[REMOVE ADS]




Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 152
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,760
    Rep Power
    194
    on the copywrite thing.........copywrite is copywrite.if a person has copywrite he/she can do what they want with the stuff,thats the point.i paint [[airbrush)all i've got to do is the c in a circle and my name and i've nailed it for ever and at no cost to me.it isnt the property of anyone else to do what they want with it,even, i say again, even if i sell the picture i still have the copywright unless i sell the copywrite aswell and that would be more money.but with the way the net is its a nightmare,its all there to be found copied and redistributed.the only right way is to seek permision from the copywrite holder to use the image

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,248
    Rep Power
    291
    Thanks ex guy! Who is next to Wanda at XMAS party? Wasnt that Steel Pier engagement when they tried the billing "The Supremes with Diana Ross"?

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    43,221
    Rep Power
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by luke View Post
    Thanks ex guy! Who is next to Wanda at XMAS party? Wasnt that Steel Pier engagement when they tried the billing "The Supremes with Diana Ross"?
    That's one I've had for a loooonnnnggg time, LOL! Left to right in that picture is Claudette Robinson, Diane Ross and Wanda Rogers. There are many other shots taken at that party at the Greystone Ballroom, one of which Diana Ross used in her video for the song "Missing You" in 1984.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,016
    Rep Power
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by markb View Post
    Marv

    Please, please, please can you tell me the source of the group photo in Post 34.

    Would really appreciate your comments and any additional info.

    Thanks

    MarkB
    Mark,

    One place to find that photo is on pg 13 of "The Motown Story' @ 1981, 1982, 1983 Orbis Publishing Ltd. First published in Great Britain by Orbis Publishing Limited, London 1985.
    Editors: Ashley Brown & Michael Heatley
    The caption beneath the photo merely states: " The array of Motown stars in a typical Sixties package tour". It then identifies groups [[not members) and Stevie Wonder by color of clothing worn.
    Of course the yellow Tamla-Motown banner is a dead give-away, and one can see Earl Van Dyke in the back left corner behind the Temptations.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    129
    Rep Power
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by luke View Post
    Wasnt that Steel Pier engagement when they tried the billing "The Supremes with Diana Ross"?
    Yes Luke, that's right.

    Name:  The Supremes With DR.jpg
Views: 1319
Size:  21.6 KB

    Name:  Colleen and the Supremes.jpg
Views: 1417
Size:  23.0 KB

    My friend Colleen and I were not pleased about the name change!

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    129
    Rep Power
    167
    I wish this newspaper article had not been fiction!

    Name:  flo no go.jpg
Views: 1298
Size:  51.2 KB

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    129
    Rep Power
    167
    From Record World, August 12, 1967. [[I really wish they had invented invisible Scotch tape before I stared my Supremes scrapbook!)

    Name:  record world aug 12 1967.jpg
Views: 2310
Size:  49.1 KB

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    197
    Exguy- your collection is wonderful thank you for sharing keep them coming..

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    129
    Rep Power
    167

    Strange Title...

    Name:  human.jpg
Views: 1494
Size:  53.2 KB

    as opposed to "The Inhuman Side"?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    129
    Rep Power
    167
    Tuesday, September 26, 1967:

    Name:  hp.jpg
Views: 1411
Size:  54.1 KB

    Name:  secret.jpg
Views: 1484
Size:  23.4 KB

    It is fascinating to read the all the printed conflicting stories about Flo's departure. Examples:

