Dennis Edward - RRHOF - Working with the Supremes

[jobeterob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHvWvmAmzZU

[RossHolloway]

That was a great interview with Dennis, interesting comment at the end.

[marv2]

This wouldn't even have gotten posted if it didn't relate to the Supremes/Diane Ross in some way.

[Jimi LaLumia]

YOU can call her MISS Ross!!!!......lol..

[supremester]

As usual, I concur with Marv:

No Ross = No Supremes
No Supremes = No TCB
No TCB = No Posting of this interview
No posting of this interview = no concurrence with Marv


This wouldn't even have gotten posted if it didn't relate to the Supremes/Diane Ross in some way.

[Roberta75]

As usual, I concur with Marv:

No Ross = No Supremes
No Supremes = No TCB
No TCB = No Posting of this interview
No posting of this interview = no concurrence with Marv

If the threadd had read
Dennis Edward - RRHOF - Working with Mary Wilson marv2 would be raving about it.

[Jimi LaLumia]

YES!!!..
and the reality is, quite possibly...
No Ross= No Motown ,
at least not at the level that we came to know and love it..

[jobeterob]

What I like about the interview is that Dennis talks about all this as just a part of life at a great place to work and it's all so far removed from the lunatic fans of Diana, the Supremes, the Temptations that hang out on Youtube and swear and act like crazy nuts ~ ones like Marv. But it's true that while Motown was great, produced great music and stars, there are people from there, again like Marv, that didn't make it, got left behind, didn't work hard enough and so they are mad, miserable, grouchy, and whine and attack the success stories. So sad, too bad, life went on and left them behind, need to get off butt and work like Mary Wilson while you still can ~ not sit behind computer and carp!

[thomas96]

YES!!!..
and the reality is, quite possibly...
No Ross= No Motown ,
at least not at the level that we came to know and love it..

Or it could quite possibly be without Ross, Motown as a company would get a lot more respect and so would BG.

[vgalindo]

Or it could quite possibly be without Ross, Motown as a company would get a lot more respect and so would BG.
Why? She is an international superstar! I would think any record company would love to have her history of accomplishments on their label.

[jobeterob]

Why? She is an international superstar! I would think any record company would love to have her history of accomplishments on their label.

Diana Ross is the public face of Motown; consider why we have so few Stevie Wonder threads; or Marvin Gaye threads; both are quite controversial personalities too; take of read of the most recent Stevie bio.

For better or worse ~ Motown went where Diana Ross went. Why do all the biographies talk about Diana Ross? Because she is the face of Motown.

[supremester]

Quite possibly???? How, exactly? As Addison DeWitt said, "You have a point......................"



Or it could quite possibly be without Ross, Motown as a company would get a lot more respect and so would BG.

[thomas96]

I know this will stir things up and I'm not trying to, just speaking my opinion, but, musical respect [[from a musician's standpoint). The Supremes were a pure pop act with, in my opinion, no soul [[Flo had soul but they didn't let her lead). Obviously the Funks made the tracks soulful, but think where the Supremes would be without the Funks and HDH. As said in SITSOM, "you could've had Dippity-Dog singing on it and it would've been a hit."

[Roberta75]

I know this will stir things up and I'm not trying to, just speaking my opinion, but, musical respect [[from a musician's standpoint). The Supremes were a pure pop act with, in my opinion, no soul [[Flo had soul but they didn't let her lead). Obviously the Funks made the tracks soulful, but think where the Supremes would be without the Funks and HDH. As said in SITSOM, "you could've had Dippity-Dog singing on it and it would've been a hit."

Well If Flo Ballard had soul she sure didnt use her soul on that solo album she recorded. That album was real bad cheesy pop imo.

Roberta

[vgalindo]

I know this will stir things up and I'm not trying to, just speaking my opinion, but, musical respect [[from a musician's standpoint). The Supremes were a pure pop act with, in my opinion, no soul [[Flo had soul but they didn't let her lead). Obviously the Funks made the tracks soulful, but think where the Supremes would be without the Funks and HDH. As said in SITSOM, "you could've had Dippity-Dog singing on it and it would've been a hit."
I really don't believe that you could have anyone singing on their records and they would have been hits. Diana Ross had a very different unique voice that set those records apart from anybody else.

