The Marvelettes: On Tour, 124 Upcoming Concerts!

[jobeterob]

The Marvelettes


124 upcoming concerts


Track your favorite artists and never miss them live.See all 124 upcoming concerts Concerts in US [[Change location) Sunday 27 February 2011
The Platters
with The Marvelettes and Cornell Gunter's Coasters at Rio Hotel and Casino - Crown Theater



Rio Hotel and Casino - Crown Theater Las Vegas, NV, US

http://www.songkick.com/artists/181718-marvelettes

[sophisticated_soul]

At Gladys Horton's recent Celebration of Life, Katherine Anderson-Schaffner spoke strongly about how difficult it was for Gladys to earn a living [[to take care of her family) because she had to compete with fake Marvelettes for work. Kat implored the audience to not only not go see any fake Marvelettes but to protest their appearance as well. I know I am preaching to the choir on this one. And I know that these faux Marvelettes have a legal basis for using the name. But moral corruption often has a legal basis. Kat felt very strongly about this and I'm passing on her publicly spoken words. The revenue the Marvelettes early hits brought in helped immensely in furthering the developement of Motown, it's sad that this is what it came to for them. And I know it's "show biz" but that doesn't make it right.

[jobeterob]

What I found most appalling was that the Marvelettes have more bookings than anyone............124. Glady Knight had 3 concerts! Diana Ross had 12. Some of the other Motown acts had a few bookings at City Halls and the like...........and the Marvelettes were in Las Vegas. Is this Rio Hotel old?

I wonder what kind of Platters are playing with them?

[randy_russi]

But those fake groups work for very low wages. It is a cryin' shame that the Marvelettes have been done this way since the
late '70s. Berry Gordy could stop it if he wanted to.
Just like Mary Wilson having so many problems trying to use the name Supremes, but Diana basically snapped her fingers
and used it for the Return to Love tour.
If Berry cared, there would never have been any fake Marvelettes.

[smark21]

Here are user reviews of the venue that's booked "The Marvelettes" along with "The Platters" and "The Coasters". Doesn't sound like too hot of a place:

http://www.yelp.com/biz/crown-theater-and-nightclub-las-vegas

[randy_russi]

Are the Platters and Coasters imposters too?

[jobeterob]

I'm pretty sure that most of the Coasters and Platters cannot possibly be originals, if any of them are.

What is scary is that those comments referred to by Smark21 says this is a new club and the shows are great. That really summarizes part of the difficulty.

[randy_russi]

Well, Carl Gardner can't work anymore, but his wife, Veda, who always managed his group, still manages "Carl Gardner's
Coasters". Last time I saw them Carl Jr. was the lead singer.

Herb Reed's Platters still work. He is an original.

[captainjames]

At Gladys Horton's recent Celebration of Life, Katherine Anderson-Schaffner spoke strongly about how difficult it was for Gladys to earn a living [[to take care of her family) because she had to compete with fake Marvelettes for work. Kat implored the audience to not only not go see any fake Marvelettes but to protest their appearance as well. I know I am preaching to the choir on this one. And I know that these faux Marvelettes have a legal basis for using the name. But moral corruption often has a legal basis. Kat felt very strongly about this and I'm passing on her publicly spoken words. The revenue the Marvelettes early hits brought in helped immensely in furthering the developement of Motown, it's sad that this is what it came to for them. And I know it's "show biz" but that doesn't make it right.

This is very sad but what have we become ? I am sure the crowds have to know those are not the real Marvelettes!!!

[theboyfromxtown]

James

Unfortunately, the crowd doesn't always know.

I saw the Marvelettes perform in a gay London night club [[The Copa at Earls Court-I know some of you guys went there too!). I was shocked to find them appearing at relatively short notice. When they appeared, it was clear they weren't the Marvelettes. The word got round that one of the ladies had deputised when an original was ill. None had American accents!

[Motown_M_1056]

Gladys Horton is no longer around to see this travesty being played out.

[tomato tom]

Cannot believe this is still playing out. Corporate America wins again. Hope the powers that be ensure Gladys family is provided for. And the other ORIGINAL MARVELETTES..So sad that this crap can happen, but hey, anyone want to start a Diana Ross and The Supremes group? Lots of drag queens out there who can lipsinc to Miss Ross.....Like anyone would let THAT happen. But The Marvelettes? Why does Mr Gordy hate the history so much...Paulo xxx

[marv2]

Mary Wilson and the F.A.M.E. Organization have spent years fighting this stuff. They have been successful in getting Anti-Fake Groups legislation passed in many States in the U.S.

[tomato tom]

And good for her too. I remember seeing The Platters many years ago. They were younger than me, and I was about 20 at the time. I wonder if I could get away with doing a Marvin Gaye GIG. Oh perhaps not. Im White, cant really sing..but hold on. these young kids probably wouldnt know he is dead and buried. I could make a fortune miming to his songs.Nah,,Im like Marvin, get stage fright...Paulo xxxx

[Motown_M_1056]

Can someone logically explain to me why Berry Gordy Jr. In 2011 would or should be responsible for these fake groups of Marvelettes' running around?

[luke]

Larry Marshak may own the name but can these Fakelettes still tour?-there is not one original in the group per legislation in many states. Do they have to stay out of those states? Or does ownership of the name override that? Be a very interesting court case!

