Exactly and specifically Cissy Houston - listen to "Ain't No Way"! At least Cissy had me buying her solo albums after she split from the girls...can't say that for anyone else!
Wilson recalls. “I know Florence didn’t like it. I don’t think Diana liked it, although I can’t talk for her.
Mary you really can not speak for Florence as well. In fact on several shows Florence mentioned it as one of her favorite songs.
Next for those on here that stated it is because of Diana Ross that the are not mentioned then you must also credit Diana as BEING THE SUPREMES.
They were female, African Americans and from Detroit. Its 2014 but we are still stuck in 1960 and that is the reason most credit go to male performers.
STill no one has pointed to what in the recorded and live work of Diana Ross and The Supremes makes them great artists. I get people citing awards and recognition; or that their albums may have served as gateway to other types of songs and music; or childish insults. But no description/analysis/evocation of the vocals that is the benchmark of their work. That's all I'm asking for and I'm ready to be persuaded. YOu might be able to point out nuances in the vocals that will make me go back to the song and realized, you're right, excellent point. I wonder if your failure to describe and evaluation and illuminate their work is a result of one of these factors: 1) you lack the ability to describe their work; 2) you only a superficial/shallow grasp of music; or 3) you really don't take the musical work of Diana Ross and the Supremes seriously after all which is why you prefer gossip/drama/charts/sales/pictures. One reason why acts like Aretha, Beatles, Stones have had better critical legacies is that they each drew a few fans who took the music seriously, studied and developed their writing and research skills as well as analytical abilities and became music historians. Diana Ross and The Supremes, on the other hand, got writers like Mark Bego, Tony Turner, and Mark Ribowsky.
The fact that you're even trying to have this debate about a lead singer who left her group over 44 YEARS AGO says something about her lasting legacy and the lasting legacy of the Supremes. The Supreme's set the stand for all female groups that still stands to this day.
I posted "Every Day is a New Day: Art, Biography, Criticism, and the Changing Fortunes of Diana Ross" in this thread but decided to remove it and start a new thread. It is a comprehensive piece on Diana Ross's career for those interested.
Diana Ross/ The Supremes legacy is bigger than their music. No offense to anyone, but this aspect often gets lost on people who are not black [[some, not all). Take a look at this behind the scenes video of Oprah talking to her audience, and how she explains it.
What Diana Ross Means to Oprah
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/What-...to-Oprah-Video
I don't want to get involved with any of the nonsense fight over the drama and why some people think Diana Ross was the only one that mattered or not. Frankly, it's pointless.
I, as a fan, care much about them as group because of how they grew as vocalists. I have yet to hear a group as vocally versatile as them. Were they the greatest singers individually? No, but as a group together their sound blended beautifully. Every grouping from the original four to the final line-up had that beautiful blend. The early years were raw, but within a few short years it's amazing to hear the progress and growth. Listen to Diana on "Where Did Our Love Go" and then listen to "Love Child." In four years, there is incredible growth. They had the ability to sing pop, R&B, soul and turn around and sing Broadway showtunes and standards with ease. Personally, I think their best album was their Rodgers & Hart album. From start to finish, they were able to take elements from all the genres they sang and create a cohesive album that showed them at their best. It seemed so effortless to them and I don't believe there was a group in that era who could do that. Listen to Diana's vocals on the Funny Girl album. She's phenomenal. Singing her heart out and interpreting the song as though she was the character. Listen to the group on "Reflections" and how they gel with the psychedelic-soul sound of the song and production. No one thinks of them as rock, but listen to "Going Down For The Third Time" and how they cut loose with punch and power. They really feel it and throw it into the song. Then you have such songs as "More" that they performed in live concerts where it feels as though the song was written for them because their harmonies matches the beauty of song. What makes the group so great is that they don't compromise their sound. Versatility seems to be ignored in this day and age and it's a shame they're ignored for how versatile they were as vocalists. People can go on and on about how they didn't write or play their own music, but does anyone in the music community ever discuss their vocal ability? Isn't that what it should be about?
