Erroll Garner Tuesdays, Final Week: The Misty Depositions
Martha Glaser, the manager of Erroll Garner, was never one
to shy away from a fight. The Garner archive overflows with correspondence from
Glaser excoriating various individuals: club owners, record producers, writers,
and occasionally even the pianist himself. On several occasions, these disputes
extended into the legal arena as formal lawsuits, several of which are
documented in the Garner archive. By examining these materials, it quickly
becomes clear just how challenging it was (and still is) for artists to assert
their rights in opposition to major corporations.
The tomes you see above offer one such example. They are depositions of both Garner and Glaser, which were taken during a lawsuit over rights to Garner’s landmark composition “Misty.” A bit of background on the dispute will help set the stage. The summary below is drawn from the official complaint in the case, filed in 1961. It’s a bit dizzying, though, so bear with me.
The case was initiated by Octave Music (Garner and Glaser’s publishing company) against the Vernon Music Corporation, another publisher who then held the sole copyright to the piece. The story begins in early 1955, less than a year after “Misty” was composed. At that time, Octave retained the services of a music lawyer named A. Halsey Cowan. In an attempt to promote the new work, Cowan tried to persuade Glaser to allow the song to be promoted and distributed by a company called Bregman, Vocco, and Conn, Inc. When Glaser was reluctant to transfer the copyright, however, Cowan convinced her to try it out for a limited trial period lasting ninety days. If Bregman, Vocco, and Conn could procure “two new major recordings” of the piece in that time, then they would have the option of retaining the copyright permanently. If not, it would revert to Octave. Glaser agreed, and a contract was signed, with the ninety period slated to begin on March 18. Complicating the agreement further, the copyright wasn’t technically transferred to Bregman, Vocco, and Conn, but to a subsidiary named Tee Kaye Music Corp., which later changed its name to Vernon Music.
After the ninety days elapsed, Octave claimed that Vernon had failed to procure two major recordings (though this point would later be disputed). Glaser therefore demanded that the copyright be returned to Octave. But Vernon refused. At this, Glaser instructed Cowan—her attorney, after all—to obtain the return of the copyright through legal action. But here the story takes an unexpected twist: Cowan refused to carry out Glaser’s instructions. Instead, he informed her (shocking reveal!) that he was, in fact, a stockholder in Vernon Music, and legal representative of Bregman, Vocco, and Conn! The lawsuit therefore attested that in light of this concealment and misrepresentation, the deal had been consummated under false pretenses, and should therefore be voided. Octave demanded the return of the copyright, payment of all moneys received by Vernon after the 90 day trial period, and an additional $50,000 in damages.
I make no attempt to weigh in on the legal merits of the case, both because I am not a lawyer and because I have only reviewed a tiny fraction of the thousands of pages of documents. Instead, I simply wish to note how these materials illuminate the staggering difficulty of pursuing legal action. It’s often not uncommon to hear armchair commentators discuss lawsuits in somewhat facile ways: “They broke the contract? He should take them to court!” The realities of the legal process, however, are far more complex. Established business corporations can retain teams of lawyers to battle any incursion. Cases might drag on for years, forcing unprepared litigants to become buried in paperwork and/or incur legal fees far beyond their means. Luckily, Glaser and Garner were up to the challenge.
The transcript of the Glaser deposition offers an illuminating (if perhaps slightly cartoonish) case study. Questioning by the opposition’s lawyers dragged on for five extended sessions, spaced out between 1962 and 1965. The full transcript weighs in at 685 pages, split into two volumes. Perhaps the most immediately striking thing about it, though, is not what Glaser has to say, but how much of the proceedings are dominated by procedural arguments between the two teams of lawyers. In the images below, statements by the lawyers are labeled Q (or with the lawyer’s name), while statements by Glaser are marked A (or, occasionally, “Witness). As one finds repeatedly, arguments between the lawyers could dominates large swaths of time that continue for page…
… after page…
… after page.
Garner’s own deposition is much the same, with Octave’s lawyers at one point forcefully objecting that their client is being harassed.
In short, the transcripts depict questioning to the point of exhaustion, generating an avalanche of paperwork and documentation. In this way, they reveal the types of roadblocks facing artists who wish to defend their rights in a legal arena. Proving breach of contract isn’t just a matter of being in the right. One can’t simply show up to court for an afternoon and convince a judge. Instead, the artist must be prepared for the agonizingly drawn-out legal process that only a team of corporate lawyers can sustain.
It is at times like this that having a fierce advocate like Glaser becomes so critical, assembling and guiding a legal team capable of maintaining the fight. In this instance, they were only partially successful: the suit settled out of court in early 1966, nearly five years after the initial filing. Though Vernon maintained the copyright, the settlement included a revised fee and royalty structure, as well as $25,000 in damages. Though not the full amount they sought, Glaser and Garner would live to fight another day, pursuing numerous other disputes in their ongoing efforts to protect the rights of the jazz artist.
* * *
Today’s post is the final entry in our semester-long Erroll Garner Tuesdays project. For the past thirteen weeks, Pitt graduate students William D. Scott, Jeff Weston, and Ben Barson (as well as guest posters Neil Newton and Emma Munger) have provided a stream of exhilarating weekly posts examining objects from the Garner Archive. As we conclude, I wish to offer my most heartfelt gratitude to all of these scholars for their tremendous work. We are also deeply thankful for additional support provided by Ed Galloway, Miriam Meislik, Ashley Taylor, Susan Rosenberg, Jocelyn Arem, and Geri Allen.
We should note, however, that these explorations do not end here! We are delighted to announce that the document collections of the Garner Archive are now fully processed and available to researchers (see the full finding aid here). The materials are open to all scholars and community members, so we encourage anyone interested to contact the Archive Service Center to arrange a visit. The members of the class are also hard at work completing an exhibit about Garner and Martha Glaser, which will open in the William Pitt Student Union on February 1, 2016.
We hope to continue expanding these engagements in the coming years, so stay tuned. Until then, long live Garner and happy holidays to all!
- Michael Heller, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Music, University of Pittsburgh