[Jaap]

I know this will stir things up and I'm not trying to, just speaking my opinion, but, musical respect [[from a musician's standpoint). The Supremes were a pure pop act with, in my opinion, no soul [[Flo had soul but they didn't let her lead). Obviously the Funks made the tracks soulful, but think where the Supremes would be without the Funks and HDH. As said in SITSOM, "you could've had Dippity-Dog singing on it and it would've been a hit."

If perceiving this pop vs. soul from a musician perspective, you might be interested in the book Soul Covers by Michael Awkward, in which he discusses, among many other things, the remake of “Going Down For The Third Time” by Phoebe Snow. Awkward spends a couple of pages on the distinction between the “gritty” “masculine” soul voices [[rooted in R&B and gospel) and the “feminine” voices [[rooted in doo-wop) -- and yes, women can sing with “masculine” voices too. Of course, Ross is typical for this “feminine” approach, which was challenged by her recording of “Going Down” as the song “demands from her gritty vocals and attitudinal aggressiveness that conflict with the kittenish debutant image which she had cultivated and begun to market so skilfully.” Later on, Awkward explicitly states, “I’m not suggesting that the Supremes’ hits lack cultural authenticity, but that they are stylistically different, distinguished not by ‘masculine’ flourishes, but by strategically ‘feminine’ sonic elements that typically are not recognized by Motown’s critics as soulful.” I found it a refreshing perspective in the old pop-versus-soul [[read fake-versus-real) discussion.

[LuvHangOva]

Quite possibly???? How, exactly? As Addison DeWitt said, "You have a point......................"

Ha Ha Yes Supremester!! Of course the second part of the Addison DeWitt quote is the best part..and to think he was saying it to young ingenue Marilyn Monroe!!

I also like the way Dennis referred to the fact that they all recogonized TCB was a "coming out party for
Diana Ross" and that he did it without the least bit of bitterness or bile. I suppose I knew that but I never watched it with that in mind. Now I gotta watch again from that perspective.

[supremester]

I think it's a great topic. I think many of DR&TS hits would have hit with other artists - not as big, but would have had some success. Some, not. I think Janis wooda hit with Respect & Chain Of Fools - not as big as Queen Ree, but hit just the same. I think Ross' vocals - if recorded for single release - would have outsold these Heat Wave, Up The Ladder, Stoned Love, River Deep and Everybody's Got.
It's easy to say, "Oh, The Happening would have hit with anyone else on it" and maybe it would [[bad example as I think Ross nailed that big time) but, regardless of who is on a record and who you want to throw shade on, the argument I make is that the world CONNECTS with Ross - and has for 50 years. Whoever sings whatever, you can't put anyone in her live show and get those reviews and dollars for 50 years without that connection. Many artists cannot sell out The Hollywood Bowl 3 times in 4 years nearly 30 years after their last hit. That artist has a connection with the public and that connection happened initially on those records.
Some people think David Ruffin would have hit with The 4 Tops' hits but, other than I Can't Help Myself, I don't think so. Smokey peeps prefer him on Grapevine and What's Going On.....but not me.
Amazing as The Funk Bros are, any studio band would have done the job on many of The Supremes' early hits with Brian & Lamont directing them.

Bottom line: it's easy to say so and so could have done so and so - but....they didn't!
I know this will stir things up and I'm not trying to, just speaking my opinion, but, musical respect [[from a musician's standpoint). The Supremes were a pure pop act with, in my opinion, no soul [[Flo had soul but they didn't let her lead). Obviously the Funks made the tracks soulful, but think where the Supremes would be without the Funks and HDH. As said in SITSOM, "you could've had Dippity-Dog singing on it and it would've been a hit."

[captainjames]

I have met and talked with Mr. Edwards several times..........as with this he is always a gentleman and always classy and always speaks well of his fellow Motown buddies.