[marv2]

And good for her too. I remember seeing The Platters many years ago. They were younger than me, and I was about 20 at the time. I wonder if I could get away with doing a Marvin Gaye GIG. Oh perhaps not. Im White, cant really sing..but hold on. these young kids probably wouldnt know he is dead and buried. I could make a fortune miming to his songs.Nah,,Im like Marvin, get stage fright...Paulo xxxx

You're killin' me Paulo, you're killin' me.........LOL!!!!!

[marv2]

Can someone logically explain to me why Berry Gordy Jr. In 2011 would or should be responsible for these fake groups of Marvelettes' running around?

Because THE MARVELETTES played a great part in his success!

[marv2]

Larry Marshak may own the name but can these Fakelettes still tour?-there is not one original in the group per legislation in many states. Do they have to stay out of those states? Or does ownership of the name override that? Be a very interesting court case!

That is a good question Luke. I do know fake groups are subject to substantial fines and penalties if they try performing in States that have implemented the legislation against them.

[Motown_M_1056]

Because THE MARVELETTES played a great part in his success!

I said logically. THAT makes no sense. Gordy no longer owns Motown in 2011 and many acts had or now have independent management. Why aren't the surviving Marvelettes fighting for their own legacy?

[theboyfromxtown]

Can someone logically explain to me why Berry Gordy Jr. In 2011 would or should be responsible for these fake groups of Marvelettes' running around?

You're on the money there....why should he.

Nevertheless, I would like to think that morally, he does have an obligation. He could help the cause by speaking out about it. It doesn't need to be rude but it could be done in a dignified way by making the public aware that those "fakes" are not the artists that he was involved with at Motown.

I have seen fellow Motown acts work alongside these fakes and we all know that Martha can be pretty vocal about such things. LOL

[Motown_M_1056]

You're on the money there....why should he.

Nevertheless, I would like to think that morally, he does have an obligation. He could help the cause by speaking out about it. It doesn't need to be rude but it could be done in a dignified way by making the public aware that those "fakes" are not the artists that he was involved with at Motown.

I have seen fellow Motown acts work alongside these fakes and we all know that Martha can be pretty vocal about such things. LOL

i CAN AGREE THAT he could speak out and might have some moral oblgation. But Gordy no longer owns Motown AND is not involved with the marketing of any act.

[sophisticated_soul]

i CAN AGREE THAT he could speak out and might have some moral oblgation. But Gordy no longer owns Motown AND is not involved with the marketing of any act.

My understanding is that it was Gordy who permitted Larry Marshak to use the name Marvelettes originally. I cannot quote a source but that is my understanding.

[theboyfromxtown]

On the money yet again!!

And that is a great shame. I only wish he was involved.

[jobeterob]

I don't believe anyone is saying that Berry Gordy could fix this up now; I think the point was that it shouldn't have happened and could have been fixed up in the past. But, yes, it is too late now.

Generally, trade marks and patents are federal jurisdiction and take precedence over any state legislation. But this is a messy messy area of law and as a result, fans often don't like the law; one of the strange results was the FLOS were granted the trademark for the name Supremes in the UK.

There was a lengthy article written by a Los Angeles lawyer and he posted it on here a few months back; I know that for the average fan, it was very difficult to digest and make sense of and there were some suggestions made that were not popular - along the line of "throw the words 'sounds of' 'tribute to' etc. in front of the name and that should satisfy everyone when a trademark is involved; and of course, from the fans & artists point of view, it is not.

And then you have a bunch of new and young fans and Vegas people who think it's a great show.........just like the one at the White House which had next to no real connection with anything to do with Motown.

[satipe]

I know where both sides are coming from regarding Berry Gordy's responsibility but their song being his first #1 allowed him to do "trial and errors" and experiment for the other acts. He tried calling them The Darnells so he could have two groups under one membership in order to make more money. He sent very young girls out to test what was good for business and what was bad. I hate to give the analogy but they were his science lab white mice in order to conduct experiments as to what to do with everyone else on the roster.

In the end, The Marvelettes do deserve so much better!

[tomato tom]

Did The Marvelettes give Berry Gordy Jr [[Actually he was the 2nd) AND Motown records its FIRST NUMBER ONE HIT RECORD on the U.S. Pop Charts???? You would like to think that he, with his clout and money, he WOULD like to rectify the wrongs done to the ORIGINAL Marevelettes. Dont seem like it to me. But I guess California dreamin destroys the senses. As the Andantes and Funk Brothers learned. One Hit Movie?.....Paulo..XXX

[juicefree20]

Guys, I hate to tell you this, but aside from the hardcore fans, the casual fan could care less who's on these stages, much less in these lineups.

People like us who truly respect these artists & appreciate them & their legacies, we care & things like this offend the hell out of us.

UNFORTUNATELY, we make up the vast MINORITY of these audiences. The vast majority simply want to hear the songs, watch people who are sharply-dressed sing those songs, while they reminisce about better days.

The fact that in many cases, the artists singing the songs were all of 2 years-old when they were originally made makes absolutely ZERO DIFFERENCE to fans like them. They don't care & when you point out the truth to them, they are totally indifferent. They'll tell you that these people sound like the records & it seems as though that's good enough for them.

