Sonny Clark Discography question

[bertrand]

'Royal Flush' and 'Nica' are the same Sonny Clark composition.

To the best of my knowledge, Sonny records it under the title 'Royal Flush' for the last time on 3/29/59. He first records 'Nica' on 3/23/60.

In between, Max Roach records 'Nica' on 3/2/60.

Any idea how Max wound up using the new title before Sonny did? I guess it's possible that they hung out together, and Sonny gave him the piece with the new title; Max appears on both the 3/2/60 and 3/23/60 sessions. Alternatively, maybe either of the 1960 recording dates is incorrect.

Bertrand.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

I don't see anything suspect in someone who is clearly an associate using the new title a few weeks ahead.

The other thing to consider would be the time before issue - for all we know, maybe Clark retitled the piece on *April 1* and had the titles adjusted before the Mercury and Time records were issued. The recording session logs could disprove this wild fantasy.

Mike

[Chuck Nessa]

Most likely the title change was to "sell" the song again. He had "sold" the tune to BN under one name and "resold" it to Bob Shad under another. Not at all uncommon.

I don't see anything suspect in someone who is clearly an associate using the new title a few weeks ahead.

The other thing to consider would be the time before issue - for all we know, maybe Clark retitled the piece on *April 1* and had the titles adjusted before the Mercury and Time records were issued. The recording session logs could disprove this wild fantasy.

Mike

←

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Makes sense, sure. But if so, the Shad/Time association was still on March 23, 1959 and the Roach/Mercury (Shad was gone from that company by this time) preceded it by a couple of weeks. Which puts us right back where we started, I think. Since Roach wasn't recording for Shad, why would he have used the Time title? Or do we think that the tune was retitled *for* the Mercury date and then that was used at the Time date (which to me seems less likely). Or do we go with my purely hypothetical "after-the-fact" scenario?

Bertrand - what do the deposits say? How many times was this one registered, under what titles, and when?

Mike

[Chuck Nessa]

I went back to my sources and we seem to have some confusion about the recording date of the Clark/Time date. Jepsen says 3-23-60, Bruyninckx says the same but my 2001 Japanese reissue says January, 1959.

Back to the Shad/Mercury/Time world. Really no reason to believe Bob waited for his Mercury employment ended before he started Time. The Roach/Time date was recorded before the Roach Mercury affiliation ended.

I suggest multiple contracts were circumvented at the time.

Makes sense, sure. But if so, the Shad/Time association was still on March 23, 1959 and the Roach/Mercury (Shad was gone from that company by this time) preceded it by a couple of weeks. Which puts us right back where we started, I think. Since Roach wasn't recording for Shad, why would he have used the Time title? Or do we think that the tune was retitled *for* the Mercury date and then that was used at the Time date (which to me seems less likely). Or do we go with my purely hypothetical "after-the-fact" scenario?

Bertrand - what do the deposits say? How many times was this one registered, under what titles, and when?

Mike

←

[Michael Fitzgerald]

That's right! According to Steve Hoffman, the tape box for the Clark Time album says "January 6, 1959". January 1959 has also been proposed for the Roach Time album, but if I recall correctly, the recent CD issues of that still swallow the later date (impossible since the band no longer existed after Feb. 1959).

So, if January 6, 1959 is the date of the first "Nica" then it's easy to justify the use of that title for the Roach recording in March 1960.

Still, do the copyright deposits support this at all?

Mike