   London admin-c-ccode:                  GB admin-c-phone:                   +44.2075544840 admin-c-fax:                    +44.2073888324 admin-c-email:

tech-c-firstname:               Hostmaster tech-c-lastname:                ONEANDONE tech-c-organization:            1&1 Internet Ltd. tech-c-street1:                  10-14 Bath Road tech-c-street2:                 Aquasulis House tech-c-pcode:                   SL1 3SA tech-c-state:                   BRK tech-c-city:                    Slough tech-c-ccode:                   GB tech-c-phone:                    +44.8716412121 tech-c-fax:                     +49.72191374215 tech-c-email:

bill-c-firstname:               Hostmaster bill-c-lastname:                ONEANDONE bill-c-organization:            1&1 Internet Ltd. bill-c-street1:                  10-14 Bath Road bill-c-street2:                 Aquasulis House bill-c-pcode:                   SL1 3SA bill-c-state:                   BRK bill-c-city:                    Slough bill-c-ccode:                   GB bill-c-phone:                    +44.8716412121 bill-c-fax:                     +49.72191374215 bill-c-email: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.22.153 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The dc5bitsandpieces.com domain query at whois.com helped. I've adjusted the references in the article. --Bruce1eetalk 08:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Clark or one of his apologists has changed the DOB bat to 1942; I have made it 1939 again both here and in the DC5 entry, In the discussion part of the latter I find further verification of his year of birth thus: Dave Clark - throughout the 1960s his date of birth was reported as 15 Dec 1942. Supporting evidence: when first contracts were issued for the Ed Sullivan Show in 1963, he was said to have not yet been a professional of legal age; news reports in December 1963 in the London Daily Mail, and other easily-verified sources, applauded his first contracts on his 21st birthday and their toasting with milk (Clark was then and remains? an alcohol non-drinker). The England and Wales Birth Index of British vital records, available at Ancestry.co.uk (hereinafter called Birth Index), lists sixteen David Clarks with births registered in the fourth quarter of 1939, fifteen more David Clarks with births registered in the fourth quarter of 1942, with many more inbetween--and it would be impossible to make a positive identification from this evidence without knowing his mother's maiden name, as none of these are recorded at "Tottenham" and three were recorded in nearby Edmonton. Clark's mothers maiden name was Bartlett the name he used when registering at acting school in the late 60's. Using that name the birth records confirm he was born in 1939.

It would be useful in view of the proof if the date of birth were fixed as 1939, and impossible for meddlers to change again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.203.211 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at all the discussion of this and all the evidence, I have changed Clark's year of birth back to 1939. Why do you persist in letting him (or one of his lackeys) change it to a more flattering 1942, in spitre of all the evidence. I agree with the above poster, fix the date and make it impossible to change again.109.154.197.224 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to stop the ping-pong editing of his birth year, which is not helping anyone. I have placed a discussion item Talk:The_Dave_Clark_Five on the discussion for The Dave Clark Five (where the date-of-birth issue also arises), with some proposals. Please discuss the matter there, and let's see if we can find an acceptable solution to the obvious disagreement/issue. Mooncow (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a note people born in Tottenham will have the registration district Edmonton in the records. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Clark's history pretty much tells its own story. "Clark left school without qualifications at the age of 15 and became a film stuntman, performing in over 40 films. In the late 1950s Clark bought himself a set of drums, taught himself how to play them, and formed a skiffle band to raise funds so that his football team could travel to Holland."


 * If he was born in '42 then when he left school at 15 would have to be, at the earliest, Dec 1957, after which he appeared in over 40 films then in "the late 50s" formed a skiffle band. If you now take a look at the DC5 page you'll see that "The band started out as The Dave Clark Quintet in 1957".


