PDA

View Full Version : Supremes or Beatles: Who was better?


test

smark21
10-19-2011, 07:46 AM
I know some Supremes fans like to say The Supremes were the female Beatles and cite they were the most popular American act of the 60's. So while there is a bit of apples and oranges going on with my question, I'm curious to know: Who do SDF members consider the better act--The Supremes or The Beatles? And why?

skooldem1
10-19-2011, 08:59 AM
Why are the Supremes called "puppets" in some circles? If they are, then so are Martha, the Temptations, and 99.98% of the 60's Motown acts, but you never see those acts referred to in that way. Wonder why???

You can't compare a singing group with a band that writes and plays instruments.

RossHolloway
10-19-2011, 09:32 AM
The Supreme's hands down. I have never ever bought anything by the Beatles. In my honest opinion I think they are the most overrated musical artist in the history of mankind. A glorified boy band in the same vein of New Kids on the Block and The Backstreet Boys. Three guitars and a drummer? Really? Yawn-boring. I understand the appeal they may have for some people, but millions of people also find Millie Vanillie and Mylie Cyrus appealing. There's something for everyone out there. I also think you're trying to compare apples to oranges between the two groups.

skooldem1
10-19-2011, 09:42 AM
I have NEVER seen any other Motown act referred to as puppets. But if you say so......

motony
10-19-2011, 10:25 AM
copley, thats not true at all. Motown artists[[and they are artists in the truest since of the word) could & did reject material all the time[[The Marvelettes passed on WDOLG).They also chose their own stage clothes & before the fall of 1964 did their own stage routines.As far as standing on stage & putting on a real show, the Supremes beat the Beatles 100%. The Beatles LIVE shows were a joke & to them also as the shreiking screaming girls drowned out their music, thats why they quit performing LIVE.

motony
10-19-2011, 10:31 AM
They were not puppets!

jobeterob
10-19-2011, 11:18 AM
The two biggest groups of the 60's...........incomparable.

TMSG
10-19-2011, 12:02 PM
I live about 10 miles from Liverpool and never rated the 'Merseybeat', always thought it was over-rated and much prefer the Detroit sound, and therefore the Supremes. The Beatles started out covering many Motown hits so I always thought they were inferior to any of the Motown acts, so was very disappointed when Motown [[Supremes) covered the Merseysound.

carlo
10-19-2011, 12:13 PM
I say The Supremes hands-down. Most people on this forum will probably say Supremes. lol

soulster
10-19-2011, 12:26 PM
This is a bad matchup. The Beatles were entirely different than the Supremes in almost every way.

ejluther
10-19-2011, 02:44 PM
A glorified boy band in the same vein of New Kids on the Block and The Backstreet Boys
Well, The Beatles are certainly distinguished from groups like that by the fact that they wrote their own songs and were terrific musicians but to each his own.

The Beatles and The Supremes are probably my favorite two recording groups of all time but I can't really compare them in a match-up like this; they simply come from different worlds. In terms of pure pop enjoyment and appeal, I'd give the prize to The Supremes but in terms of musicianship and an amazing overall catalog it's The Beatles for me. Thankfully we can love them both!

randy_russi
10-19-2011, 02:50 PM
It's not really who was better, but which music did you like better, right?

ejluther
10-19-2011, 03:48 PM
It's not really who was better, but which music did you like better, right?
Of course - and stuff like this is by its very nature subjective. Like I said, they're my two favorites so I find ways to like them both the best for different reasons but the truth is I can't choose, especially if the only question is whose music do you like better - that would be a dead heat in my book...

Jimi LaLumia
10-19-2011, 04:22 PM
I was a member of The Beatles Fan Club in the 60's, followed their every move in the pages of 16 Magazine, but I always resented how The Supremes were treated as lesser thans , and not because they didn't write their own music, but because they were females[[in the 60's!- a whole different world than the decades that followed) and because they were black, plain and simple. ..In actual facts and figures, The Supremes WIN hands down!!

ajk93
10-19-2011, 05:21 PM
Well, I agree that they are two different types of bands [[instruments vs vocals).
I don't like the iconic or godly status given to The Beatles. The Supremes had
accomplished much more by the end of their career, I feel.
1) Crossover success to black and white audiences
2) Headliners at major events [[Copacabana, Astrodome Opening etc.)
3) TV appearances that could not be duplicated by other acts
4) Advertisments [[Bread, Coke, Deoderant, Wigs)
5) 2 Television specials with HUGE ratings
6) Continued success AFTER the star left
7) Launch pad for a MAJORLY successful solo career for Diana
8) Brought the Motown sound to kids, parents, the elderly etc.
through rock, jazz, standards, pop, R&B, disco, ballads and more.
9) First Girl Group to have more than one Number 1 Single [[During a time
when the "girl group sound" was dying out)
10) First Girl Group to hit the top of the album charts [[3 Times)

Thats an awful lot to compete with. The Beatles are very talented. But they had
their work more cut out for them. You can tell The Supremes definately had more
drive to reach success [[something Gordy mentions alot). The Supremes had to
reach out to every audience while with The Beatles, their success was implied
with the young crowd. I don't know why The Supremes often go unmentioned in
lists of greatest artists or most influential music acts. To me, they define the American Dream.

So, who's better. It depends specifically in what aspect. But it's neck and neck, and
The Supremes have much more on The Beatles than often cited.

ejluther
10-19-2011, 05:47 PM
I don't know why The Supremes often go unmentioned in lists of greatest artists or most influential music acts. To me, they define the American Dream.
I totally agree. I think that, as others have mentioned, the fact that they didn't play instruments/write music themselves seem to automatically disqualify them for a lot of music "snobs" and, therefore, they get forgotten/left off "Greatest Artists" list - that they're "just" singers. And while I can appreciate the obvious differences between a "songwriter/musician" and "just a singer", that doesn't mean The Supremes deserve any less credit or appreciation or kudos for all the reasons you so nicely stated above. After all, it seems to me that it takes a great deal of artistry to wring emotion and depth out of words and music you didn't even write. And, as a non-singer/non-musician myself [[just a music fan), I think that it might often be more challenging to be the song interpreter rather than the song writer. Regardless, I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying that "just" singers deserve some love, too...

Jimi LaLumia
10-19-2011, 07:13 PM
as mentioned above, The Supremes brand lasted well into the 70s, after The Beatles broke up[[1969), with continued chart success and tv appearances, and the girls topped charts for both the white and black audiences [[what Gordy called 'double #1's"),definately more of a total conquest of USA's pop scene than the Beatles, who only happened on white charts..

ajk93
10-19-2011, 07:21 PM
I totally agree. I think that, as others have mentioned, the fact that they didn't play instruments/write music themselves seem to automatically disqualify them for a lot of music "snobs" and, therefore, they get forgotten/left off "Greatest Artists" list - that they're "just" singers. And while I can appreciate the obvious differences between a "songwriter/musician" and "just a singer", that doesn't mean The Supremes deserve any less credit or appreciation or kudos for all the reasons you so nicely stated above. After all, it seems to me that it takes a great deal of artistry to wring emotion and depth out of words and music you didn't even write. And, as a non-singer/non-musician myself [[just a music fan), I think that it might often be more challenging to be the song interpreter rather than the song writer. Regardless, I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying that "just" singers deserve some love, too...

ejluther - Right On!!!!!!!! It's nice to have someone agree with me on those points!!!

Jimmi - I very much agree. I just feel that their success matters more because of how, where, and
who got them there. Racial crossover in the 60's is HUGE.

That doesn't make either group better singers or preformers, but it does make them stand out from the rest.

Jimi LaLumia
10-19-2011, 07:36 PM
well, on the performers, none of The Beatles as a front person had the electricity of ***DIANA ROSS**..not even my fave John Lennon at his best...just the way it is

ajk93
10-19-2011, 07:43 PM
well, on the performers, none of The Beatles as a front person had the electricity of ***DIANA ROSS**..not even my fave John Lennon at his best...just the way it is

True. The Beatles sometimes seem like they were distant, above their fans and other artists, or maybe
overconfident. The Supremes [[whether they were in person or not) were given more of the appearance
of being more wholesome, reachable, and "American".