    • "People are talking about the rumor about the Supremes really being true - Florence is gone."
    • [[September 1967) - "Illness Causes the Supremes to Split: Florence is under a doctor's care for exhaustion and will not be able to work for a long while. Whether Cindy will be permanent or not is as yet undecided."
    • [[September 1967) - "Florence has quit, possibly permanently, and gone home to Detroit for a rest. The trio's personal manager says she's simply worn out, that the grueling schedule mapped out for this fall and winter would be too much For Florence, the oldest member." [yeah, she was ancient - 23 or so?]
    • Hit Parader: "Recently Florence left the Supremes to go into the antique business. She will be replaced by Cindy Birdsong of Patty Labelle & The Blue Bells [sic]."
    • "Supreme Loss: Florence Ballard of the Supremes has quit the singing group for reasons of ill health. She has been hospitalized at Ford Medical Center in Detroit, but there has been no word as to the nature of her illness."
    • "The Supremes are now called 'Diana Ross and The Supremes'... Motown Records claims Miss Ballard left because she was tired of traveling. Others claim she did not like the new billing.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    56
    Rep Power
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by tamla617 View Post
    royb
    i think you're right,that looks like the press shots taken before/after the atv/london redifusion show ready,steady go tamla motown special
    Quote Originally Posted by pj1 View Post
    Mark,

    One place to find that photo is on pg 13 of "The Motown Story' @ 1981, 1982, 1983 Orbis Publishing Ltd. First published in Great Britain by Orbis Publishing Limited, London 1985.
    Editors: Ashley Brown & Michael Heatley
    The caption beneath the photo merely states: " The array of Motown stars in a typical Sixties package tour". It then identifies groups [[not members) and Stevie Wonder by color of clothing worn.
    Of course the yellow Tamla-Motown banner is a dead give-away, and one can see Earl Van Dyke in the back left corner behind the Temptations.
    Thanks very much for your comments & information.

    I am very interested in this period when the Tamla Motown label was first set up in the U.K. But somehow I missed this picture up to now.

    I don't think it was taken at the T.V. studios as the Supremes outfits are different.

    For the T.V. special the Supremes wore those fantastic red fringed dresses [[see below). So I am guessing that this photo may have been taken at some other location.

    Thanks again.

    MarkB



    Last edited by markb; 08-27-2010 at 04:10 AM.

  12. #62
    Grape I will answer your question with another example.
    By your stance on this subject you obvioulsy condone bootlegging. For this is surely what goes on when an individual copies an author or artists work without permission and publishes it again themselves for or not for profit - there is no difference. As far as it being up there for all to see and take does that apply to everything, you can walk into a record store or any store and there are goods 'up there for all to see and take' are the store saying help yourself for free, use it as you will we don't care we are not in this to make a living? Of course they are not your reasoning is flawed and is protected by law. Any picture posted here or indeed piece of writing or music track if it is not owned by the poster/publisher could land them in an awful lot of trouble. I once heard of a newspaper who took a picture offline and used it without the owners consent and they settled out of court for several thousand pounds.
    Quote Originally Posted by grapevine View Post
    ...Paul ...I'm a little confused ...?

    ...many Motown fans looking for images of their favourite artists online ...will surf the net ...take The Velvelettes as a good example ...let's try looking in Google Images ...

    http://tinyurl.com/3352web

    ...they find an image they like ...right-click to save to their PC ...keep it for their own use ...or post here for all to see ...as below ...a perfectly innocent action I would have thought ...and not liable for the threatening stance you take above ...or maybe not...?

    I often wonder ...if artists and photographers do not want their work sampled from the net ...then I would have thought ...they shouldn't put them up for all to see ...and download ...in the first place ...but then again ...as usual with these matters ...I am most probably 100% wrong...?

    ...as Brian Wilson sung ...I Just Wasn't Made For These Times

    Grape
    Last edited by paul_nixon; 08-27-2010 at 05:31 AM.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,738
    Rep Power
    0
    Paul ...I don't condone bootlegging ...but on this matter ...are we saying that every poster here is the 'author' or 'artist' of the pics they have posted ...and if not ...they may be persued in the courts...? ...I don't think so...!

    ...many of these pics here have been seen over and over ...and become after time 'public property' ...IMHO

    ...we obviously don't see eye to eye on this one...!

    Grape

  14. #64
    In 99 per cent of the cases here everyone is open to prosecution if the original owner/author [[ and I mean by that the photographer/writer) had sight of these postings and cared to proceed they would win every time. If I get a picture published in a magazine I cannot legally scan the cutting of that magazine and put it up on a website - I have to buy a license in order to do so and it's my work.
    Helping yourself to soemone elses work and publishing/posting it is just like bootlegging - there is no difference it's theft.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,875
    Rep Power
    259
    How does affect me doing CDrs of my CDs?
    Or cassette tapes ?