I was too young to ever give much thought to The Supremes as "artists" and really pay attention to their vocals or interpretative skills. I was just GA-GA over Diana Ross because I'd never seen anything like her. We'd turn on the tube just to see what she was wearing, her wig of the week and her makeup. Sure the songs were fun and we played the heck out of them but it was 24/7/365 Diana in our house. Ditto for Dionne. Fast forward to 1972/73 and that all changed. "Lady" and "Touch Me" took her to a new level of artistry and I started to really listen to her music with my big ole headphones on and became quite taken with her vocal nuances and her ability to convey emotion with a smaller "instrument" than an Aretha or a Gladys or a Patti. I did the same for Dionne retroactively as I listed to all the old LPs in a different light. Frankly, I feel Diana's age has actually helped her voice mature. I'm not really a fan of the upbeat songs as I just don't feel they do her voice justice. On I Love You, I think her vocals on "The Look of Love", "Always & Forever" and "What About Love?" stand among her best ballads right alongside "Don't Explain", "It's My Turn", "To Love Again" and oh so many more!
just ignore the Aretha troll, all he does is spout opinions that he tries present as fact.,he should apply for a job at fox 'news'...
I would say [[vocal-wise):
There's A Place For Us
The Supremes Sing Rodgers & Hart
Diana Ross & The Supremes Sing & Perform Funny Girl
Lady Sings The Blues
Touch Me In The Morning & To The Baby
Baby It's Me
The Boss
Blue
Other tracks IMHO: "You're All I Need To Get By", "You Are Everything", "I Thought It Took A Little Time", "Where Did We Go Wrong", "To Love Again", "Friend To Friend", "Endless Love" [[solo), "In Your Arms", "You Do It", "Missing You", "Forever Young", "More and More", "It's Hard For Me To Say", "Blame It On The Sun", "I Never Loved A Man Before", "I Thought That We Were Still In Love", "Until We Meet Again" and the songs I mentioned below from I Love You.
Thank you brad, skooldem and lulu for your responses. Pop music deserves to be engaged as seriously as more traditional so called high art forms of music.
As for Jimi, well your repeated resorts to name calling and insults, rather than seriously engaging my questions or debating/countering my points, just reveals how emotionally immature and intellectually shallow you really are. Not that I'm shocked or surprised.
Really, guys, really? This again?
Didn't we just have this discussion? Didn't I say that one big reason why this "isn't celebrated", it's because, well, maybe, the label MOTOWN itself was bigger than the groups? The artists may have made Motown what it is but Motown and all of its artists, band mates, label owner, etc., were given the anniversary.
No one's bringing up the 50th anniversary of the Temptations becoming a successful act [[nothing close to the Supremes but still) or the Four Tops. No one was talking about a 50th anniversary for Stevie Wonder's first hit or Mary Wells' "My Guy".
The Beatles were given a whole lot of more media coverage then and now than the Supremes. Why are y'all even surprised by this? Celebrate the 50th anniversary of them making hits but don't act like they parted the red seas. Jesus Christ...
well, for starters, The Supremes are the ONLY U.S. vocal group in the rock era [[1955-current day) to have an even dozen #1 pop chart hits on the BillBoard Hot 100.. If that were The Beach Boys, The Four Seasons, etc. we'd never hear the end of it, but because three black females made this happen, well, it's really no big deal, now is it.. Yes, The Supremes were and ARE bigger than MOTOWN.. ask Berry Gordy or Suzanne De Passe their opinions on this subject when you get the chance..