I think it's a very interesting story when The Beatles and The Supremes met in a hotel room.
Either '65 or '66 [[someone correct me!) because Florence was with them. One of The Beatles
[[George?) couldn't understand how "3 black girls from Detroit could be so square". The groups
were polar opposites. Anyone got more info on the 2 meeting???

As I recall, it was very awkward for The Supremes, and no one seemed that interested in one another.

Someone step in and correct me.

bradsupremes
10-19-2011, 11:35 PM
According to Mary, when they first met the Beatles, the guys were acting childish and silly [[something about playing with toy cars on the floor). Eventually the groups became good friends, but it shows you how the Supremes had to behave and act in order to succeed.

I find it rather sad that the Supremes are always ignored when it comes to getting acknowledged for their success while every time I turn around there is another Beatles tribute, another Beatles related project, another silly and pointless story related to the Beatles making the evening news. Really? I understand their success and why they are regarded as one of the greatest artists of all-time, but do we need to constantly make a huge deal out of everything Beatles. Hell, if Ringo Starr died, I am sure the evening news would dedicate half of the time just to him....I hate thinking this, but I've wondered how the evening news would handle the death of a Supreme.

stephanie
10-19-2011, 11:41 PM
Weird question. Over time in sales alone the Beatles beat the Supremes hands down. However I think the Supremes for reasons mentioned above are groundbreakers and I like them better. I hate to say this but its much easier for me to listen to a Beatles album over and over because of the musicianship but I dont know all of the words like I do to my Supremes albums. I find myself liking Beatles 65 more than any of their other albums that is my version of More Hits by the Supremes and then Rubber Soul a close second. I love LOOKING at the Supremes sing over and over. Performancewise [[except for early clips) the Beatles are downright boring to watch I would rather see Gerry and the Pacemakers or the Animals perform when it came to the Brits and the Merseybeat sound. I couldnt stand watching them on the so called acid trip and I lost interest in them after the Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine ..Peter Max shtick! At least when the Supremes got more glamorous and the name changed to Diana Ross and the Supremes they were still fun to listen to and watch on television. I dont even care for the Swinging Blue Jeans but at least they could move and had a little notice when Hippy Hippy Shake was in the movie Cocktail with Tom Cruise. The Supremes are not musicians so its hard to compare the two but do I think the Beatles are overrated not really they were great songwriters and could do much with a lyric and all four of them had successful solo careers which is saying something. I cant think of a group where ALL of the members had lengthy successful solo careers like the Beatles. When it comes to their greatness though I think George Martin is more responsible that what he is given credit for. Our girls had a lot of obstacles to overcome and for that reason I would have to give the Supremes the one up.

soulster
10-20-2011, 12:16 AM
It's not really who was better, but which music did you like better, right?

Bingo!

That's what it's really all about, who's music you enjoy more. Well, for me, it's equal! Sometimes i'm in the mood for Supremes. Sometimes i'm in the mood for Beatles. And, most of the time, I like a bit of both among the other artists and music that was popular in the 60s and early 70s. And, they both admired each other. Blacks liked Beatles, Whites liked Supremes. Why does it have to be a contest?

Like I said, it's a silly matchup.

smark21
10-20-2011, 07:42 PM
Since I started this thread, I guess I better weigh in. Ultimately it comes down to who you enjoy more. For years, I far preferred The Supremes, in part for the underdog factor as The Beatles are so massively hyped. Of course The Supremes music is very polished and entertaining and mostly fun. Then two years ago, I decided to give The Beatles a chance and bought the reissued and remastered albums. Before then I knew the big hits, but that's about it. I was blown away by their musical variety [[especially from Rubber Soul onwards) and the quality of the songwriting. Also their lyrics cover a broader range than The Supremes. So for me, it depends on my musical mood and appetite at the moment. I prefer The Supremes for fun, froth and escapist entertainment, but The Beatles are better when I want to combine pop with substance and some musical ambition. Both acts catered to the pop marketplace. But ultimately The Beatles caused the pop marketplace to come to them on their terms, while too often The supremes were marketed to pander to the pop marketplace of the time with their nightclub material, something that gives their career an intriguing quality, but of which I have very mixed and complex opinions about.

smark21
10-20-2011, 07:44 PM
True. The Beatles sometimes seem like they were distant, above their fans and other artists, or maybe
overconfident. The Supremes [[whether they were in person or not) were given more of the appearance
of being more wholesome, reachable, and "American".

I think it's a very interesting story when The Beatles and The Supremes met in a hotel room.
Either '65 or '66 [[someone correct me!) because Florence was with them. One of The Beatles
[[George?) couldn't understand how "3 black girls from Detroit could be so square". The groups
were polar opposites. Anyone got more info on the 2 meeting???

As I recall, it was very awkward for The Supremes, and no one seemed that interested in one another.

Someone step in and correct me.

AT that meeting, one of the Beatles asked The Supremes some technical questions about how the Motown sound was produced and the girls couldn't come up with any sort of informed answer. Things like that may be reason why The Supremes have a reputation as puppets, beyond the silly viewpoint that one has to write and play instruments to be a credible musical act.

ralpht
10-20-2011, 08:11 PM
Smark, At that time the, young Supremes, wouldn't have a clue how things worked in the studio from a technical viewpoint. Most artists at that time were somewhat in the same boat when it came to the technicalities of producing and recording music. This is by no means a criticism of these artists, it is just the way it was.

Laurel
10-20-2011, 09:52 PM
I liked them both. Their music brings back lots of good memories. I see a lot more Beatles albums for sale when I go to Garage Sales or Flea Markets. Maybe they sold more or maybe people prefer to hold on to their Supremes albums than their Beatles albums?

arrr&bee
10-26-2011, 03:33 PM
Haaaaaaaaaaa,if you go on vocals alone it's no contest,the beatles???are you kidding me they were terrible but they wrote some cool tunes of course and til i die i will never understand their popularity but i do have some of thier work in my collection it's like everything else in life,we like who we like and i don't dislike the beatles i just don't think they could sing.

juicefree20
10-26-2011, 04:22 PM
Better in what respect? Interpreting songs or crafting them? Stage banter, glamour & appeal or musicality? Are we speaking about The Supremes as an entire entity, or during their ground-breaking glory days with Diana, Mary & Flo & Cindy?

Either way you look at it, both groups changed the landscape of popular music. I believe that in 1964 America, The Supremes had bigger hurdles to jump over, but in terms of overall influence & impact, you have to go with The Beatles. There were weeks where they had the equivalent of damn near entire albums in the Top 40 simultaneously.

In 1964, they had 30 songs that charted on the Pop Hot 100...THIRTY! Of that, 11 went Top 10, 17 hit the Top 40, 6 were #1 & received 4 Gold records. That's more charters than the majority of groups achieve in a lifetime. Or you could look at it as though in one year, they had an entire career worth of hits! In 1965, they had 10, for a two-year total of 40 charters, 6 more Top 10s, 5 more #1s & 4 more Gold records.

This does not take into consideration their LPs, which we already know were also wildly successful.

Indeed, The Supremes gave them one hell of a run for their money, but the impact was different. And for reasons which should be obvious, read a R&B/Pop/Soul act as opposed to a Pop/Rock act, The Beatles impact & influence would be more wide-spread, as The Beatles had appeal not only amongst young girls whom adored them as Pop idols, but also to just about any young guy during those days who fancied becoming a huge Rock star who'd get a lot of fame, money, chicks & sex. And not just in Liverpool, but the U.S., Japan & anywhere else where youthful hormones rage.

I guess that what I'm saying is that The Beatles had a broader spectrum of fans to pull from & for various reasons would have a greater appeal to more people than The Supremes would've been able to reach & influence in similar numbers. Does that make one or the other better, I can't say.