    This is confusing to me......if SDF software allows posters to attach links to pictures, i.e album covers , label scans etc... then what can we download here?

    What about all the good work done on MT?
    Last edited by snakepit; 08-27-2010 at 07:47 AM.

  16. #66
    In theory that is also an infringement of copyright but I believe there is a train of thought that allows you to make 'back up' copies of material you have bought for your own personal use

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    129
    Rep Power
    167
    http://rising.blackstar.com/heres-wh...-photos-o.html

    A few interesting facts on photography copyright.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,875
    Rep Power
    259
    Just to clear my head.........have SDF cleared all the copyright with owners on each of the Bette Lavette pictures montage on the SDF main site?

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    129
    Rep Power
    167
    And as far as most of the photos here, which were taken in the US... I'm not a lawyer, but it sound like they would fall in the "public domain" arena.

    http://www.llrx.com/features/bloggersbeware.htm

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    This thread has made it clear to us that the lines of legality are somewhat "blurred". If the source of the material can be identified, then the poster is potentially vulnerable to a law suit.

    There may also be different rules for different territories as can be seen from the thread on the main forum discussing royalties from PPL.

    Albeit I am biased towards my buddy, I have to say that he supports anything Motown. However, as a matter of courtesy, I always let him know before I suggest any of his pictures. But then that is easy for me because I can contact him easily.

    Marv added his personal details to his NYC Velvelettes picture so it makes it clear that it is his picture - a view supported by Tamla617.

    We need to get jobeterob to give a view....unremunerated, of course!

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,016
    Rep Power
    189
    [Thanks very much for your comments & information.

    I am very interested in this period when the Tamla Motown label was first set up in the U.K. But somehow I missed this picture up to now.

    I don't think it was taken at the T.V. studios as the Supremes outfits are different.

    For the T.V. special the Supremes wore those fantastic red fringed dresses [[see below). So I am guessing that this photo may have been taken at some other location.

    Thanks again.

    MarkB



    Life sure is funny! The front cover of the book in question includes a pose in those dresses!
    There the placement is Mary, Diana, Florence.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,875
    Rep Power
    259
    John Lester


    Copyright issues...
    Be careful ........you could be sued by the lawyers representing Eddie Holland & the estate of Norman Whitfield

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    Snakepit

    I hope not...but you have a very valid point. I perhaps ought to ask Ralph what I should do about that.

    Did you read my post on MT about those album mockups that were up for auction at the exhibition in Spetember 1990? I loaned my winning bid of the alternate cover for the David & Jimmy Ruffin for the recent release. Clearly, I'm probably one of the most "vulnerable" despite having no dishonourable intentions. This is gettting a bit scary for me now. The last thing I ever wanted to do is upset anyone or cause offence.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    56
    Rep Power
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by theboyfromxtown View Post
    The last thing I ever wanted to do is upset anyone or cause offence.
    Surely there is a bit of scaremongering going on here.

    I would like to see some case law.

    i.e. who, at the lower end of the food chain has been prosecuted, and in which country, and for what, and what punishment was meted out.

    I would have thought that any lawyer in this field would be aiming far higher and for much bigger returns.

    MarkB

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,823
    Rep Power
    388
    ExParisGuy: Thank you for sharing all of your wonderful pictures. Many of them I have never seen and it is a 'supreme' treat. Thank you.

    Now, I'm not trying to stir up the pot and I'm not trying to call anyone out, but I am a little confused on this whole copyright issue, especially by what Paul Nixon is stating. I did a quick seach and came upon the following from "theboyfromxtown" regarding the Supremes Quad album, posted on the old SDF forum. Can someone explain what the difference is?

    Anyway boys, we have talked about this album so many times over the years on SDF and you clever people might want to do a search through the archives. Now if you do that search, you will see that SDF posters wanted me to put my album on to a cd format and I did that [[well , I didn't do it Paul Nixon did it for me).