What it is is a damn shame, that's what it is!

[Penny]

I care and I spit on them.

[tomato tom]

So true, So True..and So sad. At least we are here and can try and make,maybe, a little history lesson for those who dont know. Paulo xxxxx

[juicefree20]

Paulo was joking, but when you really look at what he said, it only serves to illustrate how ridiculous this whole thing is. Let's look at Paulo's statement & see why...


I wonder if I could get away with doing a Marvin Gaye GIG. Oh perhaps not...

And Paulo is 1000% correct. No music fan would go for someone who's all of 35 or 45 trying to assert that they're Sam Cooke. And even if not for the fact that Sam has been long-dead & everyone knows it, if ANY imposter were to try to pass him/herself off as Paul McCartney, Barbra Streisand or even Bette Midler, they'd be tarred & feathered & no audience would tolerate that type of fraud.

So why is it acceptable behavior when it applies to Soul music groups?

I simply find it wierd that this is a wide-spread practice which is only successfully perpetrated when it applies to groups, with singers mimicking original lead-singers whom are long-dead, or in many cases, are still singing.

Why do fans accept one, when they would never accept the other? People who wouldn't accept a switch from a Coach bag to a Roach bag, a Rolex watch to a Boleks watch or a BMW to a BM, continually accept fake groups as "the norm".

And while ignorance of the situation seems acceptable to them, it's no excuse. Seriously, if you're about 65, then you're the SAME AGE as the singer whom you're paying to see. If those people on that stage are between 35 - 45, then you're NOT SEEING THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.

It's as simple as that & any substitution should be one hell of an insult to your intelligence!

Seriously, it always irks me when I see someone who's my age on a stage or on tv talking about "You made this a Number One hit for us back in 1963..."

You mean, before you were even an egg in your mother's fallopian tube, or a sperm cell waiting to go out for a swim???

Now that is TRULY a star, right there, I'll tell you that!

THAT...is why this nonsense continues unabated.

[marv2]

I know where both sides are coming from regarding Berry Gordy's responsibility but their song being his first #1 allowed him to do "trial and errors" and experiment for the other acts. He tried calling them The Darnells so he could have two groups under one membership in order to make more money. He sent very young girls out to test what was good for business and what was bad. I hate to give the analogy but they were his science lab white mice in order to conduct experiments as to what to do with everyone else on the roster.

In the end, The Marvelettes do deserve so much better!

Amen! I was sure someone would understand all of this.

[marv2]

So true, So True..and So sad. At least we are here and can try and make,maybe, a little history lesson for those who dont know. Paulo xxxxx

Exactly Paulo and I for one appreciate your understanding.

[skooldem1]

Its a sad situation. Mary Wilson gets major props for being on the frontline of this fight.

[robbert]

Mary could raise her voice again, if she would or cared to do so. Some fights deserve to never stop and this is definitely one of them!
She was involved in this case and in the FAME organisation for many years and had relatively success in many states, she could pull a few strings, I suppose.
Why doesn't Mary join forces with Katherine and Martha [[and others) to revive the subject? Unite their influence, so they will be heard, at least?

[juicefree20]

Needless to say, I've covered a lot of shows over the last 7 years & the overall indifference shown by the majority of "fans" is distressing. Here's just one example of what I'm talking about. Please note the way that the clip is titled, then further consider that this information is EASY to confirm. THere's no shortage of information available, BUT...all too often, you get this kind of sloppy crap from so-called fans & to me, it's indefensible...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13YNwt0hi7g&feature=related

This is another reason why these situations continue & why I place more blame on the ticket-buyers. No one with any sense would go to a restaurant & not verify that the meal that they're ordering isn't legit. But when it comes to music groups, they don't do due diligence.

I can guarantee you that when The Beach Boys are performing, all of their fans know who the members of the group are, likewise with The Rolling Stones. Why isn't that the case for Soul groups?

I believe that the biggest reasons is because most of these "fans" are more into praising MOTOWN MUSIC as an all-inclusive entity, as opposed to the majority of the individual artists who've made it. I fear that for many of these casual fans [[who also purchase the majority of the oldie tickets), Motown has simply become a generic term & they wouldn't be able to tell you a Blinky from a Original from a Spinner.

Over the years I've heard the music of Wilson Pickett & Aretha Franklin described as "Motown" & wasn't it Rolanda Watts who was interviewing a famous Philly group & confused the two?

Most of these fans care less about the singers of these songs. For them, the songs are the thing & they don't give a damn who's singing them. That is, so long as they're on-stage in a tux or gowns & they can't reminisce about life before their own hair went grey & they had the need for a little blue pill.

They could care less that the ORIGINAL artists who made those songs are losing gigs because they're too damn lazy or unconcerned to insist upon getting the genuine article.

[marv2]

Needless to say, I've covered a lot of shows over the last 7 years & the overall indifference shown by the majority of "fans" is distressing. Here's just one example of what I'm talking about. Please note the way that the clip is titled, then further consider that this information is EASY to confirm. THere's no shortage of information available, BUT...all too often, you get this kind of sloppy crap from so-called fans & to me, it's indefensible...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13YNwt0hi7g&feature=related

This is another reason why these situations continue & why I place more blame on the ticket-buyers. No one with any sense would go to a restaurant & not verify that the meal that they're ordering isn't legit. But when it comes to music groups, they don't do due diligence.

