From The Detroit News-50 years later, Supremes' run atop pop chart goes uncelebrated

[Motown Eddie]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...y-uncelebrated

[RossHolloway]

The reason why they are not as celebrate can be boiled down to two things: sexism and racism.

[marv2]

The reason why they are not as celebrate can be boiled down to two things: sexism and racism.

Yeah it can be boiled down to two things.......Diana and Ross!

[144man]

Yeah it can be boiled down to two things.......Diana and Ross!

Don't you mean Diana and Diane?

[marv2]

Don't you mean Diana and Diane?

Oh you know what I mean! hehehehehehehe.........

[marv2]

Very nice article.

[Bokiluis]

And again, Universal Music Group has to accept most of the blame. Their publicity department could have made it priority. But they didn't. EMI, both The Beatles/Rolling Stones label [[though The Stones also had the London and Atlantic years), continue to market these acts.
In fact, the entire Motown legacy coincides with the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act....thankfully, the success of "Motown, The Musical", driven by Berry keeps the label front and center. Doug Morris, once head of Universal, is now at Sony, though he is one of the producers of "Motown, The Musical", perhaps would have been more celebratory of this anniversary, but, he is no longer there.
Why hasn't PBS air "T.C.B." though all of Streisand's specials have. We are fortunate to not only have BET, but, also TVONE and Centric....another great vehicle. But no one at Universal seems to have the vision. Example: as Diana on tour again, both "#1s" and her 1981 Greatest Hits are charting on iTunes R&B chart. Stevie, Marvin and Lionel are constants, as well as, Diana Ross & the Supremes #1, actually hitting Top 20 in the last few weeks. Clearly, there is a segment of the public revisiting these timeless artists/albums.

[Motown Eddie]

And again, Universal Music Group has to accept most of the blame. Their publicity department could have made it priority. But they didn't. EMI, both The Beatles/Rolling Stones label [[though The Stones also had the London and Atlantic years), continue to market these acts.
In fact, the entire Motown legacy coincides with the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act....thankfully, the success of "Motown, The Musical", driven by Berry keeps the label front and center. Doug Morris, once head of Universal, is now at Sony, though he is one of the producers of "Motown, The Musical", perhaps would have been more celebratory of this anniversary, but, he is no longer there.
Why hasn't PBS air "T.C.B." though all of Streisand's specials have. We are fortunate to not only have BET, but, also TVONE and Centric....another great vehicle. But no one at Universal seems to have the vision. Example: as Diana on tour again, both "#1s" and her 1981 Greatest Hits are charting on iTunes R&B chart. Stevie, Marvin and Lionel are constants, as well as, Diana Ross & the Supremes #1, actually hitting Top 20 in the last few weeks. Clearly, there is a segment of the public revisiting these timeless artists/albums.

Yes indeed; UMe has put Motown's catalog on the back-burner these last couple of years [[especially since they've purchased EMI). There should have been a "Super Deluxe Edition" of the "Where Did Our Love Go" LP to mark the 50th Anniversary of it's release.

[Jimi LaLumia]

not to mention that The Supremes are the ONLY American group in the rock/ pop era [[50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's) up to this present moment in time to have 12 #1 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 Singles Chart!.. an even dozen!.. no other U.S. group ever has, or probably ever will!

[jobeterob]

Part of it is that they were so overshadowed by Diana Ross that the Supremes part of it does get ignored.

[marv2]

Part of it is that they were so overshadowed by Diana Ross that the Supremes part of it does get ignored.

No, all of it has to do with the fact that Diana Ross is generally despised by the American general public and has such a poor reputation, that they will not honor anything associated with her and that includes the Supremes! That is the main reason she has never won a major award IN COMPETITION in this country [[Grammy, Academy, Emmy etc.) This is something that her fans will not like to hear, but it is true! It is so true that I am not even going to argue the point past this posting. Mary and the rest of the Supremes just have to deal with that.

The bottom line is Diana Ross has a pretty voice [[sometimes), but she is perceived to be a mean b$@ch and that, in America overrides singing pretty and selling lots records. Those records were sold before the hardening of her image took place here in the States.