One only has to compare the differences in the chart rankings between The Supremes with The Beach Boys to see that The Supremes were indeed the most successful American group of the 60s. It took over 2 decades for another female group to have 3/#1 Top 200 albums and the first female group ever to have a #1 album. En Vogue, Wilson Phillips, The Dixie Chicks, TLC, The Spice Girls and Destiny's Child all had their quick, flashy run BUT not the endurance of The Supremes. To my recollection, none of these groups had their own television specials. The Spice Girls had their movie, but, The Supremes were featured in the smash teen concert film, "The T.A.M.I. Show" less than 6 mos. after their first #1. The Ed Sullivan Show, the 60s arguably most important variety show featured The Supremes 16-17 times. No other female group can claim the equivalent from their era. For what its worth, they were the first female group inducted into the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame. The Supremes dominated not only the pop & R&B charts, but, also the Adult Contemporary. Beyond their contemporary hits, they had 2 near platinum concept albums in "A Bit of Liverpool" and "Sing Rodgers & Hart".
Well to be fair, the Shirelles should've been the first to be inducted to the Hall before the Supremes. But I guess we can't be fair, can we? I say the same for pre-Beatles groups [[the Shadows haven't gotten in yet but they didn't quite set the U.S. on fire so there you have it).
As a group, they were terrific but it seems when people here argue about their place in history, chart figures and sales are the first thing they go on. Reminds me of MJ fans and fans of some pop divas [[Mariah, Christina, Whitney, etc.).
Sorry, I stand corrected. Oh, wait a minute. You are saying that The Shirelles SHOULD have been inducted first, NOT that they were. So do you recall which female group was indeed the first to be inducted? It's never clear what is the criteria for being inducted. It probably is indeed based on record sales [[easy to define), cultural impact [[less clear and more subjective. eg. Abba???), etc. ironically, the first record that impacted me was "Dedicated to the One I Love". But it was via radio play only. The Supremes records I actually purchased or given as part of my allowance.
The Shirelles have 6 Top 10 singles, of which, 2 hit the summit 2 years apart. But virtually no impact on album sales though in the early 60s, their heyday, album sales were nowhere as significant as singles sales. However, as we know, by 1964, The Supremes had both...besting The Marvelettes and Martha Reeves & The Vandellas though they had hit singles prior to The Supremes. Within a year, The Supremes, of course had 5/6 #1 singles and 3-4 gold/platinum level albums [[uncertified because of Motown's reluctance to join the RIAA).
I give it to the Supremes that at least five of their albums during the classic years were top 10 or better [[#1 in the case of Supremes A 'Go-Go, first a black group/girl group reached the top if I recall?). But I think in terms of historical and musical impact, I think the Shirelles can compete somewhat with the Supremes on that. Just somewhat. Again, why is it all about the charts?
I get that the Supremes were considered [[and rightfully so) as pioneers but my issue with the moaning here is why don't we do it and stop worrying about why others won't? Why are we so invested in having other people acknowledge a historic moment? Is that all life is? I'm sure if not Mary, Diana's not complaining at all.
for real fans of pop culture, this sort of thing carries the same gravity as sports fans have for their version of banter over who deserves what,, based on a combination of statistics [[as compared to chart placings and sales) and personal likes and opinions..most people are here with the same, sports style passion..for those who aren't, well, why ever you ARE here, you're not going to change anything, so just go check yourself, all right?
like this is a surprise that the supremes weren't celebrated????not to me. how long did it take for the box set to come out?
Charts are statistical measures including sales & airplay, otherwise, wouldn't it all be subjective? What other way would you suggest measuring the performance and/or popularity of a given act or single or album? In the 60s & 70s, you had 3 trades to compare success by. Now Billboard only exists, but, thankfully sales and airplay are now measured electronically by Soundscan/BDS. I'm sure you are probably aware of this already.
I am confused. How can The Shirelles compete with The Supremes on album sales when only their greatest hits even hit Top 50 [[#19), when Diana Ross & The Supremes had a global #1 Greatest Hits [[U.S., U.K., Australia & Japan). Respectfully, The Shirelles only had 1 single hit the U.K. Top 10 #4/"Will You Love Me Tomorrow"). The Supremes had Royal Command Performances in the U.K. and Japan. Had international television specials, etc.
