PDA

View Full Version : Diana in the 90s - what went wrong


test

sup_fan
08-14-2018, 10:44 AM
an updated post in the Diana Ross Project was just made, reviewing Take Me Higher. describes the album as an amazing success for the singer, although US charts were very weak

https://dianarossproject.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/take-me-higher-1995/


So what went wrong? obviously Workin' Overtime hurt her reputation but that was years earlier. Both Force and Take feature strong tunes and excellent vocals. But was she following trends instead of making them?

Around [[or shortly after) Take, Madonna and Cher really pushed into new electronic territory with Ray of Light and Believe. While Ray received both commercial and critical approval and Believe was more just commercial approval, it was something new and different. i remember liking the Diana albums well enough but to young listeners, it just didn't seem like much more than a knock off.

and then you also had the Whitney, janet and Mariah material around this time.

So what went wrong and what should they have done?

RanRan79
08-14-2018, 11:36 AM
I think that the years in the 80s after 'Eaten Alive" made some noise and then the release of "Overtime" allowed the public to largely move on. Pop radio didn't get behind "WO" but R&B radio did. As I said in a previous thread months ago, I grew up in Chicagoland and the R&B stations played "Working Overtime" like crazy. Her singles after that and up until "Take Me Higher" couldn't compete with anything that was being played on radio. Diana, like several instances in the 80s, did not keep her finger on the pulse of what was moving the public. She was still a big concert draw, still a hugely beloved star of the highest magnitude, but all of that means nothing if your music isn't capturing the public's attention.

As good as "Take Me Higher" was, IMO the sound was a little dated. Had she done that song in the early 90s instead of the mid 90s, it probably would've been a big hit. By the time Diana started doing music that I think could compete at least with the stuff her peers were releasing, it was probably too late for people to care. Diana Ross had the goods to take her hit making abilities into the early 2000s like Cher, but I just don't think she's ever had the ability to know what she should be doing and who she should be doing it with. Queen Ree's last significant hit was "A Rose Is Still a Rose", and she got that because she recognized that hooking up with Lauryn Hill, who was hot in every possible way at the time, was a great career move. I doubt if Ross would've ever said yes to that kind of opportunity.

RanRan79
08-14-2018, 11:40 AM
In between Force and TMH, she only released a Christmas album. I would've loved something produced by Babyface. When you're looking to maintain your hit status, you go where the hits are. Diana doesn't ever seem to record with the hit makers until maybe their hit days have passed.

RanRan79
08-14-2018, 11:43 AM
And for the record, because "someone" will undoubtedly bring it up, I don't believe Mary's book had any bearing on Diana's lack of success. If anything, Mary's book just lent legitimacy to the rumors flying around about Ross since forever. No one was turning down a great song because of what Diana might have done or said to any Supreme ages ago. Her musical selections sucked, plain and simple.

thommg
08-14-2018, 12:00 PM
Queen Ree's last significant hit was "A Rose Is Still a Rose", and she got that because she recognized that hooking up with Lauryn Hill, who was hot in every possible way at the time, was a great career move. I doubt if Ross would've ever said yes to that kind of opportunity.

I really think Aretha hooked up with those younger producers because of Clive Davis. He encouraged her and made those connections happen. Diana really didn't have anyone doing that for her. Certainly there wasn't anyone at Motown that offered her that kind of support and, I believe, she really needed that - both through her RCA years and her Motown return. She just didn't seem to have anyone who could realize her concepts and make them into reality.

sup_fan
08-14-2018, 12:28 PM
i know some might find this a rather minor detail but i think the packaging of her albums also hurt her image. Force was very cool - the straightened hair and gold lame dress, then the painting over the top. But Working and Take Me were odd. the boots and tattered jeans were definitely not her look. And Take Me higher was just odd. very artsy and therefore not really relevant to much of the record buying public. those weird pics of her in thrift store finds, sitting in a wash tub on a gravel road in AL??!?! WTF is that? maybe if the music was odd and punk, sure.

sup_fan
08-14-2018, 12:32 PM
I really think Aretha hooked up with those younger producers because of Clive Davis. He encouraged her and made those connections happen. Diana really didn't have anyone doing that for her. Certainly there wasn't anyone at Motown that offered her that kind of support and, I believe, she really needed that - both through her RCA years and her Motown return. She just didn't seem to have anyone who could realize her concepts and make them into reality.

excellent point - by this time she was not actively out in the "scene" like she was in the late 70s and early 80s. she wasn't actively going out an immersing herself in the current trends and material and therefore was a bit out of touch. and she didn't have management that was really doing that for her either.

i wonder who originated the idea of working with Chic in 1980? talk about masterful!

although it's post 90s, i do think the Everyday is a New Day was more "current" than Take or Force.

sup_fan
08-14-2018, 12:33 PM
haha - too many thoughts here and after i hit "submit" another pops in my head

what if WO was just never even developed and you moved all of the records forward by about 2 years. So Force would have been a late 80s album, Take me would have been early 90s and Everyday would have been late 90s?

lucky2012
08-14-2018, 01:15 PM
haha - too many thoughts here and after i hit "submit" another pops in my head

what if WO was just never even developed and you moved all of the records forward by about 2 years. So Force would have been a late 80s album, Take me would have been early 90s and Everyday would have been late 90s?
Lol.:) I've often thought about what if WO never existed! Moving the subsequent albums forward would have been ideal artistically and possibly commercially. TMH and EDIAND would have definitely been more "current". Great post, sup_fan.

reese
08-14-2018, 01:43 PM
In between Force and TMH, she only released a Christmas album. I would've loved something produced by Babyface. When you're looking to maintain your hit status, you go where the hits are. Diana doesn't ever seem to record with the hit makers until maybe their hit days have passed.

I was thinking the same thing.

She works with the Gibbs years after their big success with Barbra and Dionne.

She works with Narada Michael Walden years after his big successes with Whitney and Aretha.

She works with Luther [[for one song) years after his productions for Aretha, Dionne, and Cheryl Lynn.

There is a pattern there.

That said, by the time of MISSING YOU in 1985, Diana had been a consistent presence on the charts for over twenty years. That is quite a long time to hold on to the pop audience. Of her peers, only Aretha managed a significant longer span, for reasons RanRan wrote about above. Dionne and Gladys had occasional hits through the early 90s. Tina and Patti started their own hit strings in the 80s and 90s, but they had never had consistent pop success before then. So even though they were in Diana's age group, they were new artists in a sense.

sup_fan
08-14-2018, 02:26 PM
in addition to that, seems like Motown provided little proper support either. In a similar thread about her RCA period, i'm surprised that the labels had as much control about what was released and when and how. Clearly Diana ordered WO single as the lead from that project and that was a huge mistake. but the promotional mess Force seems to be motown's fault.

Jimi LaLumia
08-14-2018, 03:19 PM
I was dj ing in LGBT nightclubs on Long Island including the legendary BunkHouse in Sayville, and the single that should have gotten a US release and push, the high NRG re mix of I Will Survive, drove people nuts in a good way..there was a music video with Ru Paul in it but I don't remember a real push for this as a single,at least not the UK 12 inch re mix..This should be her next re mix project..the song never dies

sup_fan
08-14-2018, 03:50 PM
i think her 90s remix project was lackluster. the mixes were ok but nothing overly exciting. what might have been more interesting would be to incorporate some new vocals. either add new diana vocals along with her original or have her record completely new vocals along with new, re-imagined tracks to some of her biggest hits.

And yes, Motown really dropped the ball w I Will Survive. there was a huge resurgence in the mid 90s towards disco. had that song been officially released in the US, it would have charted

According to George Soloman's noted in Randy's book, there's an alt version of IWS that is more in keeping with the original production. and the version used in the movie In and Out is also different from the album version.

khansperac
08-14-2018, 04:00 PM
I disagree about the remix project. I was clubbing then and it was great. The remix of "I'm coming out" was a banger. Still hot till this day. At the time I didn't know if she had went back to the studio and re-recorded some parts of that song. I later found out that they had used the unreleased Chic mix of the song. "Someday we'll be together was also great, and if I'm not mistaken also charted. "The Boss" remake was also very good. All three were played in one club or another. The only songs I didn't like were "you're gonna love it" and "chain reaction". The DJ's that remixed were the cream of the crop and totally what was current and happening at the time. '''

khansperac
08-14-2018, 04:04 PM
Take me higher- the song, didn't sound dated to me. As mentioned in a previous post by me, I was clubbing then and this song was a big hit in the clubs- going all the way to number one. I was glad that Diana returned to Dance music. As for the album, it ranks as one her her best.

RanRan79
08-14-2018, 04:08 PM
I really think Aretha hooked up with those younger producers because of Clive Davis. He encouraged her and made those connections happen. Diana really didn't have anyone doing that for her. Certainly there wasn't anyone at Motown that offered her that kind of support and, I believe, she really needed that - both through her RCA years and her Motown return. She just didn't seem to have anyone who could realize her concepts and make them into reality.

While I do think Clive may have had his hand in it, Aretha has always been into the current sound, even in recent years. So Clive may have set it up or suggested it, but the Queen wouldn't have done it if she didn't feel it. I also agree that Diana didn't have a guiding influence in her post 1st Motown run, but she needed one because without it Diana just didn't have what it took to keep her finger on the pulse of the music industry.

