CNN: The Success of the Supremes

[jobeterob]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/entert...mes/index.html

[sansradio]

These are great photos, many of which I'd never seen before. Thanks!

[jobucats]

Yes, there are many pictures I've not seen before. The commentary by the photographer was also very interesting. Thank you.

[woodward]

These are great photos, many of which I'd never seen before. Thanks!

I also have never seen most of these before. In fact, this is the first time I have ever heard of Bruce Davidson. He is still alive from the captions. Wonder if he has any additional DRS pictures at his command or any other Motown acts pictures, i. e. Marvelettes, Elgins, etc. etc. Anyone familiar with him?

[Methuselah2]

Here's some more of Bruce Davidson's remarkable photos; he certainly captured one-of-a-kind moments:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Catalogu...s-NN17194.html

The page you'll see also includes a link to some of his other terrific work.

[jobeterob]

Excellent pictures. I see they say that access like that does not exist today.

[Jimi LaLumia]

it was a very different time.. not till the 70's did the business go all corporate

[jobeterob]

This man's pictures are now all over Facebook.

[bradsupremes]

And most Stephen Woods claims are his!

[reese]

This man's pictures are now all over Facebook.

Most of them, including some shown in the Magnum Photos link, have been on the internet for quite some time.

[jobeterob]

LOL, so as usual, Supremes controversy erupts.

I had not seen some of them ~ like the one of Diana eating a hamburger.

Anyways, they got to CNN!

[Jaap]

Some of these pictures were published in Interview [[February 2005), along with an interview of Diana Ross by Alicia Keys. The magazine made a big fuss about the pictures being "rediscovered" and not been published before, if I remember correctly.

[jobeterob]

Hasn't Mary Wilson become somewhat protective of some of the Supremes pictures too?

[bradsupremes]

Hasn't Mary Wilson become somewhat protective of some of the Supremes pictures too?

I think it has more to do with the usage of them. If Mary wanted to use a photo from the Michael Ochs Archives, she'd have to pay $10,000. Her thinking is "Why should I pay for those photos when we, the Supremes, paid for those photo sessions." It's the same regarding the gowns. The group paid for everything. Why should the ladies have to pay for the usage of photos they initially paid for? Now, it's much different when it's a private photographers collection or those taken by a TV network like NBC, but those photographs of them dressed up in a photo studio are technically theirs and should be free to use as they please.

[marv2]

I think it has more to do with the usage of them. If Mary wanted to use a photo from the Michael Ochs Archives, she'd have to pay $10,000. Her thinking is "Why should I pay for those photos when we, the Supremes, paid for those photo sessions." It's the same regarding the gowns. The group paid for everything. Why should the ladies have to pay for the usage of photos they initially paid for? Now, it's much different when it's a private photographers collection or those taken by a TV network like NBC, but those photographs of them dressed up in a photo studio are technically theirs and should be free to use as they please.

Some major good points there.