I can guarantee you that when The Beach Boys are performing, all of their fans know who the members of the group are, likewise with The Rolling Stones. Why isn't that the case for Soul groups?

I believe that the biggest reasons is because most of these "fans" are more into praising MOTOWN MUSIC as an all-inclusive entity, as opposed to the majority of the individual artists who've made it. I fear that for many of these casual fans [[who also purchase the majority of the oldie tickets), Motown has simply become a generic term & they wouldn't be able to tell you a Blinky from a Original from a Spinner.

Over the years I've heard the music of Wilson Pickett & Aretha Franklin described as "Motown" & wasn't it Rolanda Watts who was interviewing a famous Philly group & confused the two?

Most of these fans care less about the singers of these songs. For them, the songs are the thing & they don't give a damn who's singing them. That is, so long as they're on-stage in a tux or gowns & they can't reminisce about life before their own hair went grey & they had the need for a little blue pill.

They could care less that the ORIGINAL artists who made those songs are losing gigs because they're too damn lazy or unconcerned to insist upon getting the genuine article.

Right on Juice! I've said the same thing many times especially how annoyed I get when people lump every Black musical artist from the sixties into Motown. They do it often on Youtube and it just agrivates me to no end. You are right, it is the audience that truly has the power to stop this madness or as Mary Wilson has put it, " This identity theft!"

[marv2]

I just viewed the clip. First of all David is doing his solo material, back by a group of male singers that are NOT the Temptations! They are working hard to give you the "imagery" of the Temptations, but David never performed that particular song in a group setting to begin with and I think the poster of the video was trying too hard to get folks to view his upload...........

[juicefree20]

Marv:

Indeed. There are a lot of people who mislabel their clips for that reason. Unfortunately, when you read through the comments, it becomes obvious that there are a lot of people who really don't know the truth & have never bothered to check to see what is what.

Fortunately, it also becomes quite clear whom the REAL music lovers are, as they waste ZERO TIME in letting the person know that their clip is far from authentic & they're not always polite in letting them know it.

[marv2]

Marv:

Indeed. There are a lot of people who islabel their clips for that reason. Unfortuantely, when you read through the comments, it becomes obviosu that there are a lotof people who really don't know the truth & have never bothered to check to see what is what.

Fortunately, it also becomes quite clear wo the REAL music lovers are, as they wast ZERO TIME in letting the person know that their clip is far from authentic & they're not always polite in letting them know it.

I'll admit I am that way sometimes too in letting them know. I could try harder to be more polite, hehehehehehe!

[jobeterob]

These are very good posts by Juicefree. They cut to the core of the problem and that is that there is a market and that market drives these concert dates.

[markdtiller]

I heard Berry lost the name in a crap game!

[detmotownguy]

I often wonder if picketing these venues would help to educate the public on the truth of the event. There has never been a full court press to help these struggling artists. In retrospect, this a cause that Oprah or Larry King could have tackled long ago. The media has to be aware of the situation, but the stealing of an artists music legacy does not have the sensationalism necessary to sell their airtime. I have had enough of Lindsy Lunatic Lohan and Charlie Sheen to last me a lifetime. But they can throw that crap in our face 24/7 and we eat it up. A far more serious is that it was difficult for a legitimate artist such as Gladys Horton to perform their craft. this just burns me up, I canoot even rant anymore about this.

[sophisticated_soul]

I heard Berry lost the name in a crap game!

Sadly, I believe that is true.:[[

[juicefree20]

Detmotownguy;

That is highly doubtful.

For one thing, most of the casual fans seem to believe that because these artists are on records, performed on TV & were once stars, that all of them are living just lovely. They don't seem to grasp the concept of publishing, royalties being split god knows how many ways, recoupables & the like. The majority of these casual fans [[whom happen to make up the overwhelming majority), believe that most of these people are rich beyond belief.

I can't tell you how many artists have spoken to me about people being shocked that they actually work jobs like "regular" people. Adding insult to injury, some people will even pretty much accuse them of lying & that they're not "So & So", because they used to see "So & So" on TV & they have a few of their records.

And that often comes from people whom are actually THEIR FANS, so, one can only imagine what those who really don't know must think.

More than that, you'll likely piss-off both the management of the venue, as well as the patrons, who didn't come out to deal with anyone picketing, as it just doesn't fit in with their plans for a fun night out.

What is really necessary is for fans to pay not just attention to the music, but more attention to the people who actually sang all of those songs which have brought them all of their happy memories. The day that the CASUAL fan cares more about the singers than they do the song, is the day that this crap will cease, because perhaps at that point, the fans will decide to do the right thing & stop aiding & abetting those who are helping to prevent the LEGITIMATE artists from performing, therby taking food off of their tables.

[juicefree20]

And the courts can also begin to use some damn common sense about this whole issue surrounding who has the right to the name of a group.

For example, Billy Brown, Al Goodman & Harry Ray created a whole bunch of classics under the name "The Moments". For 9 years [[even after they had ceased recording for their label), those 3 men brought prominence to that name. THEY WERE The Moments...POINT BLANK!