RanRan79
08-14-2018, 04:16 PM
i know some might find this a rather minor detail but i think the packaging of her albums also hurt her image. Force was very cool - the straightened hair and gold lame dress, then the painting over the top. But Working and Take Me were odd. the boots and tattered jeans were definitely not her look. And Take Me higher was just odd. very artsy and therefore not really relevant to much of the record buying public. those weird pics of her in thrift store finds, sitting in a wash tub on a gravel road in AL??!?! WTF is that? maybe if the music was odd and punk, sure.

I disagree. I think the public just wasn't feeling the material. WO had the spirit of the diana 80 and Swept Away album covers, which proved that the public didn't necessarily have to have a glammed up Diana Ross to be interested. But those two albums were successful because the public was interested in the material. Beyond the title track, nobody was interested in the crap on WO regardless of the album cover. TMH was just too late.

RanRan79
08-14-2018, 04:23 PM
although it's post 90s, i do think the Everyday is a New Day was more "current" than Take or Force.

I agree, but by that time the public had gotten used to lackluster Diana material, in addition to there wasn't a ton of publicity for it stateside. She did the Double Platinum movie with Brandy but even that wasn't enough to drum up support. [[I think at the time I only watched half of that movie myself. Diana should've been doing features, not made for TV.) EDIAND was damn good but it really was too little too late.

RanRan79
08-14-2018, 04:30 PM
I was thinking the same thing.

She works with the Gibbs years after their big success with Barbra and Dionne.

She works with Narada Michael Walden years after his big successes with Whitney and Aretha.

She works with Luther [[for one song) years after his productions for Aretha, Dionne, and Cheryl Lynn.

There is a pattern there.

That said, by the time of MISSING YOU in 1985, Diana had been a consistent presence on the charts for over twenty years. That is quite a long time to hold on to the pop audience. Of her peers, only Aretha managed a significant longer span, for reasons RanRan wrote about above. Dionne and Gladys had occasional hits through the early 90s. Tina and Patti started their own hit strings in the 80s and 90s, but they had never had consistent pop success before then. So even though they were in Diana's age group, they were new artists in a sense.

Tina and Patti had the opportunity to reinvent themselves from the past, so I agree. In a weird way they were like new artists. There was no reinventing Diana Ross, but she could have rolled with the times and consistently created hits. You roll out her producer mistakes very well. I wonder why she was so allergic to using current hitmakers?

RanRan79
08-14-2018, 04:34 PM
Take me higher- the song, didn't sound dated to me. As mentioned in a previous post by me, I was clubbing then and this song was a big hit in the clubs- going all the way to number one. I was glad that Diana returned to Dance music. As for the album, it ranks as one her her best.

It was dated for the general public's perspective. The clubs are always going to play clubbers, but by the time Diana released TMH, radio wasn't playing much of that type of music. She should've gotten in on that when people like C&C Music Factory and Robin S were having big radio hits with club cuts. By late 1995 radio had long moved on. In fact Sup Fan is probably right, had TMH been released in the early 90s and EDIAND the mid 90s, we might be having a different conversation about Diana Ross' career in the 90s.

dickiemint
08-14-2018, 04:59 PM
In the UK Force Behind the Power was a Top Ten LP and had 5 top 40 hits off it, When you tell me you love me was only kept off number 1 by Queen's Rerelease of Bohimian Rapsodey after Freddie Mercury death. Then came One Woman collection which was UK Number 1 album , Take me Hire , Gone and I will Survive were top 40 hits followed by Not over You Yet another top 10 hit and rerecording WYTMYLM with Irish boy band Westlife was Christmas number2 Miss Ross was still hitting big in the UK in the 90's

sup_fan
08-14-2018, 05:00 PM
I agree, but by that time the public had gotten used to lackluster Diana material, in addition to there wasn't a ton of publicity for it stateside. She did the Double Platinum movie with Brandy but even that wasn't enough to drum up support. [[I think at the time I only watched half of that movie myself. Diana should've been doing features, not made for TV.) EDIAND was damn good but it really was too little too late.

the two record labels were never able to come to an agreement regarding the Diana/Brandy work. if they had and it had been released as a duet, it probably would have done significant amount to help re-establish Diana. and that could have helped salvage the EDIAND project

but apparently by this time Diana and motown were at such an impasse that odds are they barely even made an attempt to negotiate on her behalf with Brandy's label.

sup_fan
08-14-2018, 05:02 PM
In the UK Force Behind the Power was a Top Ten LP and had 5 top 40 hits off it, When you tell me you love me was only kept off number 1 by Queen's Rerelease of Bohimian Rapsodey after Freddie Mercury death. Then came One Woman collection which was UK Number 1 album , Take me Hire , Gone and I will Survive were top 40 hits followed by Not over You Yet another top 10 hit and rerecording WYTMYLM with Irish boy band Westlife was Christmas number2 Miss Ross was still hitting big in the UK in the 90's

absolutely and her label there was making intelligent decisions about promotion and support. motown in the states was a hot mess.

But UK and Europe has always been more receptive to ongoing material from established artists, so long as it's of high quality. in the states, you're either current or has-been.

sup_fan
08-14-2018, 05:07 PM
I disagree. I think the public just wasn't feeling the material. WO had the spirit of the diana 80 and Swept Away album covers, which proved that the public didn't necessarily have to have a glammed up Diana Ross to be interested. But those two albums were successful because the public was interested in the material. Beyond the title track, nobody was interested in the crap on WO regardless of the album cover. TMH was just too late.

album covers are just 1 part of the overall marketing material for the project. Lead singles that are hits that are then combined with a powerful marketing campaign can often make a hit out of a dud project. can't always overcompensate the rest of the album being junk but often can.

and when an album is strong AND has strong imagery/promtional material it's often magic. think of the sensational cover to 1993's Janet. that image of Janet Jackson with her modern hair style and standing topless with a man's hands reaching around her, covering her up is iconic. Think of diana 80 and that totally hip cover.

Take me Higher was a strong set. if possible that 1) if the lead single was I Will Survive and 2) better graphics and marketing support material, it might have had a different outcome

rovereab
08-14-2018, 06:21 PM
In the UK, Carry On would have been the ideal follow up single to Not Over You Yet, which was a big hit here that I'm certain will have introduced Diana to a younger audience. Not releasing Carry On is a massive missed opportunity.

reese
08-14-2018, 06:37 PM
album covers are just 1 part of the overall marketing material for the project. Lead singles that are hits that are then combined with a powerful marketing campaign can often make a hit out of a dud project. can't always overcompensate the rest of the album being junk but often can.

and when an album is strong AND has strong imagery/promtional material it's often magic. think of the sensational cover to 1993's Janet. that image of Janet Jackson with her modern hair style and standing topless with a man's hands reaching around her, covering her up is iconic. Think of diana 80 and that totally hip cover.

Take me Higher was a strong set. if possible that 1) if the lead single was I Will Survive and 2) better graphics and marketing support material, it might have had a different outcome

I agree that TAKE ME HIGHER was a strong set, probably Diana's strongest of the 90s. When I saw her in the summer of '95, she performed many of the songs from it, all of which I loved. That leads me to the first problem. Diana was on tour promoting the album at least a month before it was in the stores. For us diehards, that wasn't a problem. But for the casual fans who might have liked its songs in concert they couldn't run out the next day and buy the cd.

I also thought that the order of singles released was wrong. The second single, GONE, was a great ballad. But I don't think it should have been released so early. After the title track, I would have gone with IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA LOVE ME RIGHT, VOICE OF THE HEART, and then maybe GONE.

Also, I understand that I WILL SURVIVE wasn't released in the US because Chantay Savage had a version out around the same time. But after the inclusion of the song in the film IN AND OUT, as well as Diana's Super Bowl performance, not to mention the video with RuPaul, I think Motown should have given it a shot.

Fourtopsbiggestfan
08-14-2018, 09:26 PM
Well this one is an absolute masterpiece. 1999 from EVERYDAY IS A NEW DAY album. SUGARFREE https://youtu.be/HEYMk3uPxdQ

midnightman
08-14-2018, 10:08 PM
I don't know if it was anything that went wrong or that unlike Tina, Patti [[and to some degree, Aretha, who had Clive Davis behind her), Diana had gotten old fashioned and two, was one of those artists that didn't really have any backing to get her to the next generation as far as her music went in the U.S. though she was still able to perform to packed venues here and, like it was mentioned, got a lot of airplay on R&B charts for some of her later songs. I think she possibly suffered from not that much label support. Musically Take Me Higher was her strongest record in years and it could've helped if it got promoted more. I don't think it ever did. Motown was putting most of its promotional muscle on Boyz II Men around this time and around 1995 or 1996 went through a transition of CEOs [[going from Jheryl Busby to Andre Harrell). So that also may have a lot to do with why Diana struggled during the era where her peers were still having charted success.

Albator
08-15-2018, 05:03 AM
Even with Clive Davis, Aretha didn't do that well in the eighties and latter. She is revered by singers, musicians, critics but on sales basis she is not spectacular.
4 gold records, 2 platinum in the US.