    Who owns the rights to the Supremes Quad album?

  26. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    Marybrewster

    You've taken the basic argument and brought it down to an individual case involving me and Paul to potentially undermine our views. But that's OK. I'll answer you.

    Certainly not me or Paul Nixon own the rights. And if either of us are guilty of doing wrong, then we will accept it and deal with the consequences. We are no different to anybody else.

  27. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    MarkB. It's like with many issues, it's only when there are identifiably large monies at stake that it becomes AN issue. Over in the UK, one of those monthly glossies got real upset about pics of their latest Jordan aka Katie Price "private" extravaganza appearing in print in their chief rival's magazine at the same time.

    As regards my user name, if anyone wants me to clear it with Eddie Holland and the Estate of Norman Whitfield, then help me with an address and I'll ask them. And if they say no, I'll stop immediately. Meanwhile, I have Ralph's confirmation to continue with my username.

  28. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,875
    Rep Power
    259
    John


    I was only joking of course.....

    I think Ralph should remove this thread.........

  29. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,823
    Rep Power
    388
    aboyfromxtown:

    As I mentioned, it's not my intention to stir up the pot or cause trouble. I certainly didn't mean to upset you, if I did, I apologize. I'm not trying to undermine anyone. But it's tough to read stuff like this when it's a case of "do what I say, and not as I do". Why is it that what's good for some isn't good for others?

    Reread some of the posts and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

  30. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,823
    Rep Power
    388
    And my apologies again, I mean THEboy, not Aboy.

    Additionally, you are right. We ALL do it. So in essence, there really is no issue at all. Marv can snatch his pictures and Paul can burn his CD's.

    Amen.

  31. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    Marybrewster - This is the opinion that has just been given to me by a UK legal person who tells me this. I belong to a soul music club [[ie SDF) and since I offered those tracks to club members, there would be no problem. It's what is expected to happen in a specialised music club.

    Not sure I am totally happpy with that response myself, to be honest. If I had Beatles unreleased masters, I'm sure Paul and Ringo wouldn't approve of anyone sharing them on youtube.....which is also members isn't it?

    I hope that everyone understands that I try to be fair in any of my responses. But if I am wrong, please just tell me. I am more than happy to be put right.

  32. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    Snake-You know me, I'm an accountant and I kind of feel that I have to be SEEN to be whiter than white. Yeah, I am human too and I do have a lot of grey days. And it is true that I make mountains out of molehills. My mum tells me it all the time. But that's me. I am too old to change now. I am glad you didn't mean anything untoward and I can only offer as an excuse, my OTT interpretation of accountancy training that makes me think, well I better do what's right and put it out in the open and face the consequences now before it gets any worse.

    Marybrewster- I can honestly and truthfully say it didn't even occur to me that I was doing one thing and preaching another. But when you brought it to my attention, I realised you had a very valid point. I would hope that we can all agree that I had no bad intentions when I offered to send copies of the Supremes Japanese LP to a few of the guys in much the same way that there were no bad intentions when Marv set up this thread or when Grape does the business like only Grape can do. I will definitely take on board what you said, but I'm no angel and I do fail sometimes. Of course, I would hope it would stop me from ever doing it again.

  33. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,207
    Rep Power
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by paul_nixon View Post
    Grape I will answer your question with another example.
    By your stance on this subject you obvioulsy condone bootlegging. For this is surely what goes on when an individual copies an author or artists work without permission and publishes it again themselves for or not for profit - there is no difference. As far as it being up there for all to see and take does that apply to everything, you can walk into a record store or any store and there are goods 'up there for all to see and take' are the store saying help yourself for free, use it as you will we don't care we are not in this to make a living? Of course they are not your reasoning is flawed and is protected by law. Any picture posted here or indeed piece of writing or music track if it is not owned by the poster/publisher could land them in an awful lot of trouble. I once heard of a newspaper who took a picture offline and used it without the owners consent and they settled out of court for several thousand pounds.
    From a strict moral standpoint [[not legal) the difference is that when taking a photograph, you are capturing a moment in time using a machine, and not creating something from your own mind, or with your own hands, or with own voice. Does the cameraman on a TV show own the rights to such show? Of course not. All photography, IMO should be a "work for hire" proposition... but for some reason, many people want to do something once, and get paid for it for all eternity over and over again. Cal Street could be sued by you if SHE sold that photo, but of course, you wouldn't dare. It's my opinion that at the very least, copyright law should be changed so as to grant unlimited rights to use of a photograph by the people who are actually IN the photograph, but you won't see that happen anytime soon. So what he saying, Grape... is he want us to pay him to look at his pictures of the Velvelettes. I wonder if the gals get a cut. You can bet they don't.