The Beatles were a self-contained band who wrote, produced, played & sang their own creations. The Supremes could be viewed more as interpreters of songs & damned great ones at that. For those reasons, I don't believe that this could be a fair comparison, nor do I believe that the two can be compared.

juicefree20
10-26-2011, 04:46 PM
I neglected to say that I liked the music of both. Actually, I loved the music of both. HOWEVER, I was 4 when both broke through & being a little kid, I thought that The Supremes were great [[ESPECIALLY Mary!), to be honest, I can't say that I've ever been able to sit & listen to all of their albums. For me, there was just too much Pop in many of their songs, some of the songs were just TOO crossover for me.

It's like trying to listen to Jackie Wilson or Sam Cooke Live At The Copa during the days when R&B acts had to water down their sound & try to be a bit too for lack of a better phrase, Sinatraesque..."too cool baby, are you hep?" & that kind of thing. Sorry but I wasn't into Bill Bailey & gave less than a damn if he never came home & I wasn't doing nobody's damn Tennessee Waltz. And for me, during that time, at that age, some of their music was just a little too "cutesy" for my taste & making it worse for me, is that although I now understand WHY they had to do it, it was obvious that they WERE doing it. Some of those attempts simply fell flat to me & frankly, I wished that some of those recordings had never been made.

Same thing with The Beatles, whom made songs that I absolutely loved, as well more than a few that I wished that they had fed to that damn walrus, or let Mawell's Silver Hammer go a few rounds with them.

I guess that the difference for me is that where The Beatles seemed to be able to do whatever they wanted to do & could do it on their own terms & in all sincerity, I felt that some of The Supremes songs were a little less honest, that some of their songs were crafted with the idea of moving into the supper club environment, an environment & musical style that simply doesn't appeal to me. Which is why Sam Cooke flopped during his first foray there because it didn't feel natural, it simply felt contrived & obviously so.

Unless it's a "Greatest hits" package, I can think of precious few COMPLETE Supremes LPs that I can simply drop the needle on & let play through. For as much as I love the majority of their music, I can be truthful enough to say that I don't believe that every song they've recorded is a gem, nor a hit. Nor can I say the same about any of my favorite artists, nor do I feel the need to. I guess that I'm saying that the music of The Beatles felt less affected to me & that I had a disconnect with some of the music of The Supremes because I definitely felt that it suffered from that affectation of which I speak.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one whom felt this way.

Regardless, they're two great groups whom appeal to me for one reason which unifies them...

They made GREAT music which has stood the test of time & missteps aside, that's more than good enough for me.

RossHolloway
10-27-2011, 09:30 AM
I neglected to say that I liked the music of both. Actually, I loved the music of both. HOWEVER, I was 4 when both broke through & being a little kid, I thought that The Supremes were great [[ESPECIALLY Mary!), to be honest, I can't say that I've ever been able to sit & listen to all of their albums. For me, there was just too much Pop in many of their songs, some of the songs were just TOO crossover for me.

It's like trying to listen to Jackie Wilson or Sam Cooke Live At The Copa during the days when R&B acts had to water down their sound & try to be a bit too for lack of a better phrase, Sinatraesque..."too cool baby, are you hep?" & that kind of thing. Sorry but I wasn't into Bill Bailey & gave less than a damn if he never came home & I wasn't doing nobody's damn Tennessee Waltz. And for me, during that time, at that age, some of their music was just a little too "cutesy" for my taste & making it worse for me, is that although I now understand WHY they had to do it, it was obvious that they WERE doing it. Some of those attempts simply fell flat to me & frankly, I wished that some of those recordings had never been made.

Same thing with The Beatles, whom made songs that I absolutely loved, as well more than a few that I wished that they had fed to that damn walrus, or let Mawell's Silver Hammer go a few rounds with them.

I guess that the difference for me is that where The Beatles seemed to be able to do whatever they wanted to do & could do it on their own terms & in all sincerity, I felt that some of The Supremes songs were a little less honest, that some of their songs were crafted with the idea of moving into the supper club environment, an environment & musical style that simply doesn't appeal to me. Which is why Sam Cooke flopped during his first foray there because it didn't feel natural, it simply felt contrived & obviously so.

Unless it's a "Greatest hits" package, I can think of precious few COMPLETE Supremes LPs that I can simply drop the needle on & let play through. For as much as I love the majority of their music, I can be truthful enough to say that I don't believe that every song they've recorded is a gem, nor a hit. Nor can I say the same about any of my favorite artists, nor do I feel the need to. I guess that I'm saying that the music of The Beatles felt less affected to me & that I had a disconnect with some of the music of The Supremes because I definitely felt that it suffered from that affectation of which I speak.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one whom felt this way.

Regardless, they're two great groups whom appeal to me for one reason which unifies them...

They made GREAT music which has stood the test of time & missteps aside, that's more than good enough for me.

I understanding what you're saying about the two groups. It's kinda hard to compare the two. Plus there were factors that were beyond their control and I think most people don't take into consideration the time frame of there success. How popular do you think the Beatle's would have been if American radio stations had the same type of restrictions as say the BBC? Or how much did race hurt or hold back the Supremes? As popular and successful as the Supremes were, I don't think they played/sang on the same equal playing field as the Beatles or other non-black musical acts. The Supreme's may have opened a lot of musical doors, but how many were still shut because of the color of their skin?

kenneth
10-27-2011, 10:59 AM
Well, in terms of overall impact, the Beatles changed the world, not just music but way beyond it. They were either poised at the right time at the right moment or largely responsible for much of the counterculture movement of the 1960s.

The Supremes, great as they were, had some impact on civil rights and what was at the time considered "crossover" performers, but outside music I don't think their impact was anything close to what the Beatles effected.

marv2
10-27-2011, 11:16 AM
I liked them both and never thought to compare the two. I generally use to compare the Beatles with the Stones. Being a young guy back then, I liked the Supremes as they were hot looking chicks in my opinion! LOL!!! It didn't go much deeper than that. Both groups put out some really good music that has become timeless. I remember the mass hysteria surrounding the Beatles everytime they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show with all the girls screaming where you could barely hear the music. The Supremes gave the guys something to look at and as Cholly Atkins has said, Mary was the one that made us notice what they were putting down! LOL!!!

robbert
10-27-2011, 11:18 AM
This is a non-topic for me.
I never heard anyone say, that The Beatles were the male Supremes.

skooldem1
10-27-2011, 11:27 AM
Well, in terms of overall impact, the Beatles changed the world, not just music but way beyond it. They were either poised at the right time at the right moment or largely responsible for much of the counterculture movement of the 1960s.

The Supremes, great as they were, had some impact on civil rights and what was at the time considered "crossover" performers, but outside music I don't think their impact was anything close to what the Beatles effected.


Interesting. I'd take the Supremes impact on the civil rights movement [[however small it may have been) over the impact the Beatles had. BTW outside of their impact in the music industry, what meaningful impact did the Beatles have on society at large?

Jimi LaLumia
10-27-2011, 11:39 AM
The Supremes success was natural;
The Beatles success was induced by a country looking to escape the gloom of the JFK asassination, as well as the hype machine of staged hysteria at airports, an Ed Sullivan appearance full of hyped up girls to drown out the band,and a merchandising campaign built around wigs and teen magazines;
it was as much about merchandise as it was about music, heavy on the HYPE, before most of us had learned that word;
as I said, The Supremes success was more natural, minus the hype,and they rose above despite the anchors[[at that time) of being female and being black: I was around, it was a VERY big deal..

marybrewster
10-27-2011, 12:17 PM
9) First Girl Group to have more than one Number 1 Single [[During a time
when the "girl group sound" was dying out)

Don't forget The Shirelles, who hit #1 in 1960 with "Will You Love Me Tomorrow" and in 1961 with "Soldier Boy".