[vgalindo]

No, all of it has to do with the fact that Diana Ross is generally despised by the American general public and has such a poor reputation, that they will not honor anything associated with her and that includes the Supremes! That is the main reason she has never won a major award IN COMPETITION in this country [[Grammy, Academy, Emmy etc.) This is something that her fans will not like to hear, but it is true! It is so true that I am not even going to argue the point past this posting. Mary and the rest of the Supremes just have to deal with that.

The bottom line is Diana Ross has a pretty voice [[sometimes), but she is perceived to be a mean b$@ch and that, in America overrides singing pretty and selling lots records. Those records were sold before the hardening of her image took place here in the States.

If she is so despised by the general America public then why is she still selling out concerts all over America with outstanding reviews?? What about all the other major awards that she has won? Tony, Golden Globe, Soul Train, BET, American Music Awards voted by the American public. The Kennedy Award the highest honor award that America gives. Grammy Lifetime. And dozens of others. America sure does despise her LOL!!!

[kenneth]

No, all of it has to do with the fact that Diana Ross is generally despised by the American general public and has such a poor reputation, that they will not honor anything associated with her and that includes the Supremes! That is the main reason she has never won a major award IN COMPETITION in this country [[Grammy, Academy, Emmy etc.) This is something that her fans will not like to hear, but it is true! It is so true that I am not even going to argue the point past this posting. Mary and the rest of the Supremes just have to deal with that.

The bottom line is Diana Ross has a pretty voice [[sometimes), but she is perceived to be a mean b$@ch and that, in America overrides singing pretty and selling lots records. Those records were sold before the hardening of her image took place here in the States.

Ah, Marv, Marv, what are we going to do with you? Now you know Diane isn't despised by the "general public." Truly she is not a current force in American music so is therefore not that much in the public's eye, but to her fans as well as those who know her from her glory years, I would say she certainly has the reputation of being a diva but that's far from being "despised," in fact, many probably love her for those diva-esque qualities.

I'll give you she has a reputation for being somewhat aloof and a prima donna, which stems from the Florence situation as well as Mary's books which obviously didn't add to Diane's lustre, but still, to say she is despised is just not accurate.

Plus what seems to be a general consensus amongst her producers and arrangers, such as Gil Askey, HDH and others, is that in spite of her reputation for being somewhat high handed, she truly was the hardest working singer and was never difficult or demanding in the studio. Recently, we heard this on Midnight Johnny's show when he played the "Funny Girl" set; Keith and the other guys were quoting Gil Askey, I believe.

I think it's also fair to say that Mary and a few others would not have had much of a career were it not for Diane.

I'm a fan of both, as you know, and a "fanatic" of neither.

[Jaap]

According to Donald Bogle in his book Brown Sugar [[new and revised edition published by Continuum in 2007): "As with Muhammad Ali, Diana Ross may have unnerved part of White America because there was something unreal about her powers, something almost superhuman about her image and the effect she had on large audiences."

[jobeterob]

Ah, Marv, Marv, what are we going to do with you? Now you know Diane isn't despised by the "general public." Truly she is not a current force in American music so is therefore not that much in the public's eye, but to her fans as well as those who know her from her glory years, I would say she certainly has the reputation of being a diva but that's far from being "despised," in fact, many probably love her for those diva-esque qualities.

I'll give you she has a reputation for being somewhat aloof and a prima donna, which stems from the Florence situation as well as Mary's books which obviously didn't add to Diane's lustre, but still, to say she is despised is just not accurate.

Plus what seems to be a general consensus amongst her producers and arrangers, such as Gil Askey, HDH and others, is that in spite of her reputation for being somewhat high handed, she truly was the hardest working singer and was never difficult or demanding in the studio. Recently, we heard this on Midnight Johnny's show when he played the "Funny Girl" set; Keith and the other guys were quoting Gil Askey, I believe.

I think it's also fair to say that Mary and a few others would not have had much of a career were it not for Diane.

I'm a fan of both, as you know, and a "fanatic" of neither.

Kenneth: the epitome of the reasonable lawyer. Nicely written.