  34. #84
    Of course I see the point here - however I was doing soemone afavour by making them a back up copy of an album they had bought legally and I believe that I posted before that this was a grey area of copyright but believed to be allowed. I haven't posted soemone elses work anywhere as far as I am aware

  35. #85
    But I wouldn't sue Cal - not only is she a friend but I took the picture for her and gave her permission to use it wherever she wanted but being a firiend she always ask if she can use it for promotion and that's the point she ASKS and please don't give the the bull that photography is pressing a button - tell that to Lord Snowdon will you.
    And where have I mentioned paying for looking at a picture?


    Quote Originally Posted by jillfoster View Post
    From a strict moral standpoint [[not legal) the difference is that when taking a photograph, you are capturing a moment in time using a machine, and not creating something from your own mind, or with your own hands, or with own voice. Does the cameraman on a TV show own the rights to such show? Of course not. All photography, IMO should be a "work for hire" proposition... but for some reason, many people want to do something once, and get paid for it for all eternity over and over again. Cal Street could be sued by you if SHE sold that photo, but of course, you wouldn't dare. It's my opinion that at the very least, copyright law should be changed so as to grant unlimited rights to use of a photograph by the people who are actually IN the photograph, but you won't see that happen anytime soon. So what he saying, Grape... is he want us to pay him to look at his pictures of the Velvelettes. I wonder if the gals get a cut. You can bet they don't.
    Last edited by paul_nixon; 08-27-2010 at 12:46 PM.

  36. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,207
    Rep Power
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by paul_nixon View Post
    But I wouldn't sue Cal - not only is she a friend but I took the picture for her and gave her permission to use it wherever she wanted but being a firiend she always ask if she can use it for promotion and that's the point she ASKS and please don't give the the bull that photography is pressing a button - tell that to Lord Snowdon will you.
    And where have I mentioned paying for looking at a picture?
    Ah, I see... she can use it for promotion, but nobody else can. Since these are elderly women with only two hit records under their belt [[more than 40 years ago), I'd think they'd need all the exposure they can get. A "friend" might realize that and be glad their work is being admired and helping to promote the career of said friend. When I design a landscape, if someone copies a design I've done in their own yard, I'm flattered they think my taste is something to be emulated. I don't ask for royalties..... and I have no legal basis to, because landscape designers don't have lobbying power in congress to get laws passed. But I wouldn't care if there were laws, as I'm a generous spirit. I believe when you are generous to others, it comes back to you.
    Last edited by jillfoster; 08-27-2010 at 01:02 PM.

  37. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    jillfoster

    I love your posts so I dont want you to think me being unfair or unkind. But I have to say that of all people, Paul has been one who has given more than anybody, to the Velvelettes. I can assure you that Paul hasn't made one penny from any of his photographs on the ladies and has even paid out for stuff for them with his own money. He put together some wonderful flyers which the ladies were able to offer to fans and all those proceeds went to the ladies. With Paul, I hope it can be accepted that it was an example which was the exception to the rule.

    How fitting is that for a Big Velvelette fan to end one of his testimonies for the day!