Jimi LaLumia
10-27-2011, 12:25 PM
Girls group were at their height in 60-61;
1964-65 was a whole different, Beatles kind of world

roger
10-27-2011, 01:27 PM
The Supremes success was natural;
The Beatles success was induced by a country looking to escape the gloom of the JFK asassination, as well as the hype machine of staged hysteria at airports, an Ed Sullivan appearance full of hyped up girls to drown out the band,and a merchandising campaign built around wigs and teen magazines;
it was as much about merchandise as it was about music, heavy on the HYPE, before most of us had learned that word;
as I said, The Supremes success was more natural, minus the hype,and they rose above despite the anchors[[at that time) of being female and being black: I was around, it was a VERY big deal..

Jimi .. In Britain the growth of popularity of THE BEATLES was a lot more organic, with a period of almost a year between them first appearing on the "Pop" charts [[October 1962) and the time when the country was being swamped with Beatles merchandise and their concert performances were being drowned out by screaming girls. It seemed that whereas in Britain it took Beatlemania 12 months to incubate in America it took 12 hours!!

Roger

kenneth
10-27-2011, 01:51 PM
Interesting. I'd take the Supremes impact on the civil rights movement [[however small it may have been) over the impact the Beatles had. BTW outside of their impact in the music industry, what meaningful impact did the Beatles have on society at large?

Are you serious?

skooldem1
10-27-2011, 01:56 PM
Yes, very serious.

kenneth
10-27-2011, 02:00 PM
Yes, very serious.

I think I'll pass, thanks. Here's one publication's thoughts on the subject, however.

http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521689762

skooldem1
10-27-2011, 02:07 PM
I'm not looking to read an essay on the topic. Surely you can list one or two things that the Beatles did. In my world, I'm not aware of any signifigant impact the Beatles had, that's why I am asking.

kenneth
10-27-2011, 02:10 PM
I should have known better than to open myself up to this by expressing surprise at your earlier response, but I'm not going to debate this with you and won't respond again. If you're truly interested, I'm sure you can find much about it through a simple search. Thank you.

skooldem1
10-27-2011, 02:13 PM
Ok. Cool. What I don't understand is your attitude. I asked a serious question and you act almost offended that I can't think of any positive influence, outside fo the music world, that the Beatles had. What's up with that?

motony
10-27-2011, 02:44 PM
skooldem 1, I think he means that the Beatles were at the forefront of the "youth culture" movement as far as fashion[[or lack there of, LOL) hair, attitude ect. This was not something they did conciously.

Jimi LaLumia
10-27-2011, 02:49 PM
The Beatles were more of a reflector of the world changing, they were like a Top 40 radio station unto themselves;
they looked at folk music, country/western, MOTOWN, Bob Dylan, Allen Ginbergh, The Fugs and the Greenwhich Village freaks,Timothy Leary, hippies etc. and made commercial versions of everything that influenced the world at large;'
they didn't create any of these things on their own; they were the messengers /reflectors of the world changing;
I got my hipness from following The Beatles, who were busy following and regurgitating their own version of what was the 1960's, all that I mentioned above and more..[[my friend, the late Gloria Stavers of 16 Magazine, turned them onto quite a few things between 1964-1966 herself)!...groovy//

marv2
10-27-2011, 02:52 PM
This is a non-topic for me.
I never heard anyone say, that The Beatles were the male Supremes.

That's true. I do recall folks saying the Four Tops were the male Supremes but that stemmed from them sharing the same writers and producers in Holland-Dozier-Holland.

marv2
10-27-2011, 02:58 PM
Interesting. I'd take the Supremes impact on the civil rights movement [[however small it may have been) over the impact the Beatles had. BTW outside of their impact in the music industry, what meaningful impact did the Beatles have on society at large?

Skool Dem, the Beatles really did have a far reaching impact not only on music [[some of McCartney & Lennon's songs are among some of the most recorded in history), but on pop culture in general. Guys started wearing their hair longer once the Beatles became popular. Clothing styles changed as well along the lines of what the Beatles were sporting. The opened the door for many other British artists that eventually achieved success around the World. There were Beatles toys, cartoons, board games, lunch boxes etc,etc,etc. The music was even used as a backdrop to many Vietnam War protests as I recall.

marv2
10-27-2011, 03:00 PM
skooldem 1, I think he means that the Beatles were at the forefront of the "youth culture" movement as far as fashion[[or lack there of, LOL) hair, attitude ect. This was not something they did conciously.

Motony, exactly!

dvdmike
10-27-2011, 03:04 PM
This is like comparing apples to oranges. They were two completely different entities. The Supremes did not write their own material or play any instruments. Now, The Supremes vs. The Three Degrees or The Andrews Sisters or another top rated female singing group would have been a better comparison.

Jimi LaLumia
10-27-2011, 03:29 PM
you're kidding, right?

StuBass1
10-27-2011, 04:19 PM
In the interest of discussion/debate...have at it.

www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html [[http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistsddd.html)

www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists-female.html [[http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists-female.html)

www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_rb-greatest-RB-artists.html [[http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_rb-greatest-RB-artists.html)



www.digitaldreamdoor.com [[http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com)

rovereab
10-27-2011, 06:42 PM
For me:

Both group produced excellent music
Both groups were style icons.
Both groups were excellent ambassadors for their countries
Both groups were key in opening up the acceptance of their genre of music in each other's countries

And most importantly.....

Both groups have given me, and others for sure, countless hours of enjoyment

So overall for me, neither is better, just great groups!

Eamonn

kenneth
10-27-2011, 11:48 PM
I got my hipness from following The Beatles, who were busy following and regurgitating their own version of what was the 1960's, all that I mentioned above and more..[[my friend, the late Gloria Stavers of 16 Magazine, turned them onto quite a few things between 1964-1966 herself)!...groovy//

Jimi, did you really know Gloria Stavers? Someone should write a book about her and 16 and those other magazines. She was really ahead of her time. I remember 16, Tiger Beat, there were others as well. What a pulse she had on youth [[mostly young girls) culture. She really deserves a lot of credit; I doubt she's given much for all she contributed back then.

soulster
10-28-2011, 12:52 PM
This is like comparing apples to oranges. They were two completely different entities. The Supremes did not write their own material or play any instruments. Now, The Supremes vs. The Three Degrees or The Andrews Sisters or another top rated female singing group would have been a better comparison.

Spot on! Like I said, this is a silly thread. The two groups do not compare.

Roberta75
10-28-2011, 03:14 PM
For me:

Both group produced excellent music
Both groups were style icons.
Both groups were excellent ambassadors for their countries
Both groups were key in opening up the acceptance of their genre of music in each other's countries

And most importantly.....

Both groups have given me, and others for sure, countless hours of enjoyment

So overall for me, neither is better, just great groups!

Eamonn

You just summed it up perfectly sir.

Thank you.

Roberta

Jimi LaLumia
10-28-2011, 04:24 PM
Jimi, did you really know Gloria Stavers? Someone should write a book about her and 16 and those other magazines. She was really ahead of her time. I remember 16, Tiger Beat, there were others as well. What a pulse she had on youth [[mostly young girls) culture. She really deserves a lot of credit; I doubt she's given much for all she contributed back then.


Yes, I met her in 1970, wrote a feature about her, and she became a mentoress of sorts to me..
she was brilliant and wonderful, when I used to scrap together 25/35 cents to get 16 as a kid, I never thought that I'd come to actually be friends with her..you should check out the book "Who's Your Fave Rave",which is a 16/Stavers book, while not being an actual biography..

kenneth
10-28-2011, 08:28 PM
Yes, I met her in 1970, wrote a feature about her, and she became a mentoress of sorts to me..
she was brilliant and wonderful, when I used to scrap together 25/35 cents to get 16 as a kid, I never thought that I'd come to actually be friends with her..you should check out the book "Who's Your Fave Rave",which is a 16/Stavers book, while not being an actual biography..