With Clive Davis behind her, Dionne has only 2 gold albums on the eighties and latter. [[Heartbreaker is not even platinum)


It's very difficult to generate sales when you'r around for so long. Tina Turner had the chance to meet Roger Davis who wasn't so busy with Olivia Newton-John and he took the opportunity to manage Tina wisely.
So you need to be talented, and to have a strong management. Some faux-pas are forever. Take Donna Summer who lost all her aura with her born again stuff and wanted to change her image from sexy disco diva to respected singer.
Among female singers from the sixties, only Barbra Streisand is able to have platinum albums after another for 50 years. Maybe it's because she is alone in her world and she have her fans and they stay with her because she delivers what they want to hear.

So, maybe Diana made a lot of mistakes while at RCA.

PeaceNHarmony
08-15-2018, 05:54 AM
i know some might find this a rather minor detail but i think the packaging of her albums also hurt her image. Force was very cool - the straightened hair and gold lame dress, then the painting over the top. But Working and Take Me were odd. the boots and tattered jeans were definitely not her look. And Take Me higher was just odd. very artsy and therefore not really relevant to much of the record buying public. those weird pics of her in thrift store finds, sitting in a wash tub on a gravel road in AL??!?! WTF is that? maybe if the music was odd and punk, sure.
I LOVE the Take Me Higher photo shoot. High-concept fashion photography and Diana looked gorgeous.

Albator
08-15-2018, 06:14 AM
I LOVE the Take Me Higher photo shoot. High-concept fashion photography and Diana looked gorgeous.I like it today but back then, I thought it was agressive and too dark.

sup_fan
08-15-2018, 10:21 AM
i'm not saying it isn't artistic or makes a strong statement. but it's not necessarily "ready for prime time." it's a bit too extreme and unusual IMO

khansperac
08-15-2018, 11:24 AM
I found nothing extreme about it. It was black centric .

sup_fan
08-15-2018, 11:44 AM
black centric? really? 14531

14532

sitting in a galvanized metal washtub in the middle of a country gravel road is black centric?

Spread eagle in an old dress while sitting in some thrownout office chair you salvaged from the dumpster while in the middle of brick paved alley is black centric?

Boogiedown
08-15-2018, 02:54 PM
Omg
Is this Diana Ross' idea of being taken higher?
Lmao!

In some worn torn office chair somebody threw out

Somebody threw out...

sup_fan
08-15-2018, 06:24 PM
^lol

i definitely agree that they are more avant guarde and therefore have some considerable artistic interest. But that's not the general masses and certainly not when you're trying to draw general consumer interest to a cd via posters, ads, commercials, etc.

Look at what Janet Jackson, Mary J Blige, Mariah, TLC and others were doing.

i mean if your goal is to look like something out of Lord of the Rings, then so be it. but...

14533

midnightman
08-15-2018, 10:26 PM
Even with Clive Davis, Aretha didn't do that well in the eighties and latter. She is revered by singers, musicians, critics but on sales basis she is not spectacular.
4 gold records, 2 platinum in the US.


With Clive Davis behind her, Dionne has only 2 gold albums on the eighties and latter. [[Heartbreaker is not even platinum)


It's very difficult to generate sales when you'r around for so long. Tina Turner had the chance to meet Roger Davis who wasn't so busy with Olivia Newton-John and he took the opportunity to manage Tina wisely.
So you need to be talented, and to have a strong management. Some faux-pas are forever. Take Donna Summer who lost all her aura with her born again stuff and wanted to change her image from sexy disco diva to respected singer.
Among female singers from the sixties, only Barbra Streisand is able to have platinum albums after another for 50 years. Maybe it's because she is alone in her world and she have her fans and they stay with her because she delivers what they want to hear.

So, maybe Diana made a lot of mistakes while at RCA.

Yeah it wasn't unique that Diana was suffering since Dionne and Aretha, while still successful, weren't as massively successful as they were in their heydays, and Dionne most specifically because after the mid-80s, she had quickly become old news.

Donna Summer's career collapsed after 1984, partially due to her wanting to have more life with her family and another, Geffen Records was a total bust with her. Maybe if she had went to Warner Bros. and had the songs Cher had, she could've kept it moving in the '80s after She Works Hard for the Money.

Barbra was and always has been a unique case. She didn't have a girl group or a Motown behind her, plus she was in Broadway and films all the time. So her music releases become an event in a sense that it isn't with most legendary divas.

Tina Turner finding Roger Davies became the best thing for her career where she was able to do what was once considered "impossible" and was to tour big arenas and stadiums and sell records into the new millennium.

khansperac
08-15-2018, 10:56 PM
Diana put out some of her best work in the 90’s. Great albums including “the force”, “stolen moments”, “very special season”, the hallmark cd, “take me higher”, “everyday is a new day”. I don’t necessarily think anything went wrong. The public at large just wasn’t feeling her. It happens. Things have certainly changed for the better.

jobeterob
08-16-2018, 12:12 AM
Diana put out some of her best work in the 90’s. Great albums including “the force”, “stolen moments”, “very special season”, the hallmark cd, “take me higher”, “everyday is a new day”. I don’t necessarily think anything went wrong. The public at large just wasn’t feeling her. It happens. Things have certainly changed for the better.

That’s what I think

Times change; you don’t have 50 years of monster hits all the time

I think the line I’ve read is that when you factor in Diana’s work with the Supremes she is amongst the top 5 artists of all time

And you can’t even identify any other singer on 98% of the Supremes songs

Ollie9
08-16-2018, 04:44 AM
No matter what kind of music Diana released beyond 85, whether it be considered sublime or dross the american public were never going to buy it in quantites that matter.... Even with a pretty picture on the cover. As has already been mentioned, throughout the 90's Diana's music continued to sell very well across europe, particulaly here in the UK.
As regards european sales i think it was a mistake to wait so long for the release of another pop album. Following the massive success of the compilation album "One Woman" Motown/EMI should have have aimed for a 94 release perhaps followed by a christmas cd a year later.
EDIAND i believe had great potential if motown had kept the remixes going. Massive shame such a quality album was abandoned.

Nitro2015
08-30-2018, 10:50 PM
Tina Turner finding Roger Davies became the best thing for her career where she was able to do what was once considered "impossible" and was to tour big arenas and stadiums and sell records into the new millennium.

Yes, what went wrong in the 90's for Diana is very simple: she didn't have a great manager... and, worst, she was her own manager.

She can be a great, legendary artist, but she ain't no business/entertainment manager.

She had two boys in school in America and a husband in Europe. She was doing tours and recording often, travelling non-stop. I can't see how a woman with this hectic schedule would be able to handle all her business matters, promotional strategies, radio and media approachs etc.

It's pretty obvious she needed a manager like Roger Davies or a record mogul like Clive Davis to support her. But she wouldn't have any of that, she wanted full control of everything.

So... her recording career suffered a lot in terms of commercial performances in U.S.

But she was still able to make huge money and score hits in other territories.

marv2
08-30-2018, 11:07 PM
She did not know how to keep up with the times. Her music sounded very old fashioned and without any power behind it. Toni Braxton, Mariah Carey, Mary J Blige, the Fugees with Lauryn Hill, Whitney..........those were artists putting it down in the 90s. Diana Ross was still doing Disco music.

vgalindo
08-30-2018, 11:14 PM
i wonder who originated the idea of working with Chic in 1980? talk about masterful

I believe I heard Diana Ross in an interview say she went to see Chic in concert and really liked them so she approached them to do her next album.

Nitro2015
08-30-2018, 11:20 PM
She did not know how to keep up with the times. Her music sounded very old fashioned and without any power behind it. Toni Braxton, Mariah Carey, Mary J Blige, the Fugees with Lauryn Hill, Whitney..........those were artists putting it down in the 90s. Diana Ross was still doing Disco music.

To some extent, this is true, but songs like "Keep It Right There", "Don't Stop", "If You're Not Gonna Love Me Right", "Sugarfree", between others, sounded very contemporary to my ears and pretty strong in the mid-late 90's. Even "Take Me Higher" seemed a great 90's dance song/single.

But, yes, Diana had an old-school image, more suited to the 70's and early 80's [[in the Take Me Higher Era she did try to modernize it and it worked really well for her but it was still old-school).

Still, I find her 90's products pretty good. With proper management, it could at least have achieved more R&B, AC and Urban AC acceptance in U.S.

thommg
08-31-2018, 11:14 AM
Yes, what went wrong in the 90's for Diana is very simple: she didn't have a great manager... and, worst, she was her own manager.

I think this hits the nail on the head. It's okay to be in charge of things but you need someone to bounce ideas off of, and to help you put those ideas into action. That is what she lacked in the 90's. And say what you want about the music she recorded during that time but, aside from Working Overtime, there were many of my friends buying and playing her music and none of us considered it old fashioned.

144man
09-01-2018, 06:11 AM
The thing that most went wrong for Diana Ross in the 90s was obviously missing that penalty in the 1994 World Cup:)

midnightman
09-02-2018, 04:44 PM
I didn't know Diana managed herself during that era?

marv2
09-02-2018, 04:46 PM
I didn't know Diana managed herself during that era?

If it had been anyone else........they would have been fired! LOL!!!!

Nitro2015
09-17-2018, 11:30 PM
i know some might find this a rather minor detail but i think the packaging of her albums also hurt her image. Force was very cool - the straightened hair and gold lame dress, then the painting over the top. But Working and Take Me were odd. the boots and tattered jeans were definitely not her look. And Take Me higher was just odd. very artsy and therefore not really relevant to much of the record buying public. those weird pics of her in thrift store finds, sitting in a wash tub on a gravel road in AL??!?! WTF is that? maybe if the music was odd and punk, sure.