^ And I'm just as confused that you think I was going on their chart information. I wasn't, y'all are though. Lol
Charts and sales can never be used to evaluate artistic worth. They can only be used to evaluate sales and radio airplay, with the caveat that payola and other business practices as well as fans buying multiple copies of a single or album can rig the charts. Artistic evaluation and analysis are dependent on engaging the work. And based on the responses in this thread, some can do this while others seem incapable for whatever reason.
Lulu, of the songs you listed, can you go into a bit of detail about one of them and why you like it so much? One of my favorite Diana Ross' performances is Strange Fruit from the Stolen Moments concert--the near a capella arrangement [[with just a bit of piano from Bobby Tucker) and Ross' stark, straightforward and clear vocal telling the story and making the point and letting the words resonate is one of her all time great performances.
...yawn''''...
Certainly...let me get back to you on that and YES, I left out Stolen Moments! "Strange Fruit" was a MOMENT indeed. If you go back and listen to the soundtrack version, the SM version and finally the RRHOF version from 2000, the development of her interpretative skills is impossible not to notice. If you recall the RRHOF was impromptu with NO accompaniment which I think showcases a HUGE talent and I remember watching and thinking that the folks in the audience were WOWed. We all know Holiday had a small voice as well and she is certainly revered as more "hip" and artistic [[her soap opera of a life only adds to the mystique) but as you've pointed out, if critics and fans actually pushed aside the Supremes hysteria and the larger-than-life diva stories, I think they'd actually be able to isolate Diana's skills as a singer from the over-the-top *star* we all see on stage.
Which also makes it very subjective. What is great to one person is not to another. That is unless the person believes themselves superior to everyone else's opinions. And while sales/airplay doesn't always indicate "artistic" [[Milli Vanilli, Britney Spears, etc.). It can be a starting point. I would factor sales/airplay in because it did resonate with an audience.....though you very well may not have been a part of that audience.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/art
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artistic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artificial
and that which applies to Aretha, Miss Ross, and everyone else discussed her, the 'gravity' of the 'work' is simply in the mind those consuming the work, those, even MIlli Vanilli and Britney apply as 'art', pop art, high art or low, it is all 'art', thereby all 'artistic' by nature, and ultimately ALL art-ificial, like the pronouncements of self proclaimed 'art evaluators'.. so enough already with all the bogus blittering, if you don't enjoy Miss Ross, don't listen, she obviously, in that case, didn't make the records for you... I prefer the music on ALL the Ross recordings, both hits AND flips, a thousand times over Aretha's heavily hyped 'emperor's new clothes' catalog.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLc2...c2kSIihYU#t=65
Agreed. As Snoop Dog also mimicked, if you don't like it, "it simply was NOT made for you."
Berry Gordy didn't initially get "What's Going On". He then admitted, "he learned a lot". NARAS/The Grammys ignored it too.....now that album sits at the top of most All Time Best List from Rolling Stone to Q to Time Magazine. It also happened to sell 2 million copies within its first year.
But if What's Going On had sold 2 thousand instead of 2 million it would still be a great album.
it would still be a great album for those who derived pleasure from it..for those who thought it sucked, it would still have sucked..just like everything else that''s out there..I'll take the I Hear A Symphony album by The Supremes over What's Going On any day of the week..that is my perception of artistry.. I really couldn't care less what yours is, and ultimately, neither could anyone else..thank God that the days of the 'gate keeping' music critic is over, the internet took care of all that, Thank You Jesus!
According to sales stats, What's Going On now sits at four million copies sold. It's claimed to be the best-selling Motown album that was released during Motown's "golden era" [[1961-1972). It's also platinum in the UK with shipments of 300,000 copies there. I don't recall a Supremes studio album reaching that position [[though tons of Diana Ross material went gold and platinum there).