That looks like a really fun book. I'm going to try and buy that one. Those old magazines are so fun to look at. Do you have a collection of them? I imagine you do. During the era I remember them, it was usually Mark Lindsay on the covers.

Laurel
10-28-2011, 08:44 PM
I liked both groups. They were so much fun and whenever I hear Stop in the Name of Love or I Wanna Hold Your Hand, I remember the good times of being a teenager and having fun.

Jimi LaLumia
10-28-2011, 08:51 PM
Gloria Stavers also dropped photos of The Supremes into 16 Magazine frequently[[she told me about the 'mail' she'd get from the South whenever a black face appeared in the magazine), and 16 was the first teen magazine to embrace and feature the Jackson 5 and MJ as teen idols right on the cover alongside The Osmonds and Donnie[[she REALLY got 'mail from the South" in 1970/71/72 over THAT!!!..I heard all about it years later...)

ajk93
10-28-2011, 09:06 PM
Always liked this clip. Thought this would be a fine time to post it---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOB7fNFIqzk

ejluther
10-28-2011, 10:26 PM
God, I love that clip - they sound so great together! And Mary's expression on the line "my baby buys me things, you know, he buys me diamond rings..." [[00:44) gets me every time - so perfect!

johnjeb
10-29-2011, 10:32 AM
That whole show was the best, from "Back In My Arms Again", "You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Loves Me" and this medley of #1 songs from 1965. The girls singing "Stop!" with Frankie Avalon is a treat.

I have it on VHS tape. I should get it on DVD. Now that we have DVDs of them on Sullivan maybe we can hope for a "Supremes on Hullabaloo" set! That would be nice since those appearances pre-date, for the most part, their Sullivan glamor days, yet they still looked fashionable and exquisite. My first time seeing them was on Hullabaloo in January 1965, they sang a medley of "Where...", "Baby Love", and "Come See...". They also joined Shirley Ellis on "The Name Game" for a quick verse of "Supremes, Supremes, bo Bupremes...".

marv2
10-29-2011, 11:29 AM
It would have been great if the Supremes and the Beatles could have recorded something together.

ejluther
10-29-2011, 12:19 PM
That whole show was the best, from "Back In My Arms Again", "You're Nobody 'Til Somebody Loves Me" and this medley of #1 songs from 1965. The girls singing "Stop!" with Frankie Avalon is a treat.
I don't think I've ever seen the whole show but I'm going to track it down now for sure...

captainjames
10-29-2011, 01:37 PM
The Beatles and The Stones are a better comparison

bankhousedave
10-29-2011, 01:46 PM
As usual, I think Juice has nailed a vital point, and it's one that hadn't really been discussed, as far as I'm aware. Berry was kind of trying to propitiate the Sinatra element. He saw his ultimate market as the people John told to rattle their jewelry at the London Palladium. The Beatles had no such desire - or need, in fairness. So they wound up aiming for different things. The Supremes albums I can listen to all through are HDH, Love Child, Rodgers and Hart and I hear A Symphony. We never got The Beatles Sing Stephen Collins Foster.

soulster
10-29-2011, 02:02 PM
The Supremes and The Honey Cone, or Emotions, are better comparisons.

soulster
10-29-2011, 02:08 PM
As usual, I think Juice has nailed a vital point, and it's one that hadn't really been discussed, as far as I'm aware. Berry was kind of trying to propitiate the Sinatra element. He saw his ultimate market as the people John told to rattle their jewelry at the London Palladium. The Beatles had no such desire - or need, in fairness. So they wound up aiming for different things. The Supremes albums I can listen to all through are HDH, Love Child, Rodgers and Hart and I hear A Symphony. We never got The Beatles Sing Stephen Collins Foster.

I think Gordy was aiming for everyone, not just the White, or upper-crust. And, when 1966 rolled around, and Gordy realized that they were losing record sales to the new sound and aging generation, and worse, the Black base, he allowed a hipper, more socially relevant sound to emerge. "Going To A Go-Go" by Smokey Robinson & The Miracles was among the first, The temptations' "Cloud Nine" the second, and then Diana Ross & The Supremes with "Reflections".

roger
10-29-2011, 02:23 PM
I think Gordy was aiming for everyone, not just the White, or upper-crust. And, when 1966 rolled around, and Gordy realized that they were losing record sales to the new sound and aging generation, and worse, the Black base, he allowed a hipper, more socially relevant sound to emerge. "Going To A Go-Go" by Smokey Robinson & The Miracles was among the first, The temptations' "Cloud Nine" the second, and then Diana Ross & The Supremes with "Reflections".

I think your time-line is a bit out Soulster .. "Going To A Go-Go" was at the end of 1965, "Reflections" was late summer 1967 and "Cloud Nine" was at the tail end of 1968.

I'd say that "Reflections" was Motown's first attempt to join in the psychedelic era sounds of 1967 .. it came out whilst "Sergeant Pepper" by THE BEATLES was the number 1 LP around the world. But essentially it is just another tale of lost love along the lines of "Love Is Here And Now You're Gone" or "Where Did our Love Go".

I'd say that "Cloud Nine", and "Love Child" were Motown's first real attempts to make "socially relevent" music.

I'd say that "Going to A Go-Go" was an invitation for people to go out and dance!! :)

Roger

soulster
10-29-2011, 03:05 PM
I think your time-line is a bit out Soulster .. "Going To A Go-Go" was at the end of 1965, "Reflections" was late summer 1967 and "Cloud Nine" was at the tail end of 1968.

I wasn't being exact, but the single "Going To A Go-Go" debuted on the Soul chart in January 1, 1966. Obviously, it was recorded in 1965, but I go by i's release date. I am, of course, aware of when the other two songs were out. used 1966 as the starting point of the change.


I'd say that "Reflections" was Motown's first attempt to join in the psychedelic era sounds of 1967 .. it came out whilst "Sergeant Pepper" by THE BEATLES was the number 1 LP around the world. But essentially it is just another tale of lost love along the lines of "Love Is Here And Now You're Gone" or "Where Did our Love Go".

Musically, you are correct. In fact, I think you are a bit closer with "Love Is here, and Now You're Gone". "Reflections" was just an extension of that. I remember going trick-or-treating with my sister when "Reflections" was on top of the charts. I do not concern myself with the lyrical content when talking about timelines. I always use the music itself as my reference.


I'd say that "Cloud Nine", and "Love Child" were Motown's first real attempts to make "socially relevent" music.

Since "Cloud Nine" was issued around the same time, i'd say both were lyrically socially relevant.


I'd say that "Going to A Go-Go" was an invitation for people to go out and dance!! :)

Roger

..as was "Dancing In The Street". Again, I was more focused on the music itself.

roger
10-29-2011, 04:21 PM
Actually Soulster ..

Now I come to think about it, the first "socially aware" Motown hits would have been "Blowing in The Wind" and "A Place In The Sun" by STEVIE WONDER in 1966. Mind you neither of those recordings were anywhere near as "in your face" as "Love Child" or "Cloud Nine".

Roger

Jimi LaLumia
10-29-2011, 04:24 PM
The Supremes and The Honey Cone, or Emotions, are better comparisons.

you ARE kidding, right? Honey Cone had 2 or 3 actual hits, Emotions had 1 !..
the comparisons are made because of the sales, radio airplay, and #1's tallies which made the Supremes the #1 American group of the 60s, not female group, but GROUP...period!...no other artist, male, female, or otherwise, comes near...this was not about music, who can play instruments, who writes their own songs, it's about clout, influence and FAME in that decade, and, as I said, no one else comes near...
I couldn't name a single member of Honey Cone or Emotions if my life depended on it, and I bought those records when they were new..

marv2
10-29-2011, 04:57 PM
you ARE kidding, right? Honey Cone had 2 or 3 actual hits, Emotions had 1 !..
the comparisons are made because of the sales, radio airplay, and #1's tallies which made the Supremes the #1 American group of the 60s, not female group, but GROUP...period!...no other artist, male, female, or otherwise, comes near...this was not about music, who can play instruments, who writes their own songs, it's about clout, influence and FAME in that decade, and, as I said, no one else comes near...
I couldn't name a single member of Honey Cone or Emotions if my life depended on it, and I bought those records when they were new..