Despite that, after leaving their label, they were stripped of that name & a judge would've supported that. Now I don't give a damn what any judge would've said, it was morally wrong for them to be stripped of that name, as it wasn't THE NAME that made the group, but rather THE MEN who made THE GROUP!

Please tell me, what's wrong with this picture...

Courts have routinely ruled against THE MEMBERS of a group, cited the value of THE NAME of the group as the reason for said ruling, while continually overlooking the obvious fact that it was those very MEMBERS who gave the group name its VALUE!

Does that seem to make any sense?

It doesn't to me, yet, this kind of thing happens all of the time. There are folks who are someone's 3rd uncle on someone's cousin's side of the family of a member of the 3rd iteration of a group, who have laid claim to group names & I guess because they filed a claim just in the nick of time, sometimes, they've actually won.

And THAT is bullshit & courts should use better discernment & common sense as regards what is fair & proper.

[MIKEW-UK]

Strong sense of unity displayed on the forum, but then true soul music fans do care greatly about the artists and are extremely supportive of them both in terms of buying product and supporting live appearances by genuine artists.

Juice was bang on, Joe Public, i.e. the vast majority have absolutely zero knowledge or interest in whether performances are delivered by genuine groups or impostors. All they are interested in is a cabaret style performance along the same lines as an Abba tribute band. Except Abba would pursue legal action against Abba impostors, but soul artists simply don't have the funding to pursue expensive litigation with poor prospects.

The great public is entirely disconnected from this issue, because their absolute priority is the song, not the performer. They couldn’t care less who the original performers were.

And driving this dumbing down process over many years are the media and the music business, driving a wedge between the original artists and their original recordings.

Here in the UK for example, prime time tv has had ghastly X Factor Motown nights.....Westlife an Irish boy band doing Motown performances all over TV….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A2bZXmn6BM

Michael MacDonald getting major airtime with his two commercially successful Motown cover albums.

Rod Stewart and his Soul Book album in 2009

In 2010 a sincere tribute to Motown by Phil Collins, the ‘Going Back’ album featuring covers of Motown songs…….

And then Craig David Signed Sealed Delivered album of Motown covers…..

And coming soon, 70 years old Cliff Richard doing an album of Motown collaborations…………….. http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/cliff-richard-to-team-up-with-the-jackson-5_1194851

And the original artists? I can’t say they have been forgotten by the general public, because most didn’t even get any true recognition in the first place; for the most part their faces remained unseen and gave them anonymity in the public’s mind.. Sad but true.

I suppose at least the composers are getting royalties!

[MIKEW-UK]

And the White House tribute to Motown to these eyes seemed to continue the process of distancing the music from the performers.....distinctly non-Motown performer line up in good measure.

[detmotownguy]

And the courts can also begin to use some damn common sense about this whole issue surrounding who has the right to the name of a group.

For example, Billy Brown, Al Goodman & Harry Ray created a whole bunch of classics under the name "The Moments". For 9 years [[even after they had ceased recording for their label), those 3 men brought prominence to that name. THEY WERE The Moments...POINT BLANK!

Despite that, after leaving their label, they were stripped of that name & a judge would've supported that. Now I don't give a damn what any judge would've said, it was morally wrong for them to be stripped of that name, as it wasn't THE NAME that made the group, but rather THE MEN who made THE GROUP!

Please tell me, what's wrong with this picture...

Courts have routinely ruled against THE MEMBERS of a group, cited the value of THE NAME of the group as the reason for said ruling, while continually overlooking the obvious fact that it was those very MEMBERS who gave the group name its VALUE!

Does that seem to make any sense?

It doesn't to me, yet, this kind of thing happens all of the time. There are folks who are someone's 3rd uncle on someone's cousin's side of the family of a member of the 3rd iteration of a group, who have laid claim to group names & I guess because they filed a claim just in the nick of time, sometimes, they've actually won.

And THAT is bullshit & courts should use better discernment & common sense as regards what is fair & proper.


I was in Las Vegas buying tickets for a show and the guy was going to see the Platter and the Coasters and asked him if there was an original members in the group. He said he did not know, and he really did not care. It was just something to do that was cheap. So I guess you right. Also, on the subject of claiming right to a group's name, didn't the FLOS obtain the Supremes trademark or right to the name in Europe. If that is true, how the hell could that happen? I mean it is the Supremes- makes no sense.

[luke]

I believe Martha has appeared at concerts with the Fake marvelettes, citing financial considerations.

[marv2]

I was in Las Vegas buying tickets for a show and the guy was going to see the Platter and the Coasters and asked him if there was an original members in the group. He said he did not know, and he really did not care. It was just something to do that was cheap. So I guess you right. Also, on the subject of claiming right to a group's name, didn't the FLOS obtain the Supremes trademark or right to the name in Europe. If that is true, how the hell could that happen? I mean it is the Supremes- makes no sense.

That is a damned shame if that is true about the FLO's and trademarking the Supremes name in Europe. I guess if you don't have any originality, then steal it!

[jobeterob]

I heard they obtained it and it was granted to them because the name was not being used by anyone else in the UK.

[marv2]

I heard they obtained it and it was granted to them because the name was not being used by anyone else in the UK.

