Supremes; Biggest FEMALE group EVER?.. Biggest U.S. Group Ever!

[Jimi LaLumia]

never mind everyone repeating that The Supremes were the biggest FEMALE U.S. group ever.. BILLBOARD reports that The Supremes were the ONLY U.S. group of any gender, EVER ,to have 12 #1 singles on the Hot 100 chart, making them top in the American 'group' list in the most important category of all, the #1's!

[jobeterob]

URL? Website?

[Jimi LaLumia]

it has appeared in many places, here's one..
http://www.edsullivan.com/artists/the-supremes
try finding another U.S. based group with 12 or more Billboard Hot 100 #1's, and when you do, get back to me..

[mowsville]

This is true yet no one ever mentions this....even tho they come third behind Elvis and The Beatles for no1s of the 60s too...People are real quick off the mark to commend the Four Seasons and Beach Boys.

[jobeterob]

I thought there had been a new article, perhaps to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Where did Our Love Go.

The Beach Boy and Four Seasons were a long long way behind the Supremes in #1's. But the Supremes have got at least as much publicity.

[Jimi LaLumia]

there is no other U.S. group to have hit the #1 spot on the Billboard Hot 100 12 times..and there probably never will be again..

[milven]

They are the biggest US group ever to have twelve number one hits. They tie with soloist Madonna. US soloists Michael Jackson has 13, Mariah Carey has eighteen and Non US Group Beatles have 20.

Being number one is nice. But it is similar to liking sausage til you see how it is made. I've seen how some of these songs made number one [[Mariah & Michael) and the freebies that were given out. After knowing what is involved to make them number one, I became less impressed.

[Jimi LaLumia]

yes, but the 39 cent cassette single/Soundscan scam thing didn't exist during the reign of The Supremes..I was a Billboard Soundscan reporter, I got all those free goods in exchange for scans also, we know what those Mariah/ Michael, etc #1's of the 90's are worth...nothing..there have always been scams, but the hits of the late 50's, 60's, and 70's were as real as real hits could get..

[milven]

Well, the manipulating of the charts is something that deserves its own thread. But it has been going on forever, in the fifties, sixties and seventies too.

But I love my Supremes and and delighted to know that they have more number one hits than any other US group

[Bokiluis]

Berry Gordy was excellent at branding. "The Sound of Young America" was a stroke of brilliance.....something you may have expected from the majors at the time, not a little R&B indie upstart from Detroit.
it now falls under Universal Music Group's domain, specifically Universal Music Enterprises, the catalog division. Just like EMI keep/kept The Beatles and The Beach Boys front and center in their press releases.
they could start with The Supremes Wikipedia page, which is often the first point of entry for many writers composing a blurb or a full length article. A lot of The Supremes albums were often eventful! You don't always get that excitement reading their Wikipedia page compared to The Beatles, Michael and/or Janet Jackson.

[smark21]

All a number 1 means, at most, is that the product was very popular in its time. It has no bearing on sustained influence. The Supremes made a number of highly entertaining, glossy, fun, escapist hit singles. They won't become forgotten relics, but I don't think they are meaningful, thoughtful pieces of great art either. And that's what usually stands the test of time IMO. That may be why out of the Motown acts Marvin Gaye is one with the most lasting artistic influence, not the Supremes and Diana Ross, even if they did outsell him in the 60s.

Another reason why Diana Ross/The Supremes aren't taken all that seriously as musical artists is because their fans don't take their music all that seriously. They're more into drama and gossip; sales and chart positions; pictures and gowns; wigs and fingernails. Look at most of the discussion concerning the Funny Girl reissue--before it came out people were moaning about it being download only. After it came out, most discussion was about the pictures in the booklet, how well sales were the first day of release, and how to make a physical copy of the booklet. If the fans don't take the music seriously, why should cultural historians?

[Jimi LaLumia]

this is about mainstream POP music, not MASTERPIECE THEATRE...all Marvin Gaye did in the 70's was reflect the street, it was not all that, in fact, it was pandering in some sense,and highly over rated.. pop music and pop stars are designed to ENTERTAIN and no one did it better than The Supremes..if you didn't like them, well, maybe they didn't make the records for YOU...

[George Solomon]

Any idea why no one seems to include Cashbox or Record World when it comes to counting #1's. In their day they were pretty important. "I'm Gonna Make You Love Me" was #1 pop in both. Several other Billboard #2's or 3's reached #1 in one, the other or both. Is it just because Billboard has endured?

[milven]

I think you answered your own question. "Because it endured"

When I was a kid, my local record shop owner would give me the previous week's Cash Box and I read it cover to cover eventually getting my own subscription at fifteen dollars a year. I continued my subscription even while in the army.

During the '70's disco era, I also picked up a weekly copy of Record World in the city.

I don't remember when or why I subscribed to Billboard in later years. It may be that the others were no longer publishing.

I think even Dick Clark's American Music Awards were based in some way on the Cash Box Charts.

Just did a Google search and see that some form of the magazine still exists on line

[marymary]

Because Cashbox and Record World don't exist anymore so comparing classic artists to contemporary artists using Cashbox vs Billboard wouldn't be apples to apples.


this is about mainstream POP music, not MASTERPIECE THEATRE...all Marvin Gaye did in the 70's was reflect the street, it was not all that, in fact, it was pandering in some sense,and highly over rated.. pop music and pop stars are designed to ENTERTAIN and no one did it better than The Supremes..if you didn't like them, well, maybe they didn't make the records for YOU...

Really?

I know that this forum in the last couple of years has become 95% Supremes coverage but are we really going the route where people on this forum can't handle the idea that other Motown artists might be at their commercial/critical level? If Supremes fans want to bicker and b**** about Diane vs Mary vs Kaaaren vs Jean vs Barbara vs Cindy go right ahead but don't bring other artists into your mess and don't say ridiculous things like "Marvin Gaye is overrated" unless you're trying to make us laugh!