Jimi you are on target! You cannot legitimately compare the Supremes to groups such as those mentioned as they were as you said the top American Group during that era and one of the most successful in history. It always makes me chuckle when a certain guy on this forum says that no one would know who the Supremes were except one member, the lead singer LOL!!!!

stephanie
10-29-2011, 06:35 PM
The Supremes are the ONLY girl group [[with the exception of the Pointer Sisters, maybe TLC and Destinys child) that the American household knew all of their names. OK I will rephrase that the ONLY girl group of the 60s. No offense to the Toys, The Ronettes, The Shangrilas, and the Shirelles and more but name me ONE girl group in the 60s that MOST people knew their names and I will eat crow.

soulster
10-30-2011, 02:07 PM
you ARE kidding, right? Honey Cone had 2 or 3 actual hits, Emotions had 1 !..
the comparisons are made because of the sales, radio airplay, and #1's tallies which made the Supremes the #1 American group of the 60s, not female group, but GROUP...period!...no other artist, male, female, or otherwise, comes near...this was not about music, who can play instruments, who writes their own songs, it's about clout, influence and FAME in that decade, and, as I said, no one else comes near...
I couldn't name a single member of Honey Cone or Emotions if my life depended on it, and I bought those records when they were new..

No, i'm not kidding. My comparisons are not about the frequency of hits, it's about the general format, three female singers, of which one generally does the lead. They all were active in two decades, and all crossed over. You could include The Three Degrees and The Pointer Sisters if you want. The one difference with the Pointer Sisters is that they always had artistic control.

tamla617
10-30-2011, 02:57 PM
The Supremes are the ONLY girl group [[with the exception of the Pointer Sisters, maybe TLC and Destinys child) that the American household knew all of their names. OK I will rephrase that the ONLY girl group of the 60s. No offense to the Toys, The Ronettes, The Shangrilas, and the Shirelles and more but name me ONE girl group in the 60s that MOST people knew their names and I will eat crow.

i couldnt name all the supps in the 60's or any of the others.i only knew the names of the beatles and rolling stones and the who so how do you want your fillet of crow?fried or boiled?

Jimi LaLumia
10-30-2011, 04:17 PM
all of America knew The Supremes on sight![[and they're individually name checked in a #1 hit "Back In My arms Again"; you're trying to minimize them is pathetic at best.
The Who?...lol..you belong on another discussion board;
if you added the girls groups you mentioned combined, they still didn't have as many hits combined as The Supremes did between 1963 and 1977.. stop wasting your energy and our time, your infantile antics aren't even annoying cos they're too obviously trying to be...lol

smark21
10-30-2011, 05:05 PM
all of America knew The Supremes on sight![[and they're individually name checked in a #1 hit "Back In My arms Again"; you're trying to minimize them is pathetic at best.
The Who?...lol..you belong on another discussion board;
if you added the girls groups you mentioned combined, they still didn't have as many hits combined as The Supremes did between 1963 and 1977.. stop wasting your energy and our time, your infantile antics aren't even annoying cos they're too obviously trying to be...lol

Since I was the one who started the thread, I brought up the question, which is very much, in a musical sense, apples vs. oranges, because fans like you get involved in sales and chart positions. But from a musical view, comparing and debating The Supremes vs. groups like Honey Cone, The Emotions, The Pointer Sisters, The Spice Girls, The Cover Girls, etc. is a much more apt question to ask, regardless of chart and sales performance, than to compare a singing group which had its material written, produced and chose for them vs. a band that wrote most of its own material and played a role in shaping its musical directino and arrangments.

Jimi LaLumia
10-30-2011, 06:32 PM
I hear what you're saying but the enormous decades spanning worldwide success of The Supremes changed their game plan dramatically, in terms of music and more
..groups like Honey Cone and Three Degrees existed in a world of 'you're only as good as your last record'; The Supremes, of course, transcended that

tamla617
10-31-2011, 01:30 PM
all of America knew The Supremes on sight![[and they're individually name checked in a #1 hit "Back In My arms Again"; you're trying to minimize them is pathetic at best.
The Who?...lol..you belong on another discussion board;
if you added the girls groups you mentioned combined, they still didn't have as many hits combined as The Supremes did between 1963 and 1977.. stop wasting your energy and our time, your infantile antics aren't even annoying cos they're too obviously trying to be...lol

what other board?i didnt say i liked them.there are other types of music on here.you started other board shit with these "got nothing else to think of" threads

you are doing this to cause an argument AGAIN

i'm not trying to derail this thread either.as for infantile...........where?

if you only wanted an american view point you should have asked for one and because you didnt you're getting it from the uk

loosly wrapped 'round a brick

roger
10-31-2011, 06:12 PM
Well then Tamla617 ..

I couldn't have named all of the members of THE SUPREMES either back in the '60s .. but then "Back In My Arms Again" wasn't that big a hit here at the time .. I would imagine more people in Britain bought it when it was included in the "Greatest Hits" LP than did when it was a single .. like you I could have named all the members of THE BEATLES and THE ROLLING STONES but I might have struggled with THE WHO.

Whisper it very quietly but Jimi Lalumia seems to think that the world ends at the eastern end of Long Island and doesn't realise that there is another world out here on the eastern shores of the Atlantic Ocean .. shhhhhh .. LOL

Roger :)

nabob
10-31-2011, 06:36 PM
Well then Tamla617 ..

I couldn't have named all of the members of THE SUPREMES either back in the '60s .. but then "Back In My Arms Again" wasn't that big a hit here at the time ... like you I could have named all the members of THE BEATLES and THE ROLLING STONES but I might have struggled with THE WHO.I find this interesting in that It took me a long while to learn the names of the Beatles. With the Stones, I was never into their music. The only names that resonate are Mick Jagger [the media whore, meant in a nice way], Keith Richards for working with Aretha in the 1980s on Jumping Jack Flash, Charlie Watts for his two albums of standards in the late 1980s. Beyond that the only other information that comes to mind is a drummer who left this earth by over-dosing.

tamla617
10-31-2011, 06:46 PM
i forgot to mention,i knew the monkees names too!think i'll emigrate to another forum now.after that admission its the least i could do!

roger
10-31-2011, 07:00 PM
I find this interesting in that It took me a long while to learn the names of the Beatles. With the Stones, I was never into their music. The only names that resonate are Mick Jagger [the media whore, meant in a nice way], Keith Richards for working with Aretha in the 1980s on Jumping Jack Flash, Charlie Watts for his two albums of standards in the late 1980s. Beyond that the only other information that comes to mind is a drummer who left this earth by over-dosing.

I take it you mean the drummer with THE WHO [[KEITH MOON).. who died possibly after over-dosing?. BRIAN JONES of THE ROLLING STONES also died young [[drowning in a swimming pool, possibly as a result of an overdose) .. but he was a guitarist.

Putting all of this in perspective .. in 1965/6/7 in Britain THE WHO were huge .. with 7 Top 10 hits in that period .. the biggest were "My Generation" and "I'm A Boy", both of which got to #2 .. nowadays "I'm A Boy" is largely forgotten in Britain but "My Generation" is still thought of as an iconic record that "was a number one hit". When I look at my Joel Whitburn US "Billboard" books I can see that THE WHO were never that big in the'60s in the US .. with just 1 Top 10 .. "I Can See For Miles" .. and only really became massively popular in the 1969/70 period with their "Tommy" project.