It was still wrong! Is that why they rarely get gigs in the United States? Even still, it has not helped them much as I am sure the people in the U.K. know who the Supremes are.

[jobeterob]

May be wrong but it is the law in the UK.

But didn't Mary and Scherrie and Lynda kind of kiss and make up over this and now call Lynda and Scherrie call themselves, "formerly of". But I agree, it doesnt matter much; they attract only small time attention from a core of fans and people who want to hear the songs regardless of who sings them.

[jobeterob]

Line-up
Julieta Venegas
The Platters
Cornell Gunter's Coasters
The Marvelettes
Venue
Crown Theater and Nightclub

3700 W. Flamingo Rd.

89103

Las Vegas, NV, US

Venue info and map

[randy_russi]

Yes, I meant on my post that Berry Gordy could've stopped this decades ago if he wanted to. It is ashame, however, that
I have seen booking agencies on the internet representing fake Temps, Tops, & Supremes as well. I believe they were
somewhere in Europe.
I also once was told there was a stipulation with the fake Marvelettes--they cannot do TV work or interviews with the
press. I did see a late night TV appearance on some kind of "in concert" oldies show, but I have never seen any articles
or newspapers with quotes or interviews with them. And, apparently, there are several sets being booked around.

[markdtiller]

A few years back I went ot a gay club in London to see what was advertised as the the Supremes [[FLOS Scherrie Lynda & Sundray at the time) on a bill with the 3 Degrees line up - the FLOS had been there before. Coincidentally Mary had been ovee the road the week before with Martha & Edwin Starr doing the Motown Story tour: Dancing In The Streets. However it wasn't even the FLOS it was 3 miscellaneous young black girls who were not old enough to be alive when "Baby Love" came out, if not "Stoned Love". I complained to the mangement and me and my friends got our money back. I asked who these girls were, thinking perhaps one was former Mary backing vocalist Kaaren Raagland, when they were being adverised with SLS pictures, he said they were contracted by Motown to do touring gigs!!! Even the FLOS have fakes - the 3 Degrees were working with them and this fake girl group was top of the bill! Of course they may not have known that until they got there.

[marv2]

That is true Randy. I had a videotape from the early 90's of these three girls performing as "The Marvelettes" they were all in their 20's. I also had a video story of the several fake Shirelles groups that were out there performing around the country.

[jobeterob]

The FLOS with the Three Degrees! Now that would have attracted the hardcore.

It is too bad Berry and Motown did not understand the far reaching consequences of what happened with the Marvelettes; as others have said, the Marvelettes were first and quite a bit of practicing was done with them and their name.

[detmotownguy]

I heard they obtained it and it was granted to them because the name was not being used by anyone else in the UK.



I wonder how the remaining original Sups felt? As controlling as Motown was, I am suprised they dropped the ball. I wonder how many other group names could be picked up for a few bucks. What a shame.

[tomato tom]

All very valid points! Paulo xxxx

[jobeterob]

I think history shows that Diana, Jean, Cindy, and Susaye didn't care about usage of the name or it's trademark; Lynda and Scherrie must have wanted it or they wouldn't have applied. I don't think it made Mary happy; I believe she opposed it and lost because the name had not been used in the UK. [[It is possible that someone else might have had the name trademarked; if they did, they lost it because it wasn't being used.) All it did was complicate the relationship between the 70's Supremes/FLOs and give the fans another bone to pick over.

All of this with the Marvelettes shows how important trademarks and patents are and how legally strong they are.

I wonder if there are young groups out there today making the same mistakes.

[topdiva1]

Cindy Birdsong did use the name Supreme's in the UK when she tried for a solo career. The truth is as nice as she is - alone - she cannot command and do a whole show - ala Ross - Wilson _ Terrell - Green Etc.

Those that fought for the name spent much money for really nothing.

[marv2]

Cindy Birdsong did use the name Supreme's in the UK when she tried for a solo career. The truth is as nice as she is - alone - she cannot command and do a whole show - ala Ross - Wilson _ Terrell - Green Etc.

Those that fought for the name spent much money for really nothing.

I saw a videotape of one of Cindy Birdsong's concerts [[at the Hippodrome I believe). It was nice, but not very strong.

[randy_russi]

I had heard that Berry Gordy lost the name, but then one of the people closely associated said it was actually Smokey
who either gave the name away or lost it in a game.
The fake Shirelles groups were taken to court by the original Shirelles way back in the 70s. At least one major fake
Shirelles group. Shirley told me all about that years ago.

[marv2]

I had heard that Berry Gordy lost the name, but then one of the people closely associated said it was actually Smokey
who either gave the name away or lost it in a game.
The fake Shirelles groups were taken to court by the original Shirelles way back in the 70s. At least one major fake
Shirelles group. Shirley told me all about that years ago.

Randy, the program I saw from around the late 80's , early 90's they found the guy in the Bronx that had 3 separate Shirelles groups that he managed and sent out on the road. In the program they interviewed Shirley, Doris and Beverly. All three were shocked and rather pissed by the who situation.

Yes, I heard it was Smokey too.

[theboyfromxtown]

Cindy Birdsong did use the name Supreme's in the UK when she tried for a solo career. The truth is as nice as she is - alone - she cannot command and do a whole show - ala Ross - Wilson _ Terrell - Green Etc.

