Time Magazine Cover - May 21, 1965 - A Milestone In SUPREMES History

[Methuselah2]

In numerous online photo collections of The Supremes, I can never help noticing that one photo in particular almost never is included.

And it was such a big deal at the time. For The Supremes. For Motown. For Supremes' fans.

The time was May 21, 1965.
And it was right on the [[high) heels of their BACK IN MY ARMS AGAIN performance on Hullabaloo.

Still feels like a big deal to me.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine...650521_400.jpg

[smark21]

Maybe it’s not as celebrated because The Supremes shared the cover with a number of other acts?

[Methuselah2]

Could have a lot to do with it. Maybe no one on the cover gets picked up for their respective photo collections just for that reason. But landing on a Time Magazine cover--even if shared--had to have been a 'moment' for each of them on it. And certainly someone interested in any of them would be interested in seeing it. But it gets missed. If it's possibly because it's not deemed important enough or worth it, well, those on the cover might feel very differently about that. The cover--in its entirety--sure seems like a very important photo to me. But you might be exactly right, Smark--maybe not as important to someone else.

[marv2]

Could have a lot to do with it. Maybe no one on the cover gets picked up for their respective photo collections just for that reason. But landing on a Time Magazine cover--even if shared--had to have been a 'moment' for each of them on it. And certainly someone interested in any of them would be interested in seeing it. But it gets missed. If it's possibly because it's not deemed important enough or worth it, well, those on the cover might feel very differently about that. The cover--in its entirety--sure seems like a very important photo to me. But you might be exactly right, Smark--maybe not as important to someone else.

Oh it [[ the Time Magazine Cover) was a big deal at the time. Mary Wilson discusses it in the radio interview posted here this week fpr WHYY. In those days it was very rare fro Black people to appear on magazine covers and if and when they did, it was usually when grouped with other people. When Aretha made the cover "solo" a few years later in 1967 it was a very big deal!

[Kamasu_Jr]

Rock 'N' Roll was still not regarded as respectable in the early1960s, but it was making so much noise [[among youth) and money by the time TIME magazine did a story on it, it could not be ignored. TIME was a big news magazine back then and rock was still considered a fad by some who still thought that it would eventually go away. HA!
I notice that not one so-called rock 'n' roll act got the TIME cover by themselves.
The Supremes never got a TIME magazine cover of their own.

[Bokiluis]

It is also baffling why The Supremes have yet to receive a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award.
With no less than 12 or so platinum albums [[my count may be a little off), several going multi-platinum, another 6 or 7 going at least Gold and the first female group to chart 3/#1 Billboard Albums, anywhere from 12-15/#1 singles between Billboard, Record World and Cashbox....is this not newsworthy?
[[and just because The Spice Girls, TLC and the Dixie Chicks may have cumulatively sold more units on limited repertoire, it was not possible in the 60s to sell 25 mil on a title when the global population was at least 2 or 3 billion less).
Sure commercial hits may not be the sole barometer for their own Time Magazine cover or Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award....its still puzzingly.
[[Granted The Beatles only recently got their Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in the last decade or so)......50 years later, they are still the #1 Female Group of All Time, but it's a fact you have to research heavily to find.
Land lest we forget 2 highly rated television specials! [[What more can one person[[s) do?)

[marv2]

Could have a lot to do with it. Maybe no one on the cover gets picked up for their respective photo collections just for that reason. But landing on a Time Magazine cover--even if shared--had to have been a 'moment' for each of them on it. And certainly someone interested in any of them would be interested in seeing it. But it gets missed. If it's possibly because it's not deemed important enough or worth it, well, those on the cover might feel very differently about that. The cover--in its entirety--sure seems like a very important photo to me. But you might be exactly right, Smark--maybe not as important to someone else.

It was important to us at the time. As black people, anytime a black person did anything publicly significant in those days, it was a really big deal. This during era when family and neighbors would call others to let them know a famous black person was on television. It was just that bad back in those days!

The fact that the Supremes were the biggest act on that cover did not escape many.

[marv2]

Rock 'N' Roll was still not regarded as respectable in the early1960s, but it was making so much noise [[among youth) and money by the time TIME magazine did a story on it, it could not be ignored. TIME was a big news magazine back then and rock was still considered a fad by some who still thought that it would eventually go away. HA!
I notice that not one so-called rock 'n' roll act got the TIME cover by themselves.
The Supremes never got a TIME magazine cover of their own.

When Aretha Franklin got the cover alone a few years later......it was HUGE news! They even went all out and had a portrait painted of her for the cover.

[Philles/Motown Gary]

Thanks, Methuselah2. I had never seen this cover before. If The Supremes had to share the limelight on this front-cover photo, it's cool that both Motown and Phil Spector were being recognized via The Supremes and The Righteous Brothers -- side-by-side! - Gary

[Bokiluis]

Unfortunately, according to the recent David Ritz, "Respect" biography, Aretha was extremely unhappy with the TIME magazine cover. Ted White, her then abusive spouse, sued TIME. The suit went nowhere. It apparently mentioned Aretha's substance abuse issues and portrayed Rev. C.L. Franklin in a rather unflattering light. Of course Aretha has denounced the book, but, it sure is a fascinating page turner.

[marv2]

Unfortunately, according to the recent David Ritz, "Respect" biography, Aretha was extremely unhappy with the TIME magazine cover. Ted White, her then abusive spouse, sued TIME. The suit went nowhere. It apparently mentioned Aretha's substance abuse issues and portrayed Rev. C.L. Franklin in a rather unflattering light. Of course Aretha has denounced the book, but, it sure is a fascinating page turner.

She should have been unhappy with Time. Right after that story, everyone around the neighborhood and beyond was always talking about Ted physically abusing her and how she always so unhappy. Why she sings the blues etc, etc. Before Time magazine, you never heard that kind of talk about Aretha.

[jobeterob]

I don't really blame Aretha Franklin or anyone for being unhappy with the article. Who wants that kind of thing written about them?

But Aretha Franklin has gone on to publicly exhibit her general unhappiness. She seems to be about the most unhappy singer around for some reason. This is what happens when you are a teen mother ~ basically, she was abused as a child but it wasn't called that in the 60's.

But at times, CNN, Time, David Ritz, and other journalist publish raw data and with Aretha Franklin, David Ritz has amazing research and backup from hundreds of interviews with Ruth Bowen, Aretha's long time agent and all her siblings and their spouses.

Aretha herself was the master at planting lies in Jet Magazine to keep the truth out of the press.

[Methuselah2]

Thanks, Methuselah2. I had never seen this cover before. If The Supremes had to share the limelight on this front-cover photo, it's cool that both Motown and Phil Spector were being recognized via The Supremes and The Righteous Brothers -- side-by-side! - Gary

Glad you enjoyed the cover, Gary. One minute, The Supremes were doing that great performance of BACK IN MY ARMS AGAIN on Hullabaloo; the next, there it was on Time Magazine. Very heady times, I must say. What a jolt.