[kenneth]

Kenneth: the epitome of the reasonable lawyer. Nicely written.

Thank you my esteemed colleague...K

[Crystaledwards]

No, all of it has to do with the fact that Diana Ross is generally despised by the American general public and has such a poor reputation, that they will not honor anything associated with her and that includes the Supremes! That is the main reason she has never won a major award IN COMPETITION in this country [[Grammy, Academy, Emmy etc.) This is something that her fans will not like to hear, but it is true! It is so true that I am not even going to argue the point past this posting. Mary and the rest of the Supremes just have to deal with that.

The bottom line is Diana Ross has a pretty voice [[sometimes), but she is perceived to be a mean b$@ch and that, in America overrides singing pretty and selling lots records. Those records were sold before the hardening of her image took place here in the States.

Your monochromatic banter always involves misinterpretations mixed in with your own warped perceptions.

CE

[144man]

That's a fair comment, Rob.

[144man]

Are there differing perceptions of Diana Ross in the USA and Canada?

[jobeterob]

Academy Award Nomination ~ Peers, in competition.

Grammy Lifetime Achievement - no Supremes; the other Supremes don't like Mary I was recently told by someone who has been on these lists forever; step forward young man!

She is receiving the Ella Fitzgerald Award at the Montreal Jazz Festival on July 4.

Maybe the Supremes are getting nothing because Mary isn't well liked when you get right down to it. And Diana gets all the recognition because she was the voice and those uppity ups ~ Beyoncé, Oprah, Barbara, Quincy, Michael, Berry, Smokey, Lionel, The Grammy Guys, Dick Clark, The Academy, Randy, ~ in the end, they liked Diana most.

What Becomes a Legend Most?

Man, I've been off here too long. Bear with me guys; only gonna feed it to the troll once.

[Bokiluis]

'Lest we forget, Diana is also a Woman and a black woman to boot who has achieved the kind of success, that was once only reserved for someone who wasn't a woman, 'les a black woman. [[19/#1 hits rivaling The Beatles and Elvis. The Supremes were the most successful American group of the 60s. You don't hear that one too often).
Case in point, before her tragic dark years, white America embraced Whitney Houston as a "pop Princess", like it or not, just like Diana. But once Whitney began to be true to her "real self" in interviews, that "pop Princess" image that Clive, like Berry, sold so well....white America became less and less enamored with her.
Believe me, I saw this fairly up close. Whitney, like Diana, really didn't care what the fickle public thought of her. They both crossed over into territory once not opened to a black female. But still, the majority of their audiences were white. For Diana, it has been that way all of her career.......and both women could really careless what the naysayers [[some residing here) thought of her. "Mean bitch" could also be code for "black female megastar". [[Even Oprah hasn't been insulated from such bigoted comments).

[smark21]

OH it has nothing to do with whatever diva antics Diana Ross ever did. Commercial success is fleeting and ultimately meaningless for long term artistic and historical endurance as an important act. The Supremes' music is very entertaining and enjoyable, well produced and crafted. But there's just not much artistic and emotional depth to their big hits. Their songs are shiny, bright baubles of fluff and escapism. IN the end The Supremes are not larger than Motown. It will be the overall Motown legacy that will endure with The Supremes and Diana Ross as part of it.

[RossHolloway]

OH it has nothing to do with whatever diva antics Diana Ross ever did. Commercial success is fleeting and ultimately meaningless for long term artistic and historical endurance as an important act. The Supremes' music is very entertaining and enjoyable, well produced and crafted. But there's just not much artistic and emotional depth to their big hits. Their songs are shiny, bright baubles of fluff and escapism. IN the end The Supremes are not larger than Motown. It will be the overall Motown legacy that will endure with The Supremes and Diana Ross as part of it.

Because only the Beatles and Stones were capable of "artistic and emotional depth" on their songs. What a crock of sh*t! The Beatles were just a boy band with three guitars and a drummer. They were the essence of 60's pop, who got their start trying to imitate African-American blues and R&B artist; how else can you explain the fact that they covered THREE Motown songs on their first album...who was influencing who? You can't deny their popularity, but some folks worship them as if the created music and it ended when they broke up in 1970, but truth is they were no more special than all the other English bands.