The Take Me Higher photo shoot is probably the best she ever did in her career.

She looks young, stylish and sexy as hell.

It was an image that suited the mid-90's perfectly and, for once, she didn't look "dated" as an artist.

I don't like the FBTP look/photo shoot, it looks very very dated for 1991.

Circa 1824
09-18-2018, 09:32 AM
Ross could never overcome the debacle of the 1980's. Sadly, the total control that proved her downfall continues today.

sup_fan
09-18-2018, 10:54 AM
i think another element was the public perception of her attitude. seems that the rumors and truths that surrounded her persona throughout the 80s finally did her in. people just weren't rooting for her and wanting her to succeed.

RanRan79
09-18-2018, 02:06 PM
i think another element was the public perception of her attitude. seems that the rumors and truths that surrounded her persona throughout the 80s finally did her in. people just weren't rooting for her and wanting her to succeed.

I never bought that. People had been saying she was a bitch for years. Mary's book supposedly confirmed it, but then when Diana joins Motown again a couple years later, she has a top 5 r&b hit. I think pop radio, and then eventually r&b radio, passed over her music for better stuff. Remember she was already slipping during the RCA years because of songs that sucked. In the 90s she was still DIANA ROSS to the public, hence why her touring response didn't seem to diminish and she was still the star of the show on whatever program she was booked on, even when sharing the stage with other big names. The industry is fickle, but it has never seemed to have great standards either, as far as artist reputations go. Give the people what they want and they'll keep supporting until they lose interest. The public lost interest because Diana was giving us crap. Lol

sup_fan
09-18-2018, 02:34 PM
oh i don't think her "attitude" is the sole reason but i definitely think it contributed. sure if she released a perfect song, it might have hit. But people had written her off and weren't willing to give her another chance. look at Cher, Dolly Parton, Bette Midler, etc. People really like them as people. they are viewed as celebrities that real and down-to-earth. there's a personality that people like and respect. I don't think Diana really had that except with her fans

On another note, i've also wondered what the AIDS epidemic did for the longevity of some of these stars. obviously i'm not trying to lessen the horrors and sadness of those that died and suffered from the disease. It's pride here in Dallas in Sept [[why sept, who knows lol) and so i've been watching various interesting documentaries on the community, many of which either focus or have a significant segment on the AIDS crisis. it's still just shocking how it ravaged the gay community. there's literally a whole generation that's missing or at least horribly reduced in numbers. wonder if that had not occurred would there be more overall public support as there would have been a larger core/gay fan base that could have helped take a song from solely in the clubs to mainstream. maybe a bit of a stretch but just a thought

RanRan79
09-18-2018, 05:22 PM
oh i don't think her "attitude" is the sole reason but i definitely think it contributed. sure if she released a perfect song, it might have hit. But people had written her off and weren't willing to give her another chance. look at Cher, Dolly Parton, Bette Midler, etc. People really like them as people. they are viewed as celebrities that real and down-to-earth. there's a personality that people like and respect. I don't think Diana really had that except with her fans

But there wasn't anything to give a chance to. She released crap after crap. And by crap I mean stuff that just wasn't resonating with anyone. Cher was given a musical chance because she happened to be smart enough to record the right song at the right time. Bette Midler hasn't done anything of musical relevance [[to the general public) in eons and Dolly is a country singer and many of them retain their audiences through it all. Also Cher and Bette were not only singers but also actresses and they ran with the Hollywood crowd. They are always among the movers and shakers and being seen. Dolly isn't only a singer but also a businesswoman and her brand is very visible. And I agree with you, the three of them have a different personality to Ross. They are very outgoing and personable. I'd put Patti Labelle in that same category. On the other hand I'd put Diana in the same box as Aretha. Both were very personal, guarded and often went away for lengthy periods of time when not in concert. IMO comparing Ross to the ladies you mentioned is like comparing apples and oranges. She wasn't even the same type of woman as the ones you mentioned even when she was the Diana of the 70s and 80s. That lack of earthiness IMO was one of Diana's greatest assets, aside from her talent. People loved the mystique. They still love it. But it no longer translate to sales because her music sucks balls. Lol

I wonder how much different things might have been had she continued to have a successful movie career. We can discuss the mistakes of her musical career to the cows come home, but the real travesty is what happened to a movie career that started off on such a high note and ended with a movie credit of five movies, the last two being made for TV, and none being released in the 1980s. Sad.

sup_fan
09-18-2018, 06:33 PM
hahaha - i don't think her later releases were THAT bad lol. but i agree. mismanagement of her musical content and direction was a key element of her decline.

but i've absolutely heard people say "i hate diana ross. she's a bitch" Maybe it's a two-edged sword. some people view it as star/diva magnetism. some view it as a detraction.

daviddh
09-18-2018, 07:41 PM
loved her 90s albums. some of her best, she was gone for too long , then tried to come back. it was a combo of many things

RanRan79
09-18-2018, 07:47 PM
hahaha - i don't think her later releases were THAT bad lol. but i agree. mismanagement of her musical content and direction was a key element of her decline.

but i've absolutely heard people say "i hate diana ross. she's a bitch" Maybe it's a two-edged sword. some people view it as star/diva magnetism. some view it as a detraction.

Oh for sure. Remember when Barbara Walters asked her about the bitch thing? I think that reputation was definitely out there, and I think there were times that Ross reaffirmed it. I just don't believe it had any bearing on her lack of musical success after a certain point. The ones who said they hated Diana because she's a bitch had been saying that when "Love Hangover" and "Upside Down" and "Missing You" were big hits. It doesn't explain why all the others who didn't say that suddenly stopped paying attention.

And no, her singles weren't that bad, or even bad at all. But as we discussed in another thread [[or was it this one?), the songs couldn't compete with the other current products, and often her projects seemed to be behind the times instead of trendy.

Albator
09-19-2018, 01:49 AM
Have you read the Vincent Paterson book?

http://www.editionsduchene.fr/epa/musique/icones-et-instincts-autobiographie-vincent-paterson-9782851209849

He is a choreographer, working with many superstars, mostly with Michael Jackson and Madonna.
We know him as the blond lead dancer in "Pieces of Ice".
After the success of MJ show, Dangerous [[????), he was approached by Diana [[he calls her Miss Ross in the book). She wanted something new for her Motown comeback tour.
I remember in Vanity Fair, she said something about him, without giving his name. "I'm working with a new choreographer, what I'm doing on stage works, and I'm afraid if I change to much it won't, but you have to change". [[If I remember correctly).
She didn't even meet him, except once. She went to Switzerland and he was alone to build a show in LA. He was a big big fan, so he had in mind a show, with a lot of feed-back to the days of the Ed Sullivan Shows, Lady Sings the Blues and all. A colorful show with lot of dancers.
Then she call him to have an idea of what he was doing. He send a VHS, waiting for the answer. She called and she was emotionally moved in a bad way.
"Do you want to ruin my carrer???? where are the hits???"
"Miss Ross, they're all there! You didn't tell me specific songs, people are fans, they know rarities"
"Where are the hits!!!!!"


He was payed and fired. I think many of his ideas were used in the Supreme reunion tour.


So what happened to her in the nineties is that she stayed the same Diana Ross than in 1984/85. Same shows, same gowns, same intro, same Do you Know/Mountains medley...
In a way, I think she was right because as a fan, this is what I like. I don't care about dancers and big productions.

Jaap
09-19-2018, 02:24 AM
So what happened to her in the nineties is that she stayed the same Diana Ross than in 1984/85. Same shows, same gowns, same intro, same Do you Know/Mountains medley...
In a way, I think she was right because as a fan, this is what I like. I don't care about dancers and big productions.

This reminds me of a text by Diane Cardwell in Trouble Girls: The Rolling Stone Book of Women in Rock [[1997):

“Like a mirror of the past, Ross simply reflects the surface that made her famous—the glamour gowns, the breathy sweet voice, the constant smile—rather than the substance. It is a universal irony of icons: to freeze in the very image they create”

Albator
09-19-2018, 07:38 AM
This reminds me of a text by Diane Cardwell in Trouble Girls: The Rolling Stone Book of Women in Rock [[1997):

“Like a mirror of the past, Ross simply reflects the surface that made her famous—the glamour gowns, the breathy sweet voice, the constant smile—rather than the substance. It is a universal irony of icons: to freeze in the very image they create”
What is true to a certain extant does not reflect the reality of her singing. Since the 2000's, there is a sense of truth in her voice that is very moving.

RanRan79
09-19-2018, 09:29 AM
All of that is very interesting, and the choreographer story very revealing. It explains why her shows don't contain some of the rarer cuts fans might like to hear. It appears that she's afraid [[or at least that was the case in the 90s) to disappoint the people who love the hits. Speaks to my continuous claim that part of her problem has been her inability to keep her ear to the street. Usually I say that in regards to her musical direction post Motown Part 1, but I think it apparently applies to the point that she does not [[or did not) listen to her fans either.