 * I rest my case.--Deke42 (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly clear - from, at least, the company and genealogy information - that, in fact, Clark was born in 1939 despite what many secondary sources say. If we retain the 1942 date in the text (which is probably what WP:BLP requires, if Clark is still claiming that date), are there any good reasons not to add a footnote along the lines of: "Although many sources give a birth year of 1942, there is evidence that Clark was in fact born in 1939".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Can the Tottenham birth register entry be cited as evidence of his birth in 1939? It seems a nonsense that the vanity of an artist is allowed to get in the way of the truth. Dave Clark is three years older than he claims. 109.154.113.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Re this recent edit, aren't we tied to " what WP:BLP requires"? (see above). What's wrong with a footnote? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous and he is making all of you look ridiculous. His year of birth is 1939. What kind of Mariah Carey diva is he? I will pay 20 quid or whatever to order his birth certificate and shame him for being a vain fool, if you will accept that, and causing us to waste our time. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, there is no reason to hate Dave Clark over this. Anybody from back in the 1960's can shave off a couple of years of their age. Many people did it to avoid getting drafted.ThesoundoftheShadows1965 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence to this article needs a footnote. No-one here "hates" Clark, so far as I can tell.  It's certainly the case that many showbiz figures provided false birth details - usually to emphasise their youthfulness to their audiences - but an encyclopedia should be a source of true facts, not lies.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's been pointed out in this edit that, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we should not use public records such as company records to correct published information about living people. However, in this case, other published sources do give Clark's birth year as 1939, so I have now added a published book source to the article.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I am glad that the year of birth for Clark is now accurate (1939). However, the justification for it is ridiculous. Just because a published source (a slight and unimpressive 2009 book) says so, you jump to attention and alter it. Has it not occurred to you that the reason the 2009 book (penned by Stuart Rosenberg) assigned Clark's birth to 1939 was the welter of birth certificate/Companies House detail shared here. Rosenberg himself gives no evidence, whereas I and others gave plenty here, Shame on you, Ghmyrtle. Have the courage to correct something when there is evidence not when blindly trusting an author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.223.41 (talk) 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL. The justification takes account of WP:PSTS - we do not use primary sources like birth certificates when secondary sources like books are available.  That's not down to me, it's because that's what Wikipedia does, and is.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Financial acumen
I keep having to remove the text below from the article. It's poorly written (for an encyclopedia) and mostly not supported by the one source. "As far as it is known, Dave Clark was the first musician to negotiate a reversionary clause into his recording contract which leased his recordings to the record company for a certain number of years. After that time, all ownership of the material reverted back to him. This is common practice today but relatively unknown at that time. On the release of a (DC5) British hits album in the mid-70s, Dave Clark resided in the United States for a year thus avoiding paying taxes in Britain on the proceeds of that release. The British government challenged this but lost the case in court." But, there may be scope for including a properly written and properly sourced sentence or two on his business acumen, which has been noted elsewhere - for instance here and here. We need to bear in mind WP:BLP, and the fact that Clark is (to quote one article) "a very private man" who I'm sure would not take kindly to inaccurate information being published here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems to be a problematic claim, even for a WP:RS to make, since many artists are likely to treat contractual arrangements as private and confidential. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Acumen/savvy? You must be kidding. Elton John called it savvy. Poorly written? Who are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.241.67 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Savvy" is slang - short for "savoir faire". "Acumen" is encyclopedic language.  If you can provide a source for Elton John's quote, we can use that word - otherwise, we won't.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At least Ghmyrtle chooses to use a name. Maybe you have some kind of unwanted record? I suspect Elton has said many things that we'd not necessarily want to see in an encyclopedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "savvy" is English for the French "savoir faire". Actually, when I asked who you were, I was wondering if you were an editor employed by Wikipedia or just some anti-Dave Clark (Five) fanatic. I wasn't interested in knowing your name. The question wasn't intended to be offensive. I just found your manner to be pretentious and overbearing. Also, I'm not sure why you rejected the reference in regard to the taxation dispute. If you're an actual editor for Wikipedia, I would respect your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.241.67 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know how Wikipedia works? Does 72,000 edits over 9 years make one "an actual editor"? You can decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also....  "savvy" is not "English for" savoir faire - the English for savoir faire is (roughly) "knowing what to do".  Savvy is slang.   Editors are not "employed by Wikipedia".  Podcasts are not reliable sources.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as the claim that is causing this discussion is concerned, it's untrue. Freddy Cannon (For one) had such an agreement in the 50s.  But I'm here right now because of the statement that Podcasts are not reliable sources.  Surely that depends upon whose podcast it is?  If someone who has been to the moon tells me it's made of green cheese I'd still be inclined to believe them, but if someone who hasn't wants to tell me that a flag on the moon should wave in the breeze... Hmmm, not so sure about that.  I've used TV and radio programmes as refs before now, and podcasts are pretty much the same thing.  Some of the very earliest podcasts were a mine of information about programming for the internet. --Deke42 (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dave Clark (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100404063154/http://www.tunegenie.com:80/bio/MN0000785611/the-dave-clark-five/? to http://www.tunegenie.com/bio/MN0000785611/the-dave-clark-five/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the skiffle group?
There used to be an entry on here about The Dave Clark Skiffle Group, which preceded the Five. It listed names and instruments and suggested that they did at least some gigging. Was it a false fact or was it removed for some other reason? --Deke42 (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)