[kenneth]

Because only the Beatles and Stones were capable of "artistic and emotional depth" on their songs. What a crock of sh*t! The Beatles were just a boy band with three guitars and a drummer. They were the essence of 60's pop, who got their start trying to imitate African-American blues and R&B artist; how else can you explain the fact that they covered THREE Motown songs on their first album...who was influencing who? You can't deny their popularity, but some folks worship them as if the created music and it ended when they broke up in 1970, but truth is they were no more special than all the other English bands.

I don't think you can compare the '64 Beatles to who they evolved into. Albums like "Sgt. Pepper," "The Beatles [[White Album)", and others changed the course of music and also influenced a generation. The Beatles' music had as much to do with the movements during the 60s as almost anything else. Had they ended their run prior to "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver," no doubt your post would be fairly accurate.

[RossHolloway]

I don't think you can compare the '64 Beatles to who they evolved into. Albums like "Sgt. Pepper," "The Beatles [[White Album)", and others changed the course of music and also influenced a generation. The Beatles' music had as much to do with the movements during the 60s as almost anything else. Had they ended their run prior to "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver," no doubt your post would be fairly accurate.

You could make the same argument about the Supreme's, it all just depends on who you are and who you listened to and looked up to as artists/musicians. To this day I've never understood the appeal of the Beatles, but if that's your flavor, more power to you. But just like in so many other areas of American life, if you're not male and non-white then your contributions are often thought of as less than or less important or dismissed altoghether as unserious or unimportant. Like too much of society, it comes down to sexism and racism.

[Bokiluis]

I don't think you can compare the '64 Beatles to who they evolved into. Albums like "Sgt. Pepper," "The Beatles [[White Album)", and others changed the course of music and also influenced a generation. The Beatles' music had as much to do with the movements during the 60s as almost anything else. Had they ended their run prior to "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver," no doubt your post would be fairly accurate.

I am a big Beatles fan owning all their albums in several configurations. And fortunate to have seen them at Candlestick in '66. [[Though all I remember is screaming).
But I am also a huge Motown fan. The Beatles compositions are no more important than Holland, Dozier, Holland, Smokey, Marvin, Stevie, etc. "Where Did Our Love Go" and "Love Child" are seminal releases to me as well. Music is personal taste. The Beatles were white and that made a lot of difference. Its ironic that both The Supremes and The Beatles came of age at about the same time. Michael Jackson rivaled Elvis in global dominance.
I cannot give more credence to The Beatles than the Motown Mt. Rushmore of Superstars. Many seminal albums by black artists are equally as important. There are/were more white people in the world to support The Beatles. But Diana Ross & The Supremes are still arguably the greatest female group in the last 50 years. If Berry Gordy still owned Motown, those artists would still be marketed and promoted as well as The Beatles. But unfortunately that catalog is in the hands of a company that doesn't seem to value it. There is not a single black executive in upper mgmt at Universal. And if there were, they would probably still be a lone voice amongst the brass. McCartney still does nearly half of his sets dedicated to Beatles music. Just because The Beatles continue to be marketed well, doesn't necessarily make them any better than the Motown artists. The mass media is controlled by white people. If there was a fraction of effort and time put into Motown artists, as The Beatles....this would be an entirely different skewed conversation.
50 years ago, blacks were finally allowed to vote freely. Who would have ever thought that 50 years later, 23 states would have voter suppression laws. We thought that battle was fought and won. "Motown, The Musical" was not critiqued by whites that favorably....despite audiences feeling quite differently. Once Berry Gordy has transitioned, the picture will probably even be bleaker. A lot of negative things are said about Mr. Gordy in this forum. But there has never been a record label run like Motown in its heyday. Art by black artists is just not coveted as art by whites. Does that make that art any less impactful?