[smark21]

I know this will stir things up and I'm not trying to, just speaking my opinion, but, musical respect [[from a musician's standpoint). The Supremes were a pure pop act with, in my opinion, no soul [[Flo had soul but they didn't let her lead). Obviously the Funks made the tracks soulful, but think where the Supremes would be without the Funks and HDH. As said in SITSOM, "you could've had Dippity-Dog singing on it and it would've been a hit."

Oooh! You struck a nerve with your posts! Certainly one thing to keep in mind is what sort of people bought records by an act as teens and how their lives turned out. I think an act like the Beatles had a number of fans who went on to careers in the culture industry--whether as a musicians, songwriters, critics, academics--and thus were able to spread the legacy of The Beatles and establish them as an enduring cultural force 50 + years later. I don't think The Supremes attracted as many fans who were able to disseminate such a cultural legacy for the group. If the internet is any indication, most Supremes fans are more fixated on concrete material matters like sales and chart position, or gossip and infighting, rather than the music [[except for arguing about background vocal personnel). I've spent time in other forums for other artists like Sinatra, Joy Division/New Order, and The Beatles, and while there is talk of the personal and the shallow, more discussion is focused on the music--lyrics, arrangements, instrumentation, recording, etc. The Supremes and Diana Ross just don't have many fans who can discuss such issues on an informed and erudite level IMO.

[thomas96]

The Supremes and Diana Ross just don't have many fans who can discuss such issues on an informed and erudite level IMO.

I agree 100%. It's all who wore what dress on what show, and the gossip behind the scenes with BG, etc. I don't spend a whole a lot of time on this forum and don't spend any time on other forums, so I don't know what fans of other artists are like, but I do see that Supremes fans never discuss the music at a deep level. The extent to which they discuss the music the most is which of them is singing on what songs and the Andantes, etc. They never really get into a chord progression, string arrangement or even vocal riffs or runs, etc.

I have tremendous respect for Diane Ross and the Supremes, but I just can't say that they are very impressive musically. They were the direct result of BG's genius system with the finishing school, choreography, and HDH & the Funk Brothers. Diane's voice isn't very unique in my opinion. It's very bland and just uninteresting to me. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but those are just my thoughts about it. The main thing that I think boosted Ms Ross to stardom was her mystique. She's a little quirky in a superstar kind of way and a lot of people think she has star beauty. Does anyone really think that with her voice if she had looked like Aretha Franklin or Ella Fitzgerald that she would be as huge of a star? Her looks definitely had something to do with it.

[jobeterob]

Many of these Forums are migrating to Facebook it seems and there seem to be many Motown, Ross, Supremes forums dealing with everything and when your name is real, the posts are not quite so rude and silly.

Thomas is true; the Ross package is whole and the look is part of it; after she went to the movies and got the Academy Award nomination, the "huge star" persona and all was in place.

[Jimi LaLumia]

her voice had everything to do with everything: I fell for The Supremes thing as a kid in 1964 based on the voice, before I ever saw them, even a picture of them, I had heard "Where Did Our Love Go" when it was on the chart and then "Baby Love" and was hooked before I ever got a look,,her voice is distinctly unique, and wanna bes [[The Toys, etc ) failed miserably , became 'one hit wonders..

[RossHolloway]

I know this will stir things up and I'm not trying to, just speaking my opinion, but, musical respect [[from a musician's standpoint). The Supremes were a pure pop act with, in my opinion, no soul [[Flo had soul but they didn't let her lead). Obviously the Funks made the tracks soulful, but think where the Supremes would be without the Funks and HDH. As said in SITSOM, "you could've had Dippity-Dog singing on it and it would've been a hit."


I think the Supreme's were more than just a "pop" act, I've always thought it was funny how so many music journalist and folks in general have been so dismissive of the Supreme's and Motown in general - it's as if their opinion on music is the definitive opinion on music. Just as you may dismiss the Supreme's as just another pop act, some folks also see the Beatles as just a pop act/boy band. I think all too often too many folks dismiss certain music acts because of gender and race. The fact of the matter is we're all here talking about the Supreme's and Motown 50 years later. There must be some relevance there.