Having said that, I still don't think any of this translated into a lack of popularity. True, in the 90s I didn't keep up with Diana's concert schedule, but I have never heard anything about her audience numbers dwindling, she playing to half packed venues, or having to play smaller places to accommodate a shrinking fan base. Even if fans were tired of the same old show, they seem to have continued to patronize it year after year. What did change were her music sells and chart placings. No one was buying the music and radio wasn't playing much of it.

reese
09-19-2018, 11:00 AM
All of that is very interesting, and the choreographer story very revealing. It explains why her shows don't contain some of the rarer cuts fans might like to hear. It appears that she's afraid [[or at least that was the case in the 90s) to disappoint the people who love the hits. Speaks to my continuous claim that part of her problem has been her inability to keep her ear to the street. Usually I say that in regards to her musical direction post Motown Part 1, but I think it apparently applies to the point that she does not [[or did not) listen to her fans either.

Having said that, I still don't think any of this translated into a lack of popularity. True, in the 90s I didn't keep up with Diana's concert schedule, but I have never heard anything about her audience numbers dwindling, she playing to half packed venues, or having to play smaller places to accommodate a shrinking fan base. Even if fans were tired of the same old show, they seem to have continued to patronize it year after year. What did change were her music sells and chart placings. No one was buying the music and radio wasn't playing much of it.

When I read the 1989 VANITY FAIR article and she mentioned that she had someone in to help her plan her upcoming show, I was wondering what they were going to do. When I saw her that summer, I will say that it contained some songs that I wasn't expecting to hear, like CHAIN REACTION, DIRTY LOOKS, and IF WE HOLD ON TOGETHER, simply because they weren't hits in the US, or in the case of DIRTY LOOKS, a lesser hit, albeit one of my faves.

In another article, she mentioned that she had recently been to see Eric Clapton and while she enjoyed his concert, she was disappointed that he didn't sing his hit TEARS IN HEAVEN. I suspect she feels the same about her own shows unless she was doing something special like her 1992 THE LADY SINGS concert or RTL, where fans knew what was going to happen. While I might appreciate an evening of rarities, I understand that Diana also has to satisfy the casual fan who wants to hear the hits. It may thrill me to hear NO ONE'S GONNA BE A FOOL FOREVER. But I wouldn't be surprised if many of my fellow concert goers had never heard of it and were waiting for UPSIDE DOWN.

Re audience numbers, I saw Diana in 15,000 seat arenas or ampitheaters in 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1989, and 1991. In 1991, there was an article in Billboard that listed the tours that promoters lost the most $ on that year and Diana's was amongst them. After that, whenever she has been booked in my area it has been in a concert hall, with maybe a 5000-6000 max, maybe smaller. I'm not sure if that is the case in other areas. But other than RTL and the Hollywood Bowl, I haven't heard of her appearing in any arena-sized venues.

Jaap
09-20-2018, 07:46 AM
What is true to a certain extant does not reflect the reality of her singing. Since the 2000's, there is a sense of truth in her voice that is very moving.

I agree. It is more about the visual image and the "diva" poses.

Albator
09-20-2018, 07:59 AM
Re audience numbers, I saw Diana in 15,000 seat arenas or ampitheaters in 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1989, and 1991. In 1991, there was an article in Billboard that listed the tours that promoters lost the most $ on that year and Diana's was amongst them. After that, whenever she has been booked in my area it has been in a concert hall, with maybe a 5000-6000 max, maybe smaller. I'm not sure if that is the case in other areas. But other than RTL and the Hollywood Bowl, I haven't heard of her appearing in any arena-sized venues.I remember, Withney was also on this list.
In Europe she continued to perform in Arenas in UK and Netherland. Also in Japan.

RanRan79
09-20-2018, 11:55 AM
Re audience numbers, I saw Diana in 15,000 seat arenas or ampitheaters in 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1989, and 1991. In 1991, there was an article in Billboard that listed the tours that promoters lost the most $ on that year and Diana's was amongst them. After that, whenever she has been booked in my area it has been in a concert hall, with maybe a 5000-6000 max, maybe smaller. I'm not sure if that is the case in other areas. But other than RTL and the Hollywood Bowl, I haven't heard of her appearing in any arena-sized venues.

Thanks Reese. I'm aware the last 15 or so years she hasn't really played the arenas. Sadly it doesn't appear that any of the African American artists in her peer group can ever individually [[here in the States) fill the arenas, which personally I don't think is a commentary on the artist but on the "fans".

lucky2012
09-20-2018, 12:37 PM
Thanks Reese. I'm aware the last 15 or so years she hasn't really played the arenas. Sadly it doesn't appear that any of the African American artists in her peer group can ever individually [[here in the States) fill the arenas, which personally I don't think is a commentary on the artist but on the "fans".
I try to see her at the Hollywood Bowl whenever she's there [[seems like every other year). Always a great event and experience.

reese
09-20-2018, 01:56 PM
Thanks Reese. I'm aware the last 15 or so years she hasn't really played the arenas. Sadly it doesn't appear that any of the African American artists in her peer group can ever individually [[here in the States) fill the arenas, which personally I don't think is a commentary on the artist but on the "fans".

Tina Turner is the only one that comes to mind, and of course, now she's not touring anymore.

vgalindo
09-20-2018, 10:00 PM
I try to see her at the Hollywood Bowl whenever she's there [[seems like every other year). Always a great event and experience.
I do too! It really is an amazing event with all the people. It takes me back to the times of her big arena tours.

Albator
09-21-2018, 01:26 AM
In what kind of venues did she perform her TMH tour?

Ollie9
09-21-2018, 03:35 AM
I really don't think anything went majorly wrong in the 90's. Diana was releasing solid music that sold well in europe and still sounds good today. She was also performing in huge arenas around the world. I wish she had promoted EDIAND properly, but that would be my one main beef.
I think what went wrong in the 80's would be more apt. Why did America turn it's back on her?. I belive it started to go awry after "Swept Away". Diana needed another commercial release and we got "DL". Add to that she was getting older.
She then had her sons and was away a long period. Her profile even in the UK was very low at the time. I think it took a while for her to regain momentum after this.

reese
09-21-2018, 07:04 AM
In what kind of venues did she perform her TMH tour?

When I saw her, she was booked for a one-nighter in a 5,000 seat venue. However, response was so strong that they added an additional night.

Albator
09-21-2018, 07:22 AM
When I saw her, she was booked for a one-nighter in a 5,000 seat venue. However, response was so strong that they added an additional night.
Was there a time when US fans agreed on the fact she was performing the same shows over the years?
The only difference was the 3 or 4 new songs from the, at the time, current album.
Same gowns, light, entrance, exit, costume changes.
I wasn't bothered by that but I didn't like the sameness of her banter and ad lib between songs.
"Spread love", "I was only two when I started", "The good old days", "you need me call me, I mean that" and all.

reese
09-21-2018, 08:59 AM
Was there a time when US fans agreed on the fact she was performing the same shows over the years?
The only difference was the 3 or 4 new songs from the, at the time, current album.
Same gowns, light, entrance, exit, costume changes.
I wasn't bothered by that but I didn't like the sameness of her banter and ad lib between songs.
"Spread love", "I was only two when I started", "The good old days", "you need me call me, I mean that" and all.

Not sure. I think I have heard the complaint about sameness more in recent years than back then. There seemed to be a big burst of energy in 2010 when she came up with the new show and stage set for her MORE TODAY THAN YESTERDAY: GREATEST HITS TOUR. But a few years later she reverted back to the I'M COMING OUT opening, and the show hasn't really changed all that much since then.

It could just be that I see more responses from fans now because of the internet. But back in the 90s, I just assumed that the shrinking of the audiences was because the huge pop hits had stopped.

thommg
09-21-2018, 10:24 AM
For myself, there was a time I stopped attending her concerts because she would walk back and forth and throw her microphone out to the audience so we could sing with her. There was lots of "Let me hear you sing!" She didn't seem very interested in being there. Recently I saw her in NYC and her show was great. It was a straight concert with her doing songs fully through - mostly the hits, but she added a couple of surprises as well. She really seemed to be enjoying herself onstage again. That was a great evening for me.

midnightman
09-21-2018, 10:26 AM
We're really gonna leave out that she was raising her children in the mix? And also, Motown had no idea how to promote her? Why does her attitude get the 100% blame? If we're gonna compare, as Ran has said, Aretha was also deemed "difficult". How about Judy Garland back in the '60s [[I know, I know, y'all will say "wasn't she on drugs?"). Diana Ross had multiple issues that went against her in the '90s: 1.) she was getting older; 2.) while her '90s music saw her change with the times, who she was hadn't changed, neither did she want to, she was larger than life; 3.) Motown Records put all their promo on Boyz II Men and had no time for other artists with probably the exceptions of Stevie Wonder and the Temptations when they put out a product that they considered a seller of sorts and the times in which Diana released the '90s albums, Motown went through a revolving door of CEOs from Busby [[Workin' Overtime/Force), Harrell [[Take Me Higher) and Kedar [[Every Day Is a New Day) and, probably most importantly, 4.) music was starting to be MORE geared to the youth than they were in the '70s and '80s when middle aged acts did regularly score a top 40 hit, if you was lucky to catch on to a trend like Cher and Aretha or even Patti with the R&B crowd, you'd be able to hang in there, but if not, it just wasn't gonna happen.