[RossHolloway]

[QUOTE=Bokiluis;239451]I am a big Beatles fan owning all their albums in several configurations. And fortunate to have seen them at Candlestick in '66. [[Though all I remember is screaming).
But I am also a huge Motown fan. The Beatles compositions are no more important than Holland, Dozier, Holland, Smokey, Marvin, Stevie, etc. "Where Did Our Love Go" and "Love Child" are seminal releases to me as well. Music is personal taste. The Beatles were white and that made a lot of difference. Its ironic that both The Supremes and The Beatles came of age at about the same time. Michael Jackson rivaled Elvis in global dominance.
I cannot give more credence to The Beatles than the Motown Mt. Rushmore of Superstars. Many seminal albums by black artists are equally as important. There are/were more white people in the world to support The Beatles. But Diana Ross & The Supremes are still arguably the greatest female group in the last 50 years. If Berry Gordy still owned Motown, those artists would still be marketed and promoted as well as The Beatles. But unfortunately that catalog is in the hands of a company that doesn't seem to value it. There is not a single black executive in upper mgmt at Universal. And if there were, they would probably still be a lone voice amongst the brass. McCartney still does nearly half of his sets dedicated to Beatles music. Just because The Beatles continue to be marketed well, doesn't necessarily make them any better than the Motown artists. The mass media is controlled by white people. If there was a fraction of effort and time put into Motown artists, as The Beatles....this would be an entirely different skewed conversation.
50 years ago, blacks were finally allowed to vote freely. Who would have ever thought that 50 years later, 23 states would have voter suppression laws. We thought that battle was fought and won. "Motown, The Musical" was not critiqued by whites that favorably....despite audiences feeling quite differently. Once Berry Gordy has transitioned, the picture will probably even be bleaker. A lot of negative things are said about Mr. Gordy in this forum. But there has never been a record label run like Motown in its heyday. Art by black artists is just not coveted as art by whites. Does that make that art any less impactful?[/QUOT

Great and thoughtful post.

[RossHolloway]

I am a big Beatles fan owning all their albums in several configurations. And fortunate to have seen them at Candlestick in '66. [[Though all I remember is screaming).
But I am also a huge Motown fan. The Beatles compositions are no more important than Holland, Dozier, Holland, Smokey, Marvin, Stevie, etc. "Where Did Our Love Go" and "Love Child" are seminal releases to me as well. Music is personal taste. The Beatles were white and that made a lot of difference. Its ironic that both The Supremes and The Beatles came of age at about the same time. Michael Jackson rivaled Elvis in global dominance.
I cannot give more credence to The Beatles than the Motown Mt. Rushmore of Superstars. Many seminal albums by black artists are equally as important. There are/were more white people in the world to support The Beatles. But Diana Ross & The Supremes are still arguably the greatest female group in the last 50 years. If Berry Gordy still owned Motown, those artists would still be marketed and promoted as well as The Beatles. But unfortunately that catalog is in the hands of a company that doesn't seem to value it. There is not a single black executive in upper mgmt at Universal. And if there were, they would probably still be a lone voice amongst the brass. McCartney still does nearly half of his sets dedicated to Beatles music. Just because The Beatles continue to be marketed well, doesn't necessarily make them any better than the Motown artists. The mass media is controlled by white people. If there was a fraction of effort and time put into Motown artists, as The Beatles....this would be an entirely different skewed conversation.
50 years ago, blacks were finally allowed to vote freely. Who would have ever thought that 50 years later, 23 states would have voter suppression laws. We thought that battle was fought and won. "Motown, The Musical" was not critiqued by whites that favorably....despite audiences feeling quite differently. Once Berry Gordy has transitioned, the picture will probably even be bleaker. A lot of negative things are said about Mr. Gordy in this forum. But there has never been a record label run like Motown in its heyday. Art by black artists is just not coveted as art by whites. Does that make that art any less impactful?

Bokiluis- I just tried to respond to your email but I got an error message saying that your mailbox was full.