[RossHolloway]

I agree 100%. It's all who wore what dress on what show, and the gossip behind the scenes with BG, etc. I don't spend a whole a lot of time on this forum and don't spend any time on other forums, so I don't know what fans of other artists are like, but I do see that Supremes fans never discuss the music at a deep level. The extent to which they discuss the music the most is which of them is singing on what songs and the Andantes, etc. They never really get into a chord progression, string arrangement or even vocal riffs or runs, etc.

I have tremendous respect for Diane Ross and the Supremes, but I just can't say that they are very impressive musically. They were the direct result of BG's genius system with the finishing school, choreography, and HDH & the Funk Brothers. Diane's voice isn't very unique in my opinion. It's very bland and just uninteresting to me. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but those are just my thoughts about it. The main thing that I think boosted Ms Ross to stardom was her mystique. She's a little quirky in a superstar kind of way and a lot of people think she has star beauty. Does anyone really think that with her voice if she had looked like Aretha Franklin or Ella Fitzgerald that she would be as huge of a star? Her looks definitely had something to do with it.

I think both you and smark21 both are painting with a broad and dismissive brush - yet here you both are posting about the Supreme's in a Motown forum. There are Supreme fans of all stripes, and many could care less about their dresses or gossip or whatever, but genuinely like the body of work they all created and endures to this day, over 50 years after the group first started making records. I've also never been one to bash other music artists just to boost acts that I love or enjoy. I could very easily dump on the Beatles and call them boring and the ultimate "boy band". I mean how exciting is it to watch four guys with very average voices, singing very dull songs just stand on stage with a drummer and three guitarist? I think much of their popularity is due to the sheep syndrome, where folks are told who or what to like and they all fall in line and follow blindly behind them. No thank you.

[thomas96]

I'm not trying to bash the Supremes or anything. I'm just simply offering my opinion. And what's up with the comparisons to the Beatles? The Beatles were a band that played all the instruments and wrote the songs, they weren't a singing group. Incomparable. [[I'm not saying the Beatles are better, they just can't be compared. I actually prefer the Supremes to the Beatles) And yes this is a Motown Forum, not a "Supremes Forum." I can't stand the amount of Supremes discussions here when Motown is so so so much more than the Supremes. The Supremes were the surface of Motown and "the face" of Motown you could say, but there is so much beneath that surface that just isn't discussed enough here. This thread about a Dennis Edwards interview, in which he mentioned the Supremes but was not about the Supremes, became a Supremes thread. Like Marv said, this wouldn't have even been posted if it didn't relate to the Supremes. I think a separate Supremes Forum should be made so that all the Supremes fans can go there and all the fans of the rest of Motown can discuss that. I haven't been here for as long as most of you, but I hear that a lot of great contributors left because of the Supremes fans and childish arguments. Too bad people couldn't just act maturely so that those who left could still be here.

[RossHolloway]

@thomas96- I agree there are a lot of Supreme/D Ross threads- they are still very popular on this forum. Some threads quickly devolve into immature bickering, and that's usually when I check out. But as far as I'm aware ANYONE can start a thread on any Motown artist/topic in this forum, you don't have to sit on the sideline, jump in at any time mate! With respect to the Beatles, three guitars and a drummer doesn't make for much of a band, in my opinion. And who cares what instruments they played or songs they wrote if I find them uninteresting and downright horrible, again..just my opinion.

[vgalindo]

@thomas96- I agree there are a lot of Supreme/D Ross threads- they are still very popular on this forum. Some threads quickly devolve into immature bickering, and that's usually when I check out. But as far as I'm aware ANYONE can start a thread on any Motown artist/topic in this forum, you don't have to sit on the sideline, jump in at any time mate! With respect to the Beatles, three guitars and a drummer doesn't make for much of a band, in my opinion. And who cares what instruments they played or songs they wrote if I find them uninteresting and downright horrible, again..just my opinion.
I couldn't have said it better. I love the music of The Supremes. And I really don't care for the Beatles at all. I can't understand why they were so big. To me their music is very average and boring. I never get tired of hearing The Supremes. So you see it is all about opinions.

