Cindy

[blueskies]

Does anyone know when Cindy was chosen to replace Florence in The Supremes....was she selected on 'looks' and availability only....or, what she sounded like vocally played into it? I'm wondering if they even knew what she sounded like [[did she audition?) or they weren't particularly interested in her voice? Just wondering.

[luke]

I read in one of the books she did sing for Berry--possibly a Supremes tune and he reallly liked her voice. It has been said that a main factor was she sought Diana's advice on makeup, hair...when Cindy was a Bluebelle and visited the Supremes and Diana liked her. When she got the call she thought it was a joke and hung up the first time!

[mowest]

Cindy's physical resemblance to Florence was, supposedly, one reason she was chosen.
When she once subbed for Florence at the Hollywood Bowl, it is said, and no one was any the wiser.

[Roberta75]

Cindy's physical resemblance to Florence was, supposedly, one reason she was chosen.
When she once subbed for Florence at the Hollywood Bowl, it is said, and no one was any the wiser.

I've heard that too mowest. Poor, poor Flo.

[randy_russi]

Well, you have to take into consideration that at the Hollywood Bowl performance the audience wasn't all that close to
the stage. Cindy resembled Florence, however, how do we know no one knew? If anyone in the audience DID know,
who would they say something to? The box office?

[BayouMotownMan]

Diana started talking to Berry about Cindy in mid to late 1966. This was after Berry decided to hold off on pulling Diana out of the group when he wisely realized it was too soon. So by her staying, they had to start dealing with Flo's problems.

When Flo missed the New Orleans shows, which I believe was early 1967 [[I'd have to research the exact timeline), Cindy was first called. She knew for some time that she was being considered but never told her fellow Bluebelles at the insistence of Gordy and his advisers as there were legalities with contracts Cindy signed with Patti's group. She did audition for Berry. Then she subbed fro Flo and was put on salary. Then, the decision was made that Flo would play out the dates in Vegas and Cindy was to join. But, Flo never finished the Vegas gig. Cindy was sent to Vegas because this had been anticipated. She had pretty much been traveling with the group for a couple of months.

Cindy didn't resemble Flo in the face that much, but they were both voluptuous, tall, bigger girls. Cindy, I think, may have been prettier than Flo but not as good a singer. In any event, as long as she could handle the top harmony, which she had done with Sarah Dash, then that was good enough.

Andy Skurow could likely fill in a better timeline, but this is the way I remember it, from talking with Mary, Randy and others who were around at that time.

[marv2]

Well, you have to take into consideration that at the Hollywood Bowl performance the audience wasn't all that close to
the stage. Cindy resembled Florence, however, how do we know no one knew? If anyone in the audience DID know,
who would they say something to? The box office?

Randy you always make good sense. I think it was an exaggeration to say that no one knew the difference.....Jules Podell of the Copa sure knew the difference. Also, too much has been made of the resemblance between Florence and Cindy. To me, they look nothing alike. Perhaps they were close in height and build, but that's all.

[marv2]

Diana started talking to Berry about Cindy in mid to late 1966.


So Diane was trying to get rid of Flo as early as 1966? That wasn't too cool.......

[luke]

I have near heard or read anywhere that Cindy was called that early. She said she was called, then flew to Detroit, did Hollywood Bowl...

[Roberta75]

Diana started talking to Berry about Cindy in mid to late 1966. This was after Berry decided to hold off on pulling Diana out of the group when he wisely realized it was too soon. So by her staying, they had to start dealing with Flo's problems.

When Flo missed the New Orleans shows, which I believe was early 1967 [[I'd have to research the exact timeline), Cindy was first called. She knew for some time that she was being considered but never told her fellow Bluebelles at the insistence of Gordy and his advisers as there were legalities with contracts Cindy signed with Patti's group. She did audition for Berry. Then she subbed fro Flo and was put on salary. Then, the decision was made that Flo would play out the dates in Vegas and Cindy was to join. But, Flo never finished the Vegas gig. Cindy was sent to Vegas because this had been anticipated. She had pretty much been traveling with the group for a couple of months.

Cindy didn't resemble Flo in the face that much, but they were both voluptuous, tall, bigger girls. Cindy, I think, may have been prettier than Flo but not as good a singer. In any event, as long as she could handle the top harmony, which she had done with Sarah Dash, then that was good enough.