[carlo]

I agree with what one poster stated above, "Racism and sexism". The only two legendary females from the past that I can think of who still receive steady sales and accolades are Barbra Streisand and maybe Joni Mitchell, both of whom are white. Joni Mitchell is starting to get a bigger following from younger generations, who are into the singer/songwriter pioneers. In terms of today's music scene, I think Diana Ross and The Supremes are considered more passe. A site named Queerty did a survey recently at some of the gay pride events and asked the younger attendees who they would consider to be gay icons and they named people like Madonna, Lady Gaga and Lindsay Lohan. So sad, especially since Diana should be making and recording music now.

[kenneth]

Guys - I wasn't minimizing Motown's impact, just disagreeing with the poster who minimized the impact of the Beatles.

[Jimi LaLumia]

people were brainwashed by white, rock leaning rags like Rolling Stone, whose agenda and future was based on promoting acts like The Beatles and Dylan, so they used the bully pulpit to decide what was and was not important..In overall cultural terms, The Supremes, as the ultimate 'crossover', black to white 'artists'of all ages fans, on the heels of the civil rights battles, are infinitely more important than the Beatles, and all the BET, 'look at me' queen bees that everyone loves[[sometimes to hate)would be no where without the 'image' of Diana Ross which remains such a passionate topic, here and elsewhere..

[smark21]

AS someone mentioned last time there was a Beatles vs. Supremes comparison thread, comparing the two groups is comparing apples and oranges. But I certainly struck a nerve, especially with Ross and Supremes fans who are far too hung up on sales and charts. Sorry, but again such things are fleeting and ultimately meaningless in the larger context of lasting artistic legacy.

OTOH I think it's fair to compare Ross/Supremes lasting artistic reputation to Aretha Franklin. Franklin' is taken much more seriously, especially her Atlantic years. She's not the entertainer Ross or The Supremes are/were, but I think her artistry is on a deeper level. Her work just resonates on a deeper emotional level thanks to the songs and her vocal interpretation as well as the music.

But as we know assessments of artistry are ultimately subjective so I'm curious what Ross/Supremes fans can point to in their work as a lasting artistic legacy--but keep it limited to the work, not record sales and charts and ticket sales.

[Lulu]

AS someone mentioned last time there was a Beatles vs. Supremes comparison thread, comparing the two groups is comparing apples and oranges. But I certainly struck a nerve, especially with Ross and Supremes fans who are far too hung up on sales and charts. Sorry, but again such things are fleeting and ultimately meaningless in the larger context of lasting artistic legacy.

OTOH I think it's fair to compare Ross/Supremes lasting artistic reputation to Aretha Franklin. Franklin' is taken much more seriously, especially her Atlantic years. She's not the entertainer Ross or The Supremes are/were, but I think her artistry is on a deeper level. Her work just resonates on a deeper emotional level thanks to the songs and her vocal interpretation as well as the music.

But as we know assessments of artistry are ultimately subjective so I'm curious what Ross/Supremes fans can point to in their work as a lasting artistic legacy--but keep it limited to the work, not record sales and charts and ticket sales.

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​.

[Lulu]

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​.

And "Amazing Grace" from Christmas In Vienna AND nearly all of the slower tracks on A Very Special Season​!!!

[smark21]

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​.

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.

[Lulu]

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.

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.

[Jimi LaLumia]

you think Aretha's 'artistry' is deeper..what artistry? she's singing songs..big deal!..I like her, but this is a good example of the Rolling Stone Magazine [[which was'in bed' with Atlantic Records and Ahmet Eretgun, but didn't like Mr. Gordy, who wouldn't place ads in Rolling Stone)campaign to ignore or demean Motown in the early days of the magazine, the late 60's, and then they stuck to their guns,which is why such as The Marvelettes are still not in the Rolling Stone run Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.. did Aretha ever carry a Broadway Revue by herself, like "An Evening With Diana Ross"?..was she ever nominated for an Academy Award as an artist in a film like "Lady Sings The Blues"?.. was she capable of carrying the bulk of one hour network tv specials featuring black artists when such events were unheard of, like "TCB"?...I didn't think so... and none of these things mentioned involved ticket sales, wigs or drag queens, so give it a rest with your attempts [[EPIC FAIL) to demean Diana Ross.. Aretha WAS a great singer..period!.. not exactly hitting those notes these days like Diana Ross is, though, is she?