I mean, we're gonna act like Diana Ross was the only legacy act that struggled to compete with the modern eras? Dionne Warwick's musical relevance had ended in the early '80s and only got a brief respite with a duet with a hot '80s artist who was about to run out of steam himself [[Geoffrey Osbourne) and then after that, her input went cold. Gladys Knight had R&B success as a solo act after leaving the Pips but she never again enjoyed the success she had with the Pips only having one gold album [[the one that included her cover of End of the Road, which was probably why it went gold anyway since BIIM was HOT). The Beach Boys were a touring act only at this point, no one wanted a record from them. Sinatra only had the Duets sets, he was too old to lead anymore and he was dying.

Only ones I knew that managed to hang besides from Cher and Aretha were Tina Turner and Tony Bennett. Also, Diana was known to the public as a trailblazer and trendsetter and here she was in the '90s chasing trends [[new jack swing, hip hop soul, etc.) instead of following her own path and as we can see from her rant at Vincent Patterson, she didn't really take to change well but she was far from the only one in that boat.

You KNOW there were legendary acts that were like "no I'm not doing that hippity hop crap, y'all try to make me look like a clown?" But Diana says it and "she's got an attitude". But James Brown could whine the same stuff and it's, "well you see, he wants what he wants".

Public perception can bite my black butt lol

RanRan79
09-21-2018, 11:00 AM
You know there's a sex and race component when it comes to Diana Ross and any criticism she may receive from some people. That's just a given. Her "difficult" rating would often go unrated when the same behavior is displayed by a man. Strong women, especially strong Black women, are a slap in the face to some folks. Sad, but true.

I did point out that Diana was raising her family, either in this thread or another, but it does bear repeating. She made her family a priority way back in the 70s, but I think she stepped up even more once her boys was born and she had a husband. It's also true that the changing of the guard at record labels can often throw things off balance for artists, so that was a good point also.

But ultimately I stand behind my opinion that the thing that did Ross in during the 90s was her inability to make music that could compete. Midnight mentions that she was once a trend setter but turned into someone chasing trends. And in her case she was often two years or so behind the trend when she finally caught on. The good thing is that her legendary status never wavered. She was always and is always DIANA ROSS.

midnightman
09-21-2018, 01:01 PM
Right. You can see what they're doing [[or did in this case) to Janet Jackson [[Super Bowl incident and her refusal to apologize a second time just so she can get on the Grammys that year) and Serena Williams [[confronting the referee and being called "unprofessional" for it when John McEnroe made that sh*t an "art form" in the '80s). Black women are always judged more harshly than anyone else. Marvin Gaye, as much of a stan I am of him and his music [[though I hate some of his actions), did the SAME stuff and people call him a genius [[rightfully so) but they don't ever give Diana that same respect.

But yeah, she was two years behind trends and that hurt her. If she showed the same hungry attitude for music she had in the '60s and '70s, we'd be talking about Diana in a different light but like a lot of legends who made it, she got complacent. It happens.

lucky2012
09-21-2018, 10:14 PM
The good thing is that her legendary status never wavered. She was always and is always DIANA ROSS.
And I'll always be grateful. We're here because of that.

Ollie9
09-22-2018, 06:49 AM
I really don't consider her 90's music to be old fashioned at all, and was quite relieved she was working with veteran producers. In fact i think Diana mostly played to her strengths in the 90's in recording contemporary adult material.
It has been mentioned that Diana was a trendsetter and ended up following trends. I can't really thing of any solo album where Diana was setting trends as opposed to just making good music. It is possible i am missing something here. In the 80's where to some degree she did try to follow trends the results were often less then stellar.

midnightman
09-22-2018, 03:20 PM
Some tracks on WO was definitely trying to match with current trends. Don't get me wrong, though. I LOVED the title track. It was actually a huge R&B hit when it came out. But it was clear that track was trend jumping. She did seem more in her element with a song like Paradise though and This House definitely played to her strengths. And I speak as a fan of the Take Me Higher album, the current R&B sound of that time was smooth soul with a hip-hop edge. She was more on point with the trend then and made it DIANA. Cher went down the same path around the same time and had issues selling too. They both had to do dance remixes to make these songs hits. Diana was smart actually in releasing Take Me Higher as the first single for the album because she built a strong fan base with the dance audience as she got older.

Roberta75
09-22-2018, 04:17 PM
Some tracks on WO was definitely trying to match with current trends. Don't get me wrong, though. I LOVED the title track. It was actually a huge R&B hit when it came out. But it was clear that track was trend jumping. She did seem more in her element with a song like Paradise though and This House definitely played to her strengths. And I speak as a fan of the Take Me Higher album, the current R&B sound of that time was smooth soul with a hip-hop edge. She was more on point with the trend then and made it DIANA. Cher went down the same path around the same time and had issues selling too. They both had to do dance remixes to make these songs hits. Diana was smart actually in releasing Take Me Higher as the first single for the album because she built a strong fan base with the dance audience as she got older.

I didn't care for Working Overtime but loved the TMH album. Not having hit albums didnt hold her back. Diana Ross sells out Vegas twice a year. The Hollywood Bowl. New York and citied all across this here country without doing TV or Radio interviews. Shes a national treasure and a living legend.

Ollie9
09-22-2018, 04:31 PM
Some tracks on WO was definitely trying to match with current trends. Don't get me wrong, though. I LOVED the title track. It was actually a huge R&B hit when it came out. But it was clear that track was trend jumping. She did seem more in her element with a song like Paradise though and This House definitely played to her strengths. And I speak as a fan of the Take Me Higher album, the current R&B sound of that time was smooth soul with a hip-hop edge. She was more on point with the trend then and made it DIANA. Cher went down the same path around the same time and had issues selling too. They both had to do dance remixes to make these songs hits. Diana was smart actually in releasing Take Me Higher as the first single for the album because she built a strong fan base with the dance audience as she got older.

Because WO was released in 89 i think of it as part of the 80's as opposed to Diana of the 90's. Diana was definately trying to match current trends with this album which is why in part i believe it failed. Had she did what she did with diana 80 and tried to add a little more Diana Ross in there i think it's fate could have been a lot diffferent.
At the time i was really pleased to see a new look, ripped jeans and all. I can see why a lot of the fans who adore Diana as much for her glamour as her voice might have been put off. For me "This House" and "Stand Together are pure class.
My point was that after WO Diana became more thoughtful about her music and in doing so released some bloody good stuff. After 85 whatever form of music she released, it was never going to appeal to the american record buying public again, no matter who was producing her. In europe and other countries her music continued to sell well, received positive reviews and gave her further chart hits.

midnightman
09-22-2018, 07:58 PM
Oh no I agree. I was SPECIFICALLY talking about Workin' Overtime only.

daviddh
09-23-2018, 09:56 AM
Right. You can see what they're doing [[or did in this case) to Janet Jackson [[Super Bowl incident and her refusal to apologize a second time just so she can get on the Grammys that year) and Serena Williams [[confronting the referee and being called "unprofessional" for it when John McEnroe made that sh*t an "art form" in the '80s). Black women are always judged more harshly than anyone else. Marvin Gaye, as much of a stan I am of him and his music [[though I hate some of his actions), did the SAME stuff and people call him a genius [[rightfully so) but they don't ever give Diana that same respect.

But yeah, she was two years behind trends and that hurt her. If she showed the same hungry attitude for music she had in the '60s and '70s, we'd be talking about Diana in a different light but like a lot of legends who made it, she got complacent. It happens.
was just going to post but u took the words out of my mouth

daviddh
09-23-2018, 10:09 AM
i have read where people were angry or put off by her jeans or the hair,personally i liked it when she changed it up. it made things fresh. I don't get it
athough I am not a fan of the WO song I did like many of the other songs like Paradise.i was hoping that would be a huge hit for her. I think she took to much time off, 2 years I think to have her sons. when Celine Dion took off to do the same her career was never the same either.
when Elvis went into the army the col had him record xtra songs to release during his absence. I suppose no one thought to do this but 2 years away is a long time in the music biz.
and yes she was behind, WO was the sequel to Diana. the lp everyone was hoping for in 1981, almost 10 years to late. when Streisand did her 2nd lp with Gibb it didn't make the buzz everyone hoped it would also.
overall her 90s albums were some of her best. she just was caught in the generation gap.

Albator
09-23-2018, 01:46 PM
The nineties albums were good to very good or even excellent. Career troubles started in the eighties. I remember Rolling Stone and even People, stating she was out of date with her soap opera glamorous persona and all. The period was into a more agressive kind of feminity or into a return of the stupidly called "true value of singing", with big voice or quality stuff from Houston to Sade. In his book, this Vincent Paterson, say his aim was to put her in the nineties!!! He failed to convince her. When Diva 2000 happened it was the same kind of misunderstood between Miss Ross and the producers. When you want Diana Ross, you have to deal with Miss Ross and it may not be an easy task.
In the end, she was right to be uncompromising. She is respected, for that.

midnightman
09-23-2018, 02:58 PM
Yeah the headlines in the '80s were basically "Diana, move out the way, here comes Whitney!"

