Mary Wilson The Supremes Were Civil Rights Activists [[Video)

[marv2]

http://www.tmz.com/2015/09/19/mary-wilson-the-supremes-civil-rights-diana-ross-darlene-love-the-beatles/

[REDHOT]

I saw that on TMZ today,you can tell that guy,who in charge of TMZ loves Mary,they always do nice things on Mary and her Supreme sisters.

[marv2]

Here when Mary says that they gave the Beatles a run for their money, the guy interviewing her does seem to believe it or take that comment seriously. I wonder why?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSod1Qf63VQ

[marv2]

Here is the full clip:

http://video.canoe.com/archive/source/news/mary-wilson-the-supremes-gave-the-beatles-a-run-for-their-money/4502059958001

[detmotownguy]

She is speaking the truth about giving the Beatles a run for the money. The press loves Mary and she never tires of being the lead in promoting their legacy.

[marv2]

She is speaking the truth about giving the Beatles a run for the money. The press loves Mary and she never tires of being the lead in promoting their legacy.

I agree, but for some reason I believe that a certain segment of the media just cannot accept that The Supremes, an American group ran neck and neck with the Beatles. Even after all these years they just will not give them their props in the manner in which they do with the Beatles.

[midnightman]

The media/music industry better recognize...

[BigAl]

It's been mentioned many times before, but The Supremes are so often discounted because they weren't a self-contained group. They didn't write nor produce their material and they did not play instruments. Granted, were it not for George Martin [[and Brian Epstein, if you get right down to it), the Beatles might not have hit the heights they did, either, but this is often conveniently overlooked. Still The Beatles were regarded, rightly or wrongly, as musical innovators while The Supremes have been looked upon as products of the Hitsville "assembly line," where the credit is mostly given. More's the pity.

[marv2]

It's been mentioned many times before, but The Supremes are so often discounted because they weren't a self-contained group. They didn't write nor produce their material and they did not play instruments. Granted, were it not for George Martin [[and Brian Epstein, if you get right down to it), the Beatles might not have hit the heights they did, either, but this is often conveniently overlooked. Still The Beatles were regarded, rightly or wrongly, as musical innovators while The Supremes have been looked upon as products of the Hitsville "assembly line," where the credit is mostly given. More's the pity.

I completely understand that. I don't know if I agree with the way they make the distinction. The Supremes were able to do and did things the Beatles did not or were not able to do. So to me that makes them even as far as what they brought to entertainment in general.