[Lulu]

you think Aretha's 'artistry' is deeper..what artistry? she's singing songs..big deal!..I like her, but this is a good example of the Rolling Stone Magazine [[which was'in bed' with Atlantic Records and Ahmet Eretgun, but didn't like Mr. Gordy, who wouldn't place ads in Rolling Stone)campaign to ignore or demean Motown in the early days of the magazine, the late 60's, and then they stuck to their guns,which is why such as The Marvelettes are still not in the Rolling Stone run Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.. did Aretha ever carry a Broadway Revue by herself, like "An Evening With Diana Ross"?..was she ever nominated for an Academy Award as an artist in a film like "Lady Sings The Blues"?.. was she capable of carrying the bulk of one hour network tv specials featuring black artists when such events were unheard of, like "TCB"?...I didn't think so... and now of these things mentioned involved ticket sales, wigs or drag queens, so give it a rest with your attempts [[EPIC FAIL) to demean Diana Ross.. Aretha WAS a great singer..period!.. not exactly hitting those notes these days like Diana Ross is, though, is she?

You couldn't pay me to see Aretha in concert especially after what I heard about her recent stint in Manhattan. I haven't bought or liked a CD of hers since 1994. She has ZERO magnetism on-stage and let's not even chat about her weight or wardrobe choices. RE: her voice, she's "phoning it in" these days and all that screaming that she used to do [[maybe still does) like "Miss Patti" doesn't interest me in the least bit anymore. Nuanced vocals and interpretation are more my speed anymore.

[smark21]

you think Aretha's 'artistry' is deeper..what artistry? she's singing songs..big deal!..I like her, but this is a good example of the Rolling Stone Magazine [[which was'in bed' with Atlantic Records and Ahmet Eretgun, but didn't like Mr. Gordy, who wouldn't place ads in Rolling Stone)campaign to ignore or demean Motown in the early days of the magazine, the late 60's, and then they stuck to their guns,which is why such as The Marvelettes are still not in the Rolling Stone run Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.. did Aretha ever carry a Broadway Revue by herself, like "An Evening With Diana Ross"?..was she ever nominated for an Academy Award as an artist in a film like "Lady Sings The Blues"?.. was she capable of carrying the bulk of one hour network tv specials featuring black artists when such events were unheard of, like "TCB"?...I didn't think so... and none of these things mentioned involved ticket sales, wigs or drag queens, so give it a rest with your attempts [[EPIC FAIL) to demean Diana Ross.. Aretha WAS a great singer..period!.. not exactly hitting those notes these days like Diana Ross is, though, is she?

Um...nothing you cite has anything to do with artistry. They're accomplishments and recognition. The weakest argument one can make for Aretha's artistry is to point out the number of Grammy awards and nominations she's received. Those are just honors and recognition. Artistry for a singer is based on the work in their recordings and performances. The phrasing. The musicality. The emotional depth they invest in the lyric to convey the song's story and message. The ability to transform an audience, to take them to their world and to feel what they feel when they sing that song. Artistry is sustained on an album or a concert by a consistent and committed approach that takes the audience on a journey or explores a certain mood [[such as a break up album like Sinatra's Only the Lonely or a suicide album like Joy Division's Closer). A great artist can make a listener feel and experience [[vicariously) the various aspects of the human emotional experience. Great artistry is intense; it can be transformative; it adds richness to our lives. I think Diana Ross has had her moments of great artistry, but mostly she seeks to entertain and provide escape in her music. Aretha Franklin, IMO, has generally gone deeper, especially in her prime years at Atlantic. So again I ask you, please make the case for Diana Ross and the Supremes being great singing artists [[not entertainers, but artists) in their recorded and concert work.