[smark21]

For a long time, probably as a reaction to the Beatles being shoved down our collective throat as the greatest thing ever, I didn't care much for them. But a couple of years ago I gave their music a chance and I realized I was wrong. Their music/songs are, by and large, exceptional. They evolved from a rock and roll covers band to a pop act to serious pop musicians who wrote excellent pop songs with lyrical and musical depth. And even in my most anti Beatles mood, I would never consider them a boy band--boy bands are vocal groups with young guys who sing songs geared to turn on young girls and do dance routines. Boy bands really began in the 80s with acts like Menudo, New Edition and New Kids on the Block [[male vocal groups like The Temptations, 4 Tops, O'Jays, Dramatics, etc. were never boy bands as they sung and perform from a more mature perch).

As for the Supremes, their music always aimed to be shiny, well polished escapism of the highest quality. No wonder their music holds a mystique and a grip 50 years later. As a result of being such a glamourous, fizzy, escapist entertainment oriented act, I think they attract a different sort of die hard fan while acts like the Beatles, Joy division, etc., attract a more artistic and intellectual nerd type of die hard fan.

[marv2]

I really liked the Beatles music. It's hard to believe that next month will mark 50 years since many of us first saw them on the Ed Sullivan Show!

[thomas96]

I agree with you all on the Beatles! I think they were fantastic songwriters, but I rarely ever listen to them. Motown artists' covers of the Beatles songs are fabulous, and I'll admit one of my favorites is Diane's version of Come Together. As I said earlier, I prefer the Supremes to the Beatles. I just don't think you can compare them on their impact or even their music. Of course you can have a preference of one over the other, but you can't definitively say one is better than the other for any reason, since they are totally different. I'll also add that I think Ms Ross did absolutely beautifully in Lady Sing the Blues, and her jazz singing was superb. I don't love her voice, but she was spot on throughout that whole project. I just wish Levi was in it instead of Billy Dee Williams [[not that Williams wasn't good, I'd just have loved to have seen Levi act) but of course he couldn't overshadow the rest of the group. What a fantastic man.

[marv2]

I agree with you all on the Beatles! I think they were fantastic songwriters, but I rarely ever listen to them. Motown artists' covers of the Beatles songs are fabulous, and I'll admit one of my favorites is Diane's version of Come Together. As I said earlier, I prefer the Supremes to the Beatles. I just don't think you can compare them on their impact or even their music. Of course you can have a preference of one over the other, but you can't definitively say one is better than the other for any reason, since they are totally different. I'll also add that I think Ms Ross did absolutely beautifully in Lady Sing the Blues, and her jazz singing was superb. I don't love her voice, but she was spot on throughout that whole project. I just wish Levi was in it instead of Billy Dee Williams [[not that Williams wasn't good, I'd just have loved to have seen Levi act) but of course he couldn't overshadow the rest of the group. What a fantastic man.

Levi Stubbs was a prince of a man! He was a far greater vocal talent than Diane Ross but he never tried put himself above his guys, his group! He was a humble man with a great sense of humor. Dennis Edwards is similar to him in those respects. The last time I saw him I ran into him at Detroit Metro Airport. I had just got in and he was leaving out for LA. He was right in front of me on the moving sidewalk and I punched him in the back [[ a little too hard LOL!) He turned around quick but just as quickly regained his cool as we had a fast conversation on my way to baggage claim.

[Jaap]

On the topic of comparing the Beatles to the Supremes, I recently came across a blog post which makes that comparison quite convincingly [[to me at least):
http://nohardchords.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/116-the-supremes-where-did-our-love-go/

[RossHolloway]

I couldn't have said it better. I love the music of The Supremes. And I really don't care for the Beatles at all. I can't understand why they were so big. To me their music is very average and boring. I never get tired of hearing The Supremes. So you see it is all about opinions.

I agree with you. Out of all the musical instruments in the entire world, why just settle for three guitars and a drummer? Boring. If you go and look back at their early body of work it's not unique or ground breaking but does includes alot of covers of r&b songs. I also think folks like to confuse popularity with musical influence.