  38. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by jillfoster View Post
    Ah, I see... she can use it for promotion, but nobody else can. Since these are elderly women with only two hit records under their belt [[more than 40 years ago), I'd think they'd need all the exposure they can get. A "friend" might realize that and be glad their work is being admired and helping to promote the career of said friend. When I design a landscape, if someone copies a design I've done in their own yard, I'm flattered they think my taste is something to be emulated. I don't ask for royalties..... and I have no legal basis to, because landscape designers don't have lobbying power in congress to get laws passed. But I wouldn't care if there were laws, as I'm a generous spirit. I believe when you are generous to others, it comes back to you.
    Exactly you have proved my point and I'm sure is she is reading this she will be pleased to be described as elderly
    Last edited by paul_nixon; 08-27-2010 at 01:08 PM.

  39. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    Now hang on you two, I know you both think quicker than me....and I can't keep up!

  40. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,823
    Rep Power
    388
    theboy and Paul:

    Thanks for your responses. It's wonderful to have an intelligent, constructful conversation. We all can learn from one another; I ceratinly appreciate your thoughts. I know this got way off topic, but it is a valid "argument" to the music business.

    Cheers to both of you.

  41. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    .....these are elderly women with only two hit records under their belt........

    jillfoster....would you allow an extra half for a "There He Goes" as it was a local hit in Michigan and Chicago.

    Plus, none of the ladies are elderly. In fact, they all freely admit to being "39 and still holding" !!

  42. #92
    You are more than welcome - fun isn't it?
    Quote Originally Posted by marybrewster View Post
    theboy and Paul:

    Thanks for your responses. It's wonderful to have an intelligent, constructful conversation. We all can learn from one another; I ceratinly appreciate your thoughts. I know this got way off topic, but it is a valid "argument" to the music business.

    Cheers to both of you.

  43. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    Marybrewster

    I am very humbled by your response....in fact, for some unknown reason, I have got water in my eyes....you've made me feel really good about myself. Thank you most sincerely.

  44. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,823
    Rep Power
    388
    Paul:

    Maybe jillfoster meant "elderly women who are still out there, pleasing audiences, doing what they love and do best"? When you think of it, it's pretty remarkable that you have all original group members from a group that started 6 decades ago. These women found time to record, tour, marry, have children, have careers.....whew! You'd think Cal and Co. would just want to put their feet up and wait on their Social Security checks? They certainly deserve it. But nope, they get out there and do their thang. Good on them. I hope when I'm their age that I can still cut it up.

  45. #95
    Hey MaryB I'm up here with you with every admiration for these gorgeous gals BUT they are only a few years older than me and if you called me elderly I'd be really tee - d off

  46. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,823
    Rep Power
    388
    How about "seasoned"?


  47. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,207
    Rep Power
    209
    I said elderly, sweeties... not feeble. What would you call them? Middle aged? My elderly mother helped me pour some concrete this spring, and those Velvelettes are impressive for singing and boogeying their butts off at their age. But it don't change the fact that they are old. It happens to everybody, you know. I remember when Martha was rehearsing and they were playing a song too fast, she stopped them and told them to slow it down some... she said "I'm an old woman, don't rush me"... right out loud. that's what I like, someone to tell it like it is. Gettin old ain't no picnic, but denying it's happening don't change anything.

  48. #98
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    18,198
    Rep Power
    389
    Jillfoster

    I guess you won't let me have the extra half a point for "There He Goes"! So how about a quarter of a point for the Battle of the Bands concert? LOL

    Milly is a bit like Martha in that respect! That can be interesting because Milly is a stunning looking woman, by any one's standards. However, Cal insists on being "39 and still holding". What a contrast. I honestly don't have a clue of Cal's real age and I just would never dream of asking her either.

    Tell your mum, there's a few holes on my estate that could use her talents if she has an hour to spare!

  49. #99
    honest man Guest
    does a colour picture exist of the supremes with ed sullivan, please been searching for years. any offers cheers.

  50. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    129
    Rep Power
    167
    Amazing photos by Francesco Carli of Diana performing in October 2009. Track Francesco down on facebook to see more!

    Name:  0 diana symphonica in rosso oct 2009.jpg
Views: 1361
Size:  20.5 KB

    Name:  0 DR October 2009 Arnhem by Francesco Carli .jpg
Views: 1242
Size:  27.3 KB

    Name:  0 DR October 2009.jpg
Views: 1344
Size:  26.8 KB

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.