Those that fought for the name spent much money for really nothing.

Topdiva1-I attended Cindy's concerts and kept the adverts but I can't see where she is using the name "Supremes" in the promotional literature I have. Mention was made in newspaper reports though. Is that what you meant?

The night Cindy performed at the Hippodrome, Diana Ross was upstairs in the restaurant. I saw her myself initially but then a swarm of photographers and others gathered around her. It was exciting for fans but real sad for poor Cindy cos she could see everyone watching what was going on upstairs instead of watching her. Diana was in the newspapers next day and, as you would expect, the word Supreme was everywhere! British fans greatly respected Diana for supporting her fellow Supreme.

Talking of Supremes, Mary is performing tonight in the UK, in fact Mary has chosen the UK to celebrate her birthday this week. *smile*

[juicefree20]

As regards the name issue, we have to consider the times that this occurred in.

Honestly, how many people back then could've predicted that the issue of names would become the albatross that it's become? Back then, you never really heard issues about this kind of thing. There were groups who were summarily fired & replaced, as when The Five Crowns replaced the entire Drifters group & there were a few groups that formed splinter groups.

With that said, it was nothing like it is today, where the stakes are much higher, as these groups are much older, with a far lesser shelf life. As most of them didn't really get paid back then, they're working through what should be their "Golden Years". Unfortunately, many of them are hurting financially & really need this money.

Another factor is that back then, while understanding the value of being members of a group such as, let's say, "Juice And The Five Shadows", that value wasn't so much linked to working 30 years down the road, but rather the perks & special treatment that it afforded them back THEN.

I doubt back then that anyone told these groups about trademarking names & the truth is that even had they trademarked their name, they'd likely had to have given it away in order to be signed. Given a choice between being an unsigned group with a name & no records [[which is really what most of those kids really wanted back then), I'm sure that many would've given that name away for the opportunity to have their voices blasting over the radio & being the envy of all of their friends & the wonderful, shall we say, "fringe benefits" that came along with that.

Tying that together is the fact that a lot of these groups simply never gave their name a second thought. Many of them believed that as they had sang in said group, they're on records & album covers & EVERYONE knows that they were a member of that group, that they'd always be able to use that name. Think back...the oldies craze didn't really kick in until around 1969, when Richard Nader put on the first Rock & Roll revival shows. Truthfully, it didn't REALLY kick in until 1973, when Dick Clark, WOR-FM & others began pushing those oldie LPs & I'll never forget the impression that the commercial for "The Greatest Hits Of Rock & Roll" left on me, with James Sheppard blowing that fade from [[OOPS!!!) "A Thousand Miles Away" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKxEGQXt8AU

I guess that I'm saying that I don't believe that 40 or 50 years ago, those young men & women could've dreamed that they & their music would be in such demand, would be so beloved & treasured as time has proven that it was & still is.

Just one mans take on it.

[marv2]

As regards the name issue, we have to consider the times that this occurred it.

Honestly, how many people back then could've predicted that the issue of names would become the albatross that it's become? Back then, you never really heard issues of this kind of thing. There were groups who were summarily fired & replaced, as when The Five Crowns replaced the entire Drifters group & there were a few groups that formed splinter groups.

With that said, it was nothing like it is today, where the stakes are much higher, as these groups are much older, with a far lesser shelf life. As most of them didn't really get paid back then, they're working through what should be their "Golden Years". Unfortunately, many of them are hurting financially & really need this money.

Another factor is that back then, while understanding the value of being members of a group such as, let's say, "Juice And The Five Shadows", that value wasn't so much linked to working 30 years down the road, but rather the perks & special treatment that it afforded them back THEN.

I doubt back then that anyone told these groups about trademarking names & the truth is that even had they trademarked their name, they'd likely had to have given it away in order to be signed. Given a choice between being an unsigned group with a name & no records [[which is really what most of those kids really wanted back then), I'm sure that many would've given that name away for the opportunity to have their voices blasting over the radio & being the envy of all of their friends & the wonderful, shall we say, "fringe benefits" that came along with that.

Tying that together is the fact that a lot of these groups simply never gave their name a second thought. Many of them believed that as they had sang in said group, they're on records & album covers & EVERYONE knows that they were a member of that group, that they'd always be able to use that name. Think back...the oldies craze didn't really kick in until around 1969, when Richard Nader put on the first Rock & Roll revival shows. Truthfully, it didn't REALLY kick in until 1973, when Dick Clark, WOR-FM & others began pushing those oldie LPs & I'll never forget the impression that the commercial for "The Greatest Hits Of Rock & Roll" left on me, with James Sheppard blowing that fade from "Daddy's Home" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKxEGQXt8AU

I guess that I'm saying that I don't believe that 40 or 50 years ago, those young men & women could've dreamed that them & their music would be in such demand, would be so beloved & treasured as time has proven that it was & still is.

Just one mans take on it.

You got a good take Juice. For some reason the image of Elbridge "Al" Bryant of the Original Temptations popped up in my mind..........

[jobeterob]

The above is also the reason that for $50,000.00, these artists would sign away all royalties and all rights.