[jobeterob]

Jaaps post above:

October 12, 2010 · 6:29 pm ↓ Jump to Comments
116) The Supremes – “Where Did Our Love Go”

When The Beatles are framed in the context of ‘60s pop, they are often paired with The Rolling Stones [[their compatriots in the British Invasion), The Beach Boys [[with whom they competed in pushing sonic boundaries), or Bob Dylan [[as cultural game-changers testing the limits of what pop music could express). Arguably, though, their closest analogues were a trio of young women from Detroit. The Beatles revitalized a moribund genre by increasing the focus on melody and upping the overall complexity and sophistication, aiding the transition from “rock and roll” to “rock.” Likewise, The Supremes developed as part of Motown’s effort to make pop-soul the dominant “black music” sound. As The Beatles had polished up the scruffy sounds of 1950s youth, The Supremes sanded the rough edges off of R&B. Diana Ross sang with a voice atypically thin and high for the genre, even when compared with previous crossover singers like Shirley Owens and Mary Wells. Groove was minimal, instrumentation restrained, syncopation nonexistent. Yet somehow, these concessions to mainstream pop didn’t result in a pandering, anemic facsimile of the original genre. Like their British male contemporaries, The Supremes successfully overlaid their sound on the existing pop framework. Then, their popularity firmly established, they were able to take chances and lead their listeners down experimental alleys. Separately but in parallel, The Supremes and The Beatles expanded the boundaries of pop music.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. “Where Did Our Love Go” is not the first Supremes single, but it may as well be. The group had famously earned the sobriquet “No-Hit Supremes” before Berry Gordy revamped their sound, axing the freewheeling R&B arrangements and lead vocal parts for Florence Ballard and Mary Wilson. As the first fruit of the new Supremes, “Where Did Our Love Go” is a cautious exploration of their new identity. It’s a song without verse or chorus, just the same eight bars over and over with little variation, stretching to fill two minutes and 40 seconds. In short, it’s a debut closer in spirit to “Love Me Do” than “I Want to Hold Your Hand.” But beneath the repetitiousness and timidity are hints that, given time, something great and original could develop. The interplay between Ross’s lead vocals and Ballard and Wilson’s ethereal “baby baby”-s suggests a sultriness foreign to prior girl-group records, and the stomps-and-handclaps percussion adds just enough of an edge to keep the song from drifting into easy listening waters. Like The Beatles’ earliest singles, “Where Did Our Love Go” is almost less a great pop song than it is a promise of future brilliance. 7

[smark21]

I agree with you. Out of all the musical instruments in the entire world, why just settle for three guitars and a drummer? Boring. If you go and look back at their early body of work it's not unique or ground breaking but does includes alot of covers of r&b songs. I also think folks like to confuse popularity with musical influence.

Well they did move on beyond two guitars, bass and drums as the 60s progressed.

[honest man]

Will be watching Dennis and boys on Wednesday at Liverpool PHILARMONIC as part of David Gest soul legends along with Little Anthony and Imperials and many others can't wait,cheers.

[R. Mark Desjardins]

I remember watching in fascination as a 13 year old in Ottawa, Canada as the Beatles appeared on television. I was just starting to get interested in music on the radio but I remember how little there was I could relate to at the time. Western soundtrack recordings, Paul Anka, Elvis, and the like. The Beatles were alive with energy and woke us up from boring radio. And then, just a few months later, the seductive baby, baby.... "Where Did Our Love Go," and a whole new musical world of Motown opened up for me! What a heady time that was, and later this evening I'm going to relive the magic when CBS broadcasts the 50th Anniversary Beatles special.

[marv2]

I remember watching in fascination as a 13 year old in Ottawa, Canada as the Beatles appeared on television. I was just starting to get interested in music on the radio but I remember how little there was I could relate to at the time. Western soundtrack recordings, Paul Anka, Elvis, and the like. The Beatles were alive with energy and woke us up from boring radio. And then, just a few months later, the seductive baby, baby.... "Where Did Our Love Go," and a whole new musical world of Motown opened up for me! What a heady time that was, and later this evening I'm going to relive the magic when CBS broadcasts the 50th Anniversary Beatles special.

Great memories Mark! I have my own and was just on the phone with my brother talking about that night of the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. 50 years? Wow, hard to believe sometime.