Roger

tamla617
10-31-2011, 07:39 PM
i think the who,with the csi franchise theme songs, are finding new fans

nabob
10-31-2011, 08:07 PM
I take it you mean the drummer with THE WHO [[KEITH MOON).. who died possibly after over-dosing?. BRIAN JONES of THE ROLLING STONES also died young [[drowning in a swimming pool, possibly as a result of an overdose) .. but he was a guitarist.I guess that shows you how informed I am. The corrected information is appreciated.

juicefree20
10-31-2011, 08:49 PM
Nabob,

Actually, the fact that you got the names mixed up made your point perfectly. Think about it :)

Jimi LaLumia
10-31-2011, 09:58 PM
if you only wanted an american view point you should have asked for one and because you didnt you're getting it from the uk

loosly wrapped 'round a brick

how verrrry PUNK!!...but of course we invented that in NYC and then you blokes hopped aboard the train after the fact...
chooo chooooooo!!!!

juicefree20
10-31-2011, 10:57 PM
Bankhouse,

Thank you for understanding.

Soulster,

Actually, if you remember how Motown was set up, the more crossover sounds ended up on Motown, Tamla & the like. The more obvious Soul makers like Gladys Knight & The Pips, The Temptations, Shorty Long, etc., ended up on the Gordy & Soul imprints. So right there, you were aware that indeed Motown was set up to aim at a more crossover crowd & a listen to the musical approaches of each bears this out.

marv2
10-31-2011, 11:54 PM
Well then Tamla617 ..

I couldn't have named all of the members of THE SUPREMES either back in the '60s .. but then "Back In My Arms Again" wasn't that big a hit here at the time .. I would imagine more people in Britain bought it when it was included in the "Greatest Hits" LP than did when it was a single .. like you I could have named all the members of THE BEATLES and THE ROLLING STONES but I might have struggled with THE WHO.

Whisper it very quietly but Jimi Lalumia seems to think that the world ends at the eastern end of Long Island and doesn't realise that there is another world out here on the eastern shores of the Atlantic Ocean .. shhhhhh .. LOL

Roger :)

Well for this Long Islander it does! "Montauk Is The End"! LOL! What Jimi said is correct. He just did not take into account that members here from other countries had different experiences. Sometimes I forget that a lot of what went on in and around Detroit, things we enjoyed locally that many people even in the U.S. would not have been familiar with. True we all knew who the individual Supremes were [[in Detroit before "Back In My Arms" and the "More Hits" album) just like we all knew the individual players on the '68 Tigers. Some kid growing up in Oklahoma or somewhere may not have known or even cared.

Jimi LaLumia
10-31-2011, 11:59 PM
and the concept of "The Supremes", Ed Sullivan even told America their names when his was the most watched show in the country, how often did that happen?>>>NEVER..except with The Supremes, he name checked them individually a few times, which was unheard of..no other group, male or female got this accomodation..the same name checking happened on The Sammy Davis Jr. Show and numerous other tv shows, and the girls names are actually mentioned in "Back In My Arms again" which was a #1 U.S. single...
we love the UK, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN![[s)

kenneth
11-01-2011, 12:15 AM
Well for this Long Islander it does! "Montauk Is The End"! LOL! What Jimi said is correct. He just did not take into account that members here from other countries had different experiences. Sometimes I forget that a lot of what went on in and around Detroit, things we enjoyed locally that many people even in the U.S. would not have been familiar with. True we all knew who the individual Supremes were [[in Detroit before "Back In My Arms" and the "More Hits" album) just like we all knew the individual players on the '68 Tigers. Some kid growing up in Oklahoma or somewhere may not have known or even cared.

Yes, everyone from Detroit knew who the all of the Supremes were, and took their ins and outs very personally, and that's why we still have the right to call her 'Diane' and not 'Diana.'

marv2
11-01-2011, 12:25 AM
Yes, everyone from Detroit knew who the all of the Supremes were, and took their ins and outs very personally, and that's why we still have the right to call her 'Diane' and not 'Diana.'

You go that right! Her sister Margarite [[sp?) we called her Rita. Her ex-boyfriend who was a friend of ours calls her that too to this day. But anyway.....I digress because I don't know anyone or anything, hehehehehehehe!!!

skooldem1
11-01-2011, 08:47 AM
The thing I don't understand is this; many claim that Florences' solo career never did take off because she couldn't capitalize on the fact she was a Supreme. Then there is Mary Wilson, who still to this day tours as "Formerly of" or Mary Wilson of the Supremes. If in fact their names were so recognized, why didn't their solo careers ever take off?

Roberta75
11-01-2011, 09:30 AM
The thing I don't understand is this; many claim that Florences' solo career never did take off because she couldn't capitalize on the fact she was a Supreme. Then there is Mary Wilson, who still to this day tours as "Formerly of" or Mary Wilson of the Supremes. If in fact their names were so recognized, why didn't their solo careers ever take off?

LOL. Great question but I have a feeling one or two here will blame Berry and Diana, like they always do.

Roberta

tamla617
11-01-2011, 09:54 AM
The thing I don't understand is this; many claim that Florences' solo career never did take off because she couldn't capitalize on the fact she was a Supreme. Then there is Mary Wilson, who still to this day tours as "Formerly of" or Mary Wilson of the Supremes. If in fact their names were so recognized, why didn't their solo careers ever take off?

that is a brilliant question and one i'm ducking out of too!

marv2
11-01-2011, 11:11 AM
The thing I don't understand is this; many claim that Florences' solo career never did take off because she couldn't capitalize on the fact she was a Supreme. Then there is Mary Wilson, who still to this day tours as "Formerly of" or Mary Wilson of the Supremes. If in fact their names were so recognized, why didn't their solo careers ever take off?

Mary Wilson has a very successful solo career. I think you are only referring to the recording aspect rather than her comphrensive career. Right?

Neither Florence or Mary were allowed to record as "Florence Ballard and the Supremes" or "Mary Wilson and the Supremes" such in the way Berry Gordy promoted Diana Ross to the World before going solo as "Diana Ross and the Supremes".

We should also examine the material and the way both Florence and Mary were produced in their initial solo outings. I should also mentioned that I personally have not seen Mary Wilson referred to as "Mary Wilson formerly of the Supremes" or "Mary Wilson of the Supremes" in her billing, in quite some time. I see "Legendary singer" used a lot by others when introducing her or discussing her.

skooldem1
11-01-2011, 11:22 AM
Yes, I am talking about mainstream and recording success.

loveblind
11-01-2011, 11:25 AM
I think the Supremes were like puppets..in the begining. As the group became more of a vehicle for DIana Ross, in the latter half the decade, Ross becomes a little more "Human". When she went solo, she was very different from what she was with the SUpremes. She stopped the giggling, the animated faces and became very sexy.

They [[Supremes/Ross) did what they had to to make it big when the other acts said "Hell No" [[That's where the puppet thing comes in)
The Beatles, Elvis and the Supremes were all at the top of their game, all very different entertainers, but prove, there really is room at the top for everyone.....But you gotta work very hard and make hard sacrifices~

marv2
11-01-2011, 11:30 AM
I think the Supremes were like puppets..in the begining. As the group became more of a vehicle for DIana Ross, in the latter half the decade, Ross becomes a little more "Human". When she went solo, she was very different from what she was with the SUpremes. She stopped the giggling, the animated faces and became very sexy.

They [[Supremes/Ross) did what they had to to make it big when the other acts said "Hell No" [[That's where the puppet thing comes in)
The Beatles, Elvis and the Supremes were all at the top of their game, all very different entertainers, but prove, there really is room at the top for everyone.....But you gotta work very hard and make hard sacrifices~

Loveblind, I agree. Diana Ross describes herself as pretty much a puppet when explaining what was expected from her by Berry Gordy in clip I saw recently on Youtube from a program called the Actors Studio I believe? The group was use to promote Ross into a solo career. She pretty much stated that Berry would say things like "Now do this", "Get up there and make it happen"! She responded that she had to just do "it" , that she had to do "everything" or Berry would not be pleased.

skooldem1
11-01-2011, 11:39 AM
Do you actually believe that all other Motown acts were defiant, did what they wanted, said what they wanted, and recorded only what they wanted to record? Or was it just Mary, Florence and Diana? The Supremes were no different than any other motown act. The were ALL employees.

marv2
11-01-2011, 11:49 AM
Here it is. Please note that what I described above occurs at approx 3:55 in this clip:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDKYRR3mBlY&feature=related

marv2
11-01-2011, 11:51 AM
Do you actually believe that all other Motown acts were defiant, did what they wanted, said what they wanted, and recorded only what they wanted to record? Or was it just Mary, Florence and Diana? The Supremes were no different than any other motown act. The were ALL employees.