[marv2]

Because Cashbox and Record World don't exist anymore so comparing classic artists to contemporary artists using Cashbox vs Billboard wouldn't be apples to apples.



Really?

I know that this forum in the last couple of years has become 95% Supremes coverage but are we really going the route where people on this forum can't handle the idea that other Motown artists might be at their commercial/critical level? If Supremes fans want to bicker and b**** about Diane vs Mary vs Kaaaren vs Jean vs Barbara vs Cindy go right ahead but don't bring other artists into your mess and don't say ridiculous things like "Marvin Gaye is overrated" unless you're trying to make us laugh!

He did make me laugh at that comment. Just last weekend , I was at a wedding reception and they played Marvin Gaye!

[midnightman]

All a number 1 means, at most, is that the product was very popular in its time. It has no bearing on sustained influence. The Supremes made a number of highly entertaining, glossy, fun, escapist hit singles. They won't become forgotten relics, but I don't think they are meaningful, thoughtful pieces of great art either. And that's what usually stands the test of time IMO. That may be why out of the Motown acts Marvin Gaye is one with the most lasting artistic influence, not the Supremes and Diana Ross, even if they did outsell him in the 60s.

Another reason why Diana Ross/The Supremes aren't taken all that seriously as musical artists is because their fans don't take their music all that seriously. They're more into drama and gossip; sales and chart positions; pictures and gowns; wigs and fingernails. Look at most of the discussion concerning the Funny Girl reissue--before it came out people were moaning about it being download only. After it came out, most discussion was about the pictures in the booklet, how well sales were the first day of release, and how to make a physical copy of the booklet. If the fans don't take the music seriously, why should cultural historians?

Smark is the voice of reasoning in this thread.

[midnightman]

this is about mainstream POP music, not MASTERPIECE THEATRE...all Marvin Gaye did in the 70's was reflect the street, it was not all that, in fact, it was pandering in some sense,and highly over rated.. pop music and pop stars are designed to ENTERTAIN and no one did it better than The Supremes..if you didn't like them, well, maybe they didn't make the records for YOU...

And the Supremes weren't pandering? Some folks also seem to have a grudge on the Beatles and Elvis. There's a reason why those two acts matter much more than the Supremes. God, some fans take them too seriously... *backing away* Jimmy, you scare me...lol

[midnightman]

Because Cashbox and Record World don't exist anymore so comparing classic artists to contemporary artists using Cashbox vs Billboard wouldn't be apples to apples.



Really?

I know that this forum in the last couple of years has become 95% Supremes coverage but are we really going the route where people on this forum can't handle the idea that other Motown artists might be at their commercial/critical level? If Supremes fans want to bicker and b**** about Diane vs Mary vs Kaaaren vs Jean vs Barbara vs Cindy go right ahead but don't bring other artists into your mess and don't say ridiculous things like "Marvin Gaye is overrated" unless you're trying to make us laugh!

I wonder if I bring up that not only has Marvin Gaye's music endured more than the Supremes [[which it has) but also the Temptations' and Stevie Wonder's. Would Jimmy be calling THEM overrated? Heck I probably answered my own question. :P

[Bokiluis]

Any idea why no one seems to include Cashbox or Record World when it comes to counting #1's. In their day they were pretty important. "I'm Gonna Make You Love Me" was #1 pop in both. Several other Billboard #2's or 3's reached #1 in one, the other or both. Is it just because Billboard has endured?
George I've wondered the same thing from a person who read Cashbox and Record World with as much enthusiasm as Billboard. Especially since Cashbox reflected actual sales more than radio play. Great radio play can sometimes become "a turntable hit". "I'm Gonna Make You Love Me" is one gem that almost goes unnoticed since Diana only performed it with Stevie to my knowledge. And The Temptations performed it sans Diana Ross & The Supremes. December 1968 was such a golden period in Motown history. By rights, it would be Diana Ross & The Supremes 13th/#1 and Diana's #1/20th. Billboard often changed their methodology sometimes weighing airplay far beyond sales. In my humble opinion, if it didn't sell, was it truly a hit?

[144man]

I often saw Billboard for sale in London, England. Never once saw Cashbox or Record World there.

[jobeterob]

I often saw Billboard for sale in London, England. Never once saw Cashbox or Record World there.

Billboard was regarded as more reliable than the other two and was regarded as the bible of music. All the Joel Whitburn books, dozens of them, were all based on billboard. And it lasted.

[Jimi LaLumia]

none of the other artists at Motown who have progressed as far as they did, wouldn;t have done so if the massive worldwide success of The Supremes hadn't blasted down the barricades for them..and more people worldwide know "Stop! In The Name Of Love" more than anything else in the Motown catalog..especially nowadays..

[florence]

Any idea why no one seems to include Cashbox or Record World when it comes to counting #1's. In their day they were pretty important. "I'm Gonna Make You Love Me" was #1 pop in both. Several other Billboard #2's or 3's reached #1 in one, the other or both. Is it just because Billboard has endured?

It can work the other way too.

Neither Back In My Arms Again nor, surprisingly, Someday We'll be Together made #1 in Record World.

And then there was a fourth chart - Variety.

Don't know what went on there but the girls only had 7 #1's on their listings.

[smark21]

It can work the other way too.

Neither Back In My Arms Again nor, surprisingly, Someday We'll be Together made #1 in Record World.

And then there was a fourth chart - Variety.

Don't know what went on there but the girls only had 7 #1's on their listings.

Shocking! How tragic!

[Jimi LaLumia]

BILLBOARD is the only one that ever meant anything..and it still is..