[Bokiluis]

Um...nothing you cite has anything to do with artistry. They're accomplishments and recognition. The weakest argument one can make for Aretha's artistry is to point out the number of Grammy awards and nominations she's received. Those are just honors and recognition. Artistry for a singer is based on the work in their recordings and performances. The phrasing. The musicality. The emotional depth they invest in the lyric to convey the song's story and message. The ability to transform an audience, to take them to their world and to feel what they feel when they sing that song. Artistry is sustained on an album or a concert by a consistent and committed approach that takes the audience on a journey or explores a certain mood [[such as a break up album like Sinatra's Only the Lonely or a suicide album like Joy Division's Closer). A great artist can make a listener feel and experience [[vicariously) the various aspects of the human emotional experience. Great artistry is intense; it can be transformative; it adds richness to our lives. I think Diana Ross has had her moments of great artistry, but mostly she seeks to entertain and provide escape in her music. Aretha Franklin, IMO, has generally gone deeper, especially in her prime years at Atlantic. So again I ask you, please make the case for Diana Ross and the Supremes being great singing artists [[not entertainers, but artists) in their recorded and concert work.

Diana Ross & The Supremes were a pop oriented group. So it is unfair to compare what was their forte to Aretha's soul/gospel earth mother repertoire. The Supremes were brilliant as pop artists and albums like "Sing Rodgers & Hart" and even "Funny Girl" showcased their versatility.
And please remember those are YOUR personal assessments. While there may be praise for some of Aretha 's recorded works, just look at the contrast in the assessment of her Montreal Jazz Festival performance compared to Diana's.
For me personally, some of The Supremes discography introduced me to the Great American Songbook at an early age. Diana [[solo) was awarded Billboard's "Entertainer"of the Century" honor. It is stated as if being "great entertainers" is somehow less than being considered a "great artist". A great broadway score has its place, just as a great jazz recital. To me, there is just as much room for a great entertainer as there is a great artistic achievement. Sammy Davis Jr., Judy Garland, Josephine Baker were great entertainers. They deserve just as much praise as say Johnny Hartmann or Billie Holiday. [[An Apple is just as good as an orange, in my opinion....though they are quite different from each other). My cheap 2 cents.....barring snobbery.

[jobeterob]

I think there is too much complaining about what awards the Supremes haven't got. Perhaps it is true of the Supremes; but it is not true of Diana Ross. There aren't many more awards she could get. The only real complaint would be Grammys and a lot of that has to do with their being very few categories during the days of their greatest popularity.

I'm currently reading the Aretha Franklin bio by Mark Bego; yes, it's all hearsay and gossip, but he did what he could to find people that would talk. And Wexler did talk. And Aretha only has two platinum albums period. She is very celebrated and is the Queen of Soul but she had a couple of kids by age 15 and has had all the low points of any Diva.

I think they've all done well.

Perhaps there can be complaint about awards for the Supremes; but you put Ross's in there and there shouldn't be any cause for complaint.

I think they are all celebrated significantly ~ via artistry, via chart positions, via awards, via you tube hits on their videos. It's great.

[Jimi LaLumia]

exactly..just because you bought the "Aretha- Queen Of Soul" hype, don't expect us to buy in with you.. in the internet era, the judgmental pronouncements echoing 'gate keeper' music critics that were on somebody's payroll that once meant something,now mean nothing, those days are over, Thank God.. your opinion is just that in regards to Aretha..just another opinion, signifying nothing!

[jobeterob]

Aretha has won 3 Lifetime Achievement Awards. So has Diana, at least.

What did get missed here is the background vocalists behind Diana called the Supremes.

But they never awarded the background vocalists behind Aretha either. And some of them were much more effective and loud than the Andantes or Supremes ~ listen to the video of I Say A Little Prayer.

Interesting reading the other thread about Diana and Aretha at the Montreal Jazz Festival.

[Lulu]

Aretha has won 3 Lifetime Achievement Awards. So has Diana, at least.

What did get missed here is the background vocalists behind Diana called the Supremes.

But they never awarded the background vocalists behind Aretha either. And some of them were much more effective and loud than the Andantes or Supremes ~ listen to the video of I Say A Little Prayer.

Interesting reading the other thread about Diana and Aretha at the Montreal Jazz Festival.

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!

[captainjames]

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.

[smark21]

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.

[RossHolloway]

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.

[skooldem1]

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

[Lulu]

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.

You left out Peter Benjaminson!

[bradsupremes]

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.

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?