I'm not sure if it was Mary Wells or Martha Reeves that said they had no idea people would be singing My Guy or Dancing in the Street 50 years after it was released.

[theboyfromxtown]

It was Martha.

[randy_russi]

I didn't know about the Shirelles being "faked" in the late 80s/early 90s. I only remember Shirley telling me about the
fake Shirelles of the 70s. It seems the woman fronting them had been a background singer for someone like Ray
Charles[[!). I remember this because at the time she was "exposed" a magazine did an article on her--Rock Magazine,
I think. I do remember that Spookey told me saw a group of fake Shirelles in the '80s calling themselves the "Nu-Shirelles",
but singing all the old hits.

[marv2]

Randy do you remember a program called "PM Magazine"? They were the ones that produced the expose I was referring to in the 80's. They showed film of several Shirelles acts on stage with one wearing cheap costumes singing in a school gym somewhere.

[luke]

Did Cindy and Diana pose for pics together?

[theboyfromxtown]

Did Cindy and Diana pose for pics together?

Luke...you mean at the Hippodrome. Yes, there were pictures of Diana and Cindy together.

[captainjames]

John,
Did you go see Mary ?


Topdiva1-I attended Cindy's concerts and kept the adverts but I can't see where she is using the name "Supremes" in the promotional literature I have. Mention was made in newspaper reports though. Is that what you meant?

The night Cindy performed at the Hippodrome, Diana Ross was upstairs in the restaurant. I saw her myself initially but then a swarm of photographers and others gathered around her. It was exciting for fans but real sad for poor Cindy cos she could see everyone watching what was going on upstairs instead of watching her. Diana was in the newspapers next day and, as you would expect, the word Supreme was everywhere! British fans greatly respected Diana for supporting her fellow Supreme.

Talking of Supremes, Mary is performing tonight in the UK, in fact Mary has chosen the UK to celebrate her birthday this week. *smile*

[randy_russi]

Yes, I do remember "PM Magazine". I also remember the original Shangri-Las on Entertainment Tonight going into a rage
over a fake group of Shangs.
Eventually, Dick Fox, who had the name and managed them and is also married to one, ended up giving the originals
a percentage of their work. He also agreed that while they are introduced and perform as the Shangri-Las, they can't
actually say they ARE the Shangri-las, although, "Bo" who has been with the fakes for years, has a strong resemblence
to one of the dark-haired twins and i can tell she lets people think she's one of them in the old pics.
They also pretend that Dick Fox's wife, who is actually named Mary [[but not a blonde), is Bo's daughter.
Then the third member is always a girl with long blonde hair.

[marv2]

Yes, I do remember "PM Magazine". I also remember the original Shangri-Las on Entertainment Tonight going into a rage
over a fake group of Shangs.
Eventually, Dick Fox, who had the name and managed them and is also married to one, ended up giving the originals
a percentage of their work. He also agreed that while they are introduced and perform as the Shangri-Las, they can't
actually say they ARE the Shangri-las, although, "Bo" who has been with the fakes for years, has a strong resemblence
to one of the dark-haired twins and i can tell she lets people think she's one of them in the old pics.
They also pretend that Dick Fox's wife, who is actually named Mary [[but not a blonde), is Bo's daughter.
Then the third member is always a girl with long blonde hair.

So much deception. I know at least one of the original members was from here on Long Island and at least one has passed on.

[arrr&bee]

That's why i feel so blessed to have seen these performers in thier primes,those of us old enough to remember the great groups as we all do here won't be taken in by any fakes,it's the connection that we have from our youth for me there are only three marvelettes left-wanda,kat,ann and we all know that unfortunately they will never grace the stage together again as much as i love the mighty temps when the day comes that otis williams is no longer with them is the day the temptations are no more as far as i'm concerned you have to have an original member for that link,just as duke is the link for the four tops you all know what i mean there has to be an original link for me.

[randy_russi]

marv2, the two Ganser twins, the dark-haired girls, are both deceased. Betty & Mary Weiss are still around. Mary has a
website and put out a new CD a couple years ago. Betty goes by the name Liz now. I thought all of them were from
Queens, NY. I saw them perform in 1966.

[jobeterob]

Those Motown groups starting with the Marvelettes, continued by Martha and the Vandellas, and defined by the Supremes and especially Diana Ross established a continuing trademark for the girl group and that won't be taken away. Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to convert that into money for most of those people due to poor decisions made in the 1960's and 1970's. Still, they did establish the look and the style.

[marv2]

marv2, the two Ganser twins, the dark-haired girls, are both deceased. Betty & Mary Weiss are still around. Mary has a
website and put out a new CD a couple years ago. Betty goes by the name Liz now. I thought all of them were from
Queens, NY. I saw them perform in 1966.

Randy thanks for that information. Well, Long Island claims them as OURS! hehehehehe! I think that maybe Mary Weiss lives out here. Technically Queens is also a part of Long Island, but I know everyone associates it with the city.

[randy_russi]

A few years ago I read a very long, extensive interview with Mary Weiss. It may be posted on her website. Check it out.
Maybe at www.maryweiss.com

[marv2]

A few years ago I read a very long, extensive interview with Mary Weiss. It may be posted on her website. Check it out.
Maybe at www.maryweiss.com

I will check it out. Thanks!