Andy Skurow could likely fill in a better timeline, but this is the way I remember it, from talking with Mary, Randy and others who were around at that time.

I think Cindy was an excellent choice to replace Florence in the Supremes. She brought a sense of glamor and fun to the group IMO.

Diana, Mary and Cindy is my favorite grouping of Supremes.

[BayouMotownMan]

Marv, where did I say "Diane" was trying to get rid of Flo as early as 1966? This is why you are so unpopular on boards.

Diana Ross NEVER wanted Flo to leave, if for no other reason than the repurcussion this change would have on a group that she was lead singer of. Diana sympathized with Flo, but no one, especially Gordy or his colleagues, had the capability of dealing with nor the patience to deal with it. The Supremes were white hot. They were in demand all over the world. I would have to say that Motown was as patient with Florence as they could economically be. When a person is angry, exhausted and on a substance, it is enormously difficult to deal with this.

Perhaps if you, Marv, would honor an artist's announced wish not to snap photos of her in concert, then you wouldn't be escorted out and be so bitter 20 years later.

[BayouMotownMan]

Luke, Cindy wasn't called that early, she was being spoken about is all. So was Barbara Randolph and a host of other ladies. Cindy was simply Diana's preference when those talks began. It was hoped that Flo would pull herself together. And she did off and on. But my the winter of 1967 it was becoming apparent that a change was going to have to happen. And it was risky.

[BayouMotownMan]

Gratefully I just figured out how to put people on ignore.

[dianesfan_1965]

Marv, where did I say "Diane" was trying to get rid of Flo as early as 1966? This is why you are so unpopular on boards.

Diana Ross NEVER wanted Flo to leave, if for no other reason than the repurcussion this change would have on a group that she was lead singer of. Diana sympathized with Flo, but no one, especially Gordy or his colleagues, had the capability of dealing with nor the patience to deal with it. The Supremes were white hot. They were in demand all over the world. I would have to say that Motown was as patient with Florence as they could economically be. When a person is angry, exhausted and on a substance, it is enormously difficult to deal with this.

Perhaps if you, Marv, would honor an artist's announced wish not to snap photos of her in concert, then you wouldn't be escorted out and be so bitter 20 years later.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJTJDkwPs0o&feature=related

[luke]

Why is such negativity necessary? Myself and many others including Ralph think highly of Marv. Here we go again. Maybe I will get attacked for saying this but one book says "Diana was almost giddy " when Flo left and Cindy came in room. She is also quoted in books as wanting Flo out earlier-for whatever reasons-earlier than 1967 but Berry told her to hold on.

[dianesfan_1965]

Why is such negativity necessary? Myself and many others including Ralph think highly of Marv. Here we go again. Maybe I will get attacked for saying this but one book says "Diana was almost giddy " when Flo left and Cindy came in room. She is also quoted in books as wanting Flo out earlier-for whatever reasons-earlier than 1967 but Berry told her to hold on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcsrtsybkgk&list=FLyLLnPBVs32iSfvzemiCwtw&index=3&feature=plpp_video

[BayouMotownMan]

Luke, things are published in books to sell the books; it doesn't make them true.

Both Diana Ross and Berry Gordy were keenly aware of what a change in the group's lineup would mean to the group's future as well as Diana's. This had to be done with great care.

While Flo, in her last years was bitter towards Diana she also had nasty remarks about Mary. These are in her own words now available. It was Berry Gordy that she was most angry at, and not so much about putting her out but for not securing her future as she thought she should have.

In a situation like this, there is always going to be one person who is going to take the blame. Diana being the most visible, got that. I think it quite notable that the last person Florence Ballard spoke with, about two months before her death, was Diana. They had a long phone conversation and Diana wanted to help Flo get her career back on track. It was Diana Ross who tried to save Florence's house, with Flo's husband insisting the check be made out to him rather than the bank. Diana wisely refused this.

Decisions about the Supremes, and Diana Ross, during this period were entirely made by Berry Gordy. One of the reasons he wanted to pull Diana out as early as 1966 was because of the frictions in the group. Diana felt she deserved special considerations and Gordy gave her that. She was the voice that sold the records. Her look and image became the Supremes look and image. If Gordy had pulled her out