I don't know about everyone, but David and Eddies were pretty defiant! hehehehehe...... Marvin Gaye became increasingly so as time went on. Martha asked for an accounting once that didn't go over very well with the company. Soooooo........

skooldem1
11-01-2011, 11:53 AM
Did all other Motown acts do as they wished?

marv2
11-01-2011, 12:18 PM
Yes, I am talking about mainstream and recording success.

That was my understanding too and yes it is an important "part" but just a segment of a professional entertainer's career. There have been countless "recording artists" that have had number one hit records and then drop completely off of the public's radar. In the case of Mary Wilson, she will once again be performing and singing in front of an appreciative and PAYING audience tonight! To me, that's successful when you consider she has been performing in front of audiences for 52 years now. Amazing!

Roberta75
11-01-2011, 12:36 PM
Yes, I am talking about mainstream and recording success.

Mary is billed as "Mary Wilson of the Supremes" or "Mary Wilson Legendary Member of the Original Supremes" about 98% of the time in her billing.

The Supremes is always in her billing.

marv2
11-01-2011, 12:40 PM
Mary is billed as "Mary Wilson of the Supremes" or "Mary Wilson Legendary Member of the Original Supremes" about 98% of the time in her billing.

The Supremes is always in her billing.

That is not true.

Roberta75
11-01-2011, 12:40 PM
That is not true.

Yes it is.

marv2
11-01-2011, 12:51 PM
Yes it is.

No it isn't. I cannot take you around to every concert hall and theater where Mary Wilson performs to show you her billing, but I can lead you to some form of example. Go to her website.

marv2
11-01-2011, 12:55 PM
Then after you do that. Go to Youtube, type in her name "Mary Wilson" and scroll through the videos and note how they are titled. A few will say what you've said, but the majority will simply say "Mary Wilson". Let us know what you come up with. By that time it should be dinner time. LOL!!!!

jobeterob
11-01-2011, 01:06 PM
Way back when, somebody said, the answer to this question is like comparing apples to oranges and it is. The Supremes and Beatles were great and they spawned some great solo artists.

Who cares what names they used? Some of them had to hook themselves to the name "Supremes" cuz things weren't so easy for them. So................what! That name game with the Supremes just embarrassed them all; there is a reason one of them just stays away from it all. But I say, just go for it and use it, if you were one, use the name...........it's only 50 years ago and the name "Supremes" still conjures three women standing in gowns, hands in the air, comin down for the "Stop" sign.

kenneth
11-01-2011, 02:33 PM
No it isn't. I cannot take you around to every concert hall and theater where Mary Wilson performs to show you her billing, but I can lead you to some form of example. Go to her website.

I believe her recent concert DVD is credited to "Mary Wilson of the Supremes." But for a long time, just like Florence, she was forbidden to refer to the Supremes in her billing or publicity. I believe eventually she gained half ownership of the name so could use it then. I'm sure she has mixed feelings about billing herself as "of the Supremes," in any event. Regardless of the name recognition value, I'm sure she'd rather be recognized as just "Mary Wilson."

Jimi LaLumia
11-01-2011, 04:24 PM
as to Florence and Mary having trouble as solo recording acts, the answer is simple;
MATERIAL!..and PRODUCTION!..they didn't have H/D/H or Ashford & Simpson delivering custom made hits and productions to them..
and if anyone thinks that Diana Ross could have had hits with "Red Hot' or "It Doesn't Matter How I Say It" with the same production, etc..think again..those tunes wouldn't have even been album filler, let alone singles material for Ross...
Mary did foolishly walk away from "Holiday", which John Jellybean Benitez then gave to Madonna..but most of the material provided to Mary and Flo was decidedly inferior..

marv2
11-01-2011, 05:50 PM
as to Florence and Mary having trouble as solo recording acts, the answer is simple;
MATERIAL!..and PRODUCTION!..they didn't have H/D/H or Ashford & Simpson delivering custom made hits and productions to them..
and if anyone thinks that Diana Ross could have had hits with "Red Hot' or "It Doesn't Matter How I Say It" with the same production, etc..think again..those tunes wouldn't have even been album filler, let alone singles material for Ross...
Mary did foolishly walk away from "Holiday", which John Jellybean Benitez then gave to Madonna..but most of the material provided to Mary and Flo was decidedly inferior..


BAM! Now that's the end of that subject..........case closed! LOL!!!!

loveblind
11-01-2011, 08:24 PM
I don't know about everyone, but David and Eddies were pretty defiant! hehehehehe...... Marvin Gaye became increasingly so as time went on. Martha asked for an accounting once that didn't go over very well with the company. Soooooo........

Martha was a rebel as was Marvin. The Four Tops hardly every rehearsed,Mary Wells always did her own thing even down to the blonde wigs...Nobody dared to direct Jr. Walker and certain members of the Temptations often rebelled..Ross & The Supremes did what they were told and Gordy loved it, Smokey was also one that never rocked the boat and they were rewarded.

During the filming of Mahagany..Ross began to rebel. After that project, A lot changed between Ross and Motown. She began to control her path more.

smark21
11-01-2011, 09:49 PM
as to Florence and Mary having trouble as solo recording acts, the answer is simple;
MATERIAL!..and PRODUCTION!..they didn't have H/D/H or Ashford & Simpson delivering custom made hits and productions to them..
and if anyone thinks that Diana Ross could have had hits with "Red Hot' or "It Doesn't Matter How I Say It" with the same production, etc..think again..those tunes wouldn't have even been album filler, let alone singles material for Ross...
Mary did foolishly walk away from "Holiday", which John Jellybean Benitez then gave to Madonna..but most of the material provided to Mary and Flo was decidedly inferior..

I highly doubt Mary would have had a hit if she had recorded Holiday. That song was meant for a thin voice singer with a girlish delivery like Madonna at that stage of her career. Mary Wilson does not have a fluffy dance pop type of voice.

marv2
11-01-2011, 10:01 PM
Martha was a rebel as was Marvin. The Four Tops hardly every rehearsed,Mary Wells always did her own thing even down to the blonde wigs...Nobody dared to direct Jr. Walker and certain members of the Temptations often rebelled..Ross & The Supremes did what they were told and Gordy loved it, Smokey was also one that never rocked the boat and they were rewarded.

During the filming of Mahagany..Ross began to rebel. After that project, A lot changed between Ross and Motown. She began to control her path more.

Oh yeah I Martha was a rebel, she gave me one of her cigarettes she use to roll herself right out of her purse! hehehehehe! She was not one to be played with. A great lady, smart, Worldly, down to Earth, tough, brilliant, talented, caring and a Detroit Sister from her heart!

When Florence rebelled they didn't know how to handle it. They all started finding fault and "things" wrong with Florence never owning up to the fact that what was going on was causing her to rebel.

Marvin Gaye was very much a rebel also. They had to conjole, pet and sometimes beg him to go onstage at times.

The Four Tops were older, mature guys by the time they came to Motown, so they could not be intimidated.

jobeterob
11-01-2011, 11:39 PM
Excellent points Jim. No one could have made a hit out of the songs Mary and Florence recorded on their own; no Madonna, no Diana Ross; Whitney Houston and Beyonce would have ditched those songs. They were generally inferior.

Now, there were some Mary leads or co-leads that had a chance that either Motown or the group decided not to pursue; but by that time, the Supremes were viewed pretty much as a thing of the past and maybe even if they had been released as singles, they may not have been successful.