But yeah Diana didn't take no ish even if it meant her career wouldn't have the same support. I agree with you there Albator!

marv2
09-24-2018, 04:06 PM
We're really gonna leave out that she was raising her children in the mix? And also, Motown had no idea how to promote her? Why does her attitude get the 100% blame? If we're gonna compare, as Ran has said, Aretha was also deemed "difficult". How about Judy Garland back in the '60s [[I know, I know, y'all will say "wasn't she on drugs?"). Diana Ross had multiple issues that went against her in the '90s: 1.) she was getting older; 2.) while her '90s music saw her change with the times, who she was hadn't changed, neither did she want to, she was larger than life; 3.) Motown Records put all their promo on Boyz II Men and had no time for other artists with probably the exceptions of Stevie Wonder and the Temptations when they put out a product that they considered a seller of sorts and the times in which Diana released the '90s albums, Motown went through a revolving door of CEOs from Busby [[Workin' Overtime/Force), Harrell [[Take Me Higher) and Kedar [[Every Day Is a New Day) and, probably most importantly, 4.) music was starting to be MORE geared to the youth than they were in the '70s and '80s when middle aged acts did regularly score a top 40 hit, if you was lucky to catch on to a trend like Cher and Aretha or even Patti with the R&B crowd, you'd be able to hang in there, but if not, it just wasn't gonna happen.

I mean, we're gonna act like Diana Ross was the only legacy act that struggled to compete with the modern eras? Dionne Warwick's musical relevance had ended in the early '80s and only got a brief respite with a duet with a hot '80s artist who was about to run out of steam himself [[Geoffrey Osbourne) and then after that, her input went cold. Gladys Knight had R&B success as a solo act after leaving the Pips but she never again enjoyed the success she had with the Pips only having one gold album [[the one that included her cover of End of the Road, which was probably why it went gold anyway since BIIM was HOT). The Beach Boys were a touring act only at this point, no one wanted a record from them. Sinatra only had the Duets sets, he was too old to lead anymore and he was dying.

Only ones I knew that managed to hang besides from Cher and Aretha were Tina Turner and Tony Bennett. Also, Diana was known to the public as a trailblazer and trendsetter and here she was in the '90s chasing trends [[new jack swing, hip hop soul, etc.) instead of following her own path and as we can see from her rant at Vincent Patterson, she didn't really take to change well but she was far from the only one in that boat.

You KNOW there were legendary acts that were like "no I'm not doing that hippity hop crap, y'all try to make me look like a clown?" But Diana says it and "she's got an attitude". But James Brown could whine the same stuff and it's, "well you see, he wants what he wants".

Public perception can bite my black butt lol

She just didn't make any good records and people in America either disliked her or detested her. It really is that simple. Not complicated.

marv2
09-24-2018, 04:10 PM
The nineties albums were good to very good or even excellent. Career troubles started in the eighties. I remember Rolling Stone and even People, stating she was out of date with her soap opera glamorous persona and all. The period was into a more agressive kind of feminity or into a return of the stupidly called "true value of singing", with big voice or quality stuff from Houston to Sade. In his book, this Vincent Paterson, say his aim was to put her in the nineties!!! He failed to convince her. When Diva 2000 happened it was the same kind of misunderstood between Miss Ross and the producers. When you want Diana Ross, you have to deal with Miss Ross and it may not be an easy task.
In the end, she was right to be uncompromising. She is respected, for that.

She may have been respected for being that way by somebody, but most people could not stand her. She killed her own career by being "uncompromising" which is not really accurate. She was a b*tch to most people unlucky enough to come in contact with her. It was so bad that she couldn't even turn to Berry Gordy for help by then.

luke
09-24-2018, 05:28 PM
Right. Gordy had managed to protect her image and then in the 80s it all exploded. All the rumors about her were true. Her “spreadin Love” stuff was all an act and as stated above authenticity and pure talent became very valued. Dionne, Gladys and Tina and to a lesser degree Aretha struggled but even Aretha did not have Ross’ reputation. People can tire of that, especially when Whitney,Sade and Tina are around putting out great records. I have a friend who is a Motown fan who said he would never buy another Ross record after Motown 25. This is not to deny her charisma but after so many years people start to want more than she gives and more authenticity. How bout Diana pulling her hair back, wearing one nice outfit, getting real and just singing songs from Lady Sings the Blues?

marv2
09-24-2018, 06:25 PM
Right. Gordy had managed to protect her image and then in the 80s it all exploded. All the rumors about her were true. Her “spreadin Love” stuff was all an act and as stated above authenticity and pure talent became very valued. Dionne, Gladys and Tina and to a lesser degree Aretha struggled but even Aretha did not have Ross’ reputation. People can tire of that, especially when Whitney,Sade and Tina are around putting out great records. I have a friend who is a Motown fan who said he would never buy another Ross record after Motown 25. This is not to deny her charisma but after so many years people start to want more than she gives and more authenticity. How bout Diana pulling her hair back, wearing one nice outfit, getting real and just singing songs from Lady Sings the Blues?

I agree but for some reason she has it in her head that people like to eat the same soup day after day. The base part of her act is nearly 40 years old now. Most of the songs are over 40 years old, all the costume changes is old hat and the big hair is from 1981.

Bluebrock
09-25-2018, 02:35 AM
[QUOTE=marv2;482288]She just didn't make any good records and people in America either disliked her or detested her. It really is that simple. Not complicated.
She did make good records which continued to sell well overseas. Her three 90's albums were very strong and much better than most of her 80's output and even some of her 70's stuff. The big difference was she was given airplay in the UK and other European countries. When you get past a certain age it is very difficult to get your records played in America where it seems that youth overules actual vocal talent. It frustrated me when i lived in the States. At least here in the UK age is not such a barrier to getting your music heard.

Boogiedown
09-25-2018, 02:43 AM
Hmmm , I thought the gov't decided what gets played there ???

Albator
09-25-2018, 04:09 AM
[QUOTE=marv2;482288] The big difference was she was given airplay in the UK and other European countries. When you get past a certain age it is very difficult to get your records played in America where it seems that youth overules actual vocal talent. It frustrated me when i lived in the States. At least here in the UK age is not such a barrier to getting your music heard.
Yes, Tina was tremendously successful but in the eighties, she was almost new to the recording market, and she was cleverly managed. In Europe, she did lot of Interviews where she dismissed her radio friendly material from the period. She said « i’m over 50, and it’s good for me to secure my finance » . So, when some claim her 80’s albums are great, it’s just their opinion, based only on their actual success.

marv2
09-25-2018, 08:52 AM
[QUOTE=Bluebrock;482336]
Yes, Tina was tremendously successful but in the eighties, she was almost new to the recording market, and she was cleverly managed. In Europe, she did lot of Interviews where she dismissed her radio friendly material from the period. She said « i’m over 50, and it’s good for me to secure my finance » . So, when some claim her 80’s albums are great, it’s just their opinion, based only on their actual success.

Tina Turner was not almost new to the recording market in the 80s. She had her first hit with Ike "Fool In Love" in 1960 and had been recording for around 20 years by the time the 80s rolled around. She, staged the greatest comeback in recent memory.

Albator
09-25-2018, 10:39 AM
yes, that why she was almost new...

marv2
09-25-2018, 11:46 AM
yes, that why she was almost new...


I'd consider 20 years in the business by that time a veteran.

Nitro2015
09-26-2018, 02:22 PM
I'd consider 20 years in the business by that time a veteran.


My dear, Tina Turner had only one [[1) Top 10 hit in the Hot 100 between 1960 and 1984. And it was Proud Mary [[Ike & Tina Turner), # 4, in 1971.

She went solo in 1976, but only started to chart in 1983 as a solo act.

So, it's not hard to understand why she was almost a new artist for the mainstream public.

She had a very rough path in U.S. charts, and it was not a consolidated mainstream pop star as Aretha or Diana.

She finally scored her first solo U.S. Top 10 hit with "What's Love Got To Do With It" in late 1984, eventually reaching #1.

Large part of the music buying public didn't have a clue that she was performing since the late 50's.

After 1984, she became a mainstream act. But before that, she wasn't that popular or recognized.

Her whole Ike & Tina thing only gained mainstream visibility after Tina's solo megastardom [[the 1986 "I, Tina" book, Tina's countless interviews for mass media conglomerations, the 1993 "What's Love" biopic etc.)

marv2
09-26-2018, 04:25 PM
My dear, Tina Turner had only one [[1) Top 10 hit in the Hot 100 between 1960 and 1984. And it was Proud Mary [[Ike & Tina Turner), # 4, in 1971.

She went solo in 1976, but only started to chart in 1983 as a solo act.

So, it's not hard to understand why she was almost a new artist for the mainstream public.

She had a very rough path in U.S. charts, and it was not a consolidated mainstream pop star as Aretha or Diana.

She finally scored her first solo U.S. Top 10 hit with "What's Love Got To Do With It" in late 1984, eventually reaching #1.

Large part of the music buying public didn't have a clue that she was performing since the late 50's.

After 1984, she became a mainstream act. But before that, she wasn't that popular or recognized.

Her whole Ike & Tina thing only gained mainstream visibility after Tina's solo megastardom [[the 1986 "I, Tina" book, Tina's countless interviews for mass media conglomerations, the 1993 "What's Love" biopic etc.)

The black community knew she had been recording since the late 50s. They also are the ones that supported the Ike & Tina Turner Revue all during the 60s and up until she left in the 70s. They/she appeared on national television quite a bit in the 60s and 70s [[see Youtube.com). Being a record buyer from the black community, that is my point of reference. People in the music industry also knew Tina Turner had been around block and back for years prior to 1984! Tina Turner has never been a cult act with that type of following. I don't consider casual radio listeners as fans.

luke
09-26-2018, 08:28 PM
Ike and Tina were very popular on my college campus in the 70s... as were the Ikettes. They were very popular with Nutbush City Limits...

144man
09-27-2018, 07:04 AM
Hmmm , I thought the gov't decided what gets played there ???

Then you thought wrong. The BBC might have got leaned on from time to time, but is independent of the government.

Jaap
09-27-2018, 12:25 PM
Here in the Netherlands, we definitely know Tina Turner before her comeback in the 1980s. Ike & Tina had several big hits in the Netherlands, including "Proud Mary," "Nutbush City Limits," and my favorite "Baby, Get It On." Interestingly, "Let's Stay Together" was a bigger hit than "What's Love Got To Do With It" and subsequently "Let's Stay Together" was the big comeback song for us. I do remember that we thought she was REALLY old [[even though she was only 44 at the time, and just 5 years older that Diana Ross, who was not considered old).

Boogiedown
09-27-2018, 01:14 PM
Then you thought wrong. The BBC might have got leaned on from time to time, but is independent of the government.
I've always wanted to learn more about the BBC and how it worked back in the seventies and then the eighties if different.

So it wasn't a government entity? How was it funded?
Was it a body of people? How many? How did they get their positions?
How did the music get chosen?

Albator
09-27-2018, 01:16 PM
In France, the promo orchestrated around her was like she was coming back from prehistory.
I remembered her rather well because she was hot around 70/72 and I liked her sexy R&B numbers. I was born at the end of 1966, and in my classroom, I was the only one to know her, even vaguely.
Her heavy FM sound and leather mini dress seemed a betray to her classic songs.

marv2
09-27-2018, 02:59 PM
Here in the Netherlands, we definitely know Tina Turner before her comeback in the 1980s. Ike & Tina had several big hits in the Netherlands, including "Proud Mary," "Nutbush City Limits," and my favorite "Baby, Get It On." Interestingly, "Let's Stay Together" was a bigger hit than "What's Love Got To Do With It" and subsequently "Let's Stay Together" was the big comeback song for us. I do remember that we thought she was REALLY old [[even though she was only 44 at the time, and just 5 years older that Diana Ross, who was not considered old).

Jaap, "Let's Stay Together" also was the big comeback hit for Tina Turner for us in Detroit.

TomatoTom123
09-27-2018, 03:00 PM
I've always wanted to learn more about the BBC and how it worked back in the seventies and then the eighties if different.

So it wasn't a government entity? How was it funded?
Was it a body of people? How many? How did they get their positions?
How did the music get chosen?

Hey Boogie, I can't answer all of your questions, but I do know a bit about the ol' British Broadcasting Corporation. You're right, the BBC is not a government entity. It is funded by the general public through everyone [[or most people) having a "TV Licence"; you have to pay a yearly fee to watch the BBC. It's enforced in a way that means every household has to have a TV license to watch TV [[even if you don't watch the BBC). It's an independent organisation with lots of different parts to it, and much like any other organisation there's a hierarchy of positions, with the head of the BBC at the top.

marv2
09-27-2018, 03:02 PM
I've always wanted to learn more about the BBC and how it worked back in the seventies and then the eighties if different.

So it wasn't a government entity? How was it funded?
Was it a body of people? How many? How did they get their positions?
How did the music get chosen?

I always thought it was a government funded television outlet like the CBC in Canada and RT in Russia.

marv2
09-27-2018, 03:04 PM
Hey Boogie, I can't answer all of your questions, but I do know a bit about the ol' British Broadcasting Corporation. You're right, the BBC is not a government entity. It is funded by the general public through everyone [[or most people) having a "TV Licence"; you have to pay a yearly fee to watch the BBC. It's an independent organisation with lots of different parts to it, and much like any other organisation there's a hierarchy of positions.

So it set up along the lines of our cable systems? PBS is partially government funded and part public funded.

TomatoTom123
09-27-2018, 06:35 PM
I don't really know marv, I think I may have the reached the limit of my knowledge on this :rolleyes:

midnightman
09-27-2018, 07:42 PM
Wait, is this thread about what went wrong in Diana's career in the '90s or how successful Tina Turner was compared to DR? I mean I think it's clear WHY Tina was successful in the '80s. Sometimes the company you can keep can help you get you to where you wanna go. That's all I'm saying.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UnsteadyThunderousAllosaurus-max-1mb.gif

But Tina's career prior to 1984 was well known based on the performances she gave with Ike. I don't think in Tina's career that it mattered whether or not she had big hits or not. She had the live act down pat. Plus Proud Mary made her so iconic that if she didn't do it, they wouldn't go to her show. She knew that. It paid the bills until she finally was able to live comfortably the way she wanted, which took roughly 33 years [[1976-2009).

But let's not act like she wasn't a big deal BEFORE lol

She was quite prominent in the '60s and '70s. She might not have had consistent hits but one thing she was was prolific and she was in an era where artists actually developed growth. She went from a Southern-reared blues singer when A Fool in Love came out to a pop diva with the tendency to create drama when River Deep hit to a sophisticated funkateer in later recordings with Ike [[Come Together, I Want to Take You Higher, Bold Soul Sister, Proud Mary, Nutbush, Sexy Ida, etc.).

Of course her success wasn't as massive as the Supremes or Aretha but she was no joke in those days. It was just that no one knew what to do with her or probably weren't able to do much since Ike Turner had such control that they couldn't get to her or manage her the way they would've liked.

Tina got famous in those days for constantly staying on the road and delivering such a high-octane show that people who never bought her records became fans of her and began to slowly get into her catalog. The 1966-71 period of Tina's career was really important because it made her an icon of '60s and early '70s rock and roll.

Anyway, why do we keep on going off topic in these Supremes threads???

Also, the BBC and PBS? Lordt...

midnightman
09-27-2018, 07:57 PM
Here in the Netherlands, we definitely know Tina Turner before her comeback in the 1980s. Ike & Tina had several big hits in the Netherlands, including "Proud Mary," "Nutbush City Limits," and my favorite "Baby, Get It On." Interestingly, "Let's Stay Together" was a bigger hit than "What's Love Got To Do With It" and subsequently "Let's Stay Together" was the big comeback song for us. I do remember that we thought she was REALLY old [[even though she was only 44 at the time, and just 5 years older that Diana Ross, who was not considered old).

That's nuts how in those days being 44 was considered "dinosaur age"... in fact, when I saw one of BET's Notarized countdowns, Marvin's Sexual Healing was mentioned and someone said how they forgot about Marvin's age and how sexy he was because they initially thought he was a "dinosaur" and he was 43. Then when he died, they suddenly were like "he went too soon"... think that was also the same treatment they gave 42-year-old Elvis.

Boogiedown
09-28-2018, 12:49 AM
Hey Boogie, I can't answer all of your questions, but I do know a bit about the ol' British Broadcasting Corporation. You're right, the BBC is not a government entity. It is funded by the general public through everyone [[or most people) having a "TV Licence"; you have to pay a yearly fee to watch the BBC. It's enforced in a way that means every household has to have a TV license to watch TV [[even if you don't watch the BBC). It's an independent organisation with lots of different parts to it, and much like any other organisation there's a hierarchy of positions, with the head of the BBC at the top.

Thanks Tom Tom !
I should've been more specific in my original post . I am most curious about BBC radio. Was there a listening fee for it like the one for TV? Was it one radio station ? For The entire country. Same format all day long, each day?
Thanks!

an interesting topic needing its own thread I reckon.

TomatoTom123
09-28-2018, 10:19 AM
Thanks Tom Tom !
I should've been more specific in my original post . I am most curious about BBC radio. Was there a listening fee for it like the one for TV? Was it one radio station ? For The entire country. Same format all day long, each day?
Thanks!

an interesting topic needing its own thread I reckon.

Lol yea probably Boogie. Now BBC radio... no there wasn't and isn't a yearly fee like there is for the TV, but the money raised from the TV license is also used to fund BBC radio, and other parts of BBC. There are several different BBC radio stations now [[at least 5), not sure if there have always been [[probably not). BBC Radio One was the station that was founded in the late '60s to combat the rise of pirate radio stations playing all the 'hip' music. And while I would like to say that they did and still do follow a pretty similar daily format, I don't listen to BBC radio all day every day to confirm that. :D

144man
10-03-2018, 05:59 PM
Re Post #113

There used to be a Radio License, but that was eventually abolished when television became dominant.

TomatoTom123
10-03-2018, 08:19 PM
I did not know that martin, thank you, that makes a lot of sense. :D

milven
10-04-2018, 08:24 AM
... BBC Radio One was the station that was founded in the late '60s to combat the rise of pirate radio stations playing all the 'hip' music. ..

When I was in the army stationed in Germany in the sixties, we had the Armed Forces Network [[AFN), which played pretty much middle of the road music. I remember being able to hear something from the UK at night called Radio Luxenburg, which was terrifc and kept me up to date with soul music. Was this a pirate station?

144man
10-04-2018, 07:42 PM
When I was in the army stationed in Germany in the sixties, we had the Armed Forces Network [[AFN), which played pretty much middle of the road music. I remember being able to hear something from the UK at night called Radio Luxenburg, which was terrifc and kept me up to date with soul music. Was this a pirate station?

Radio Luxemburg was a commercial radio station broadcasting to the UK from Luxembourg. Its signal suffered from infuriating fading. I used to tune into AFN at the weekend when it played records from the Hot 100 that I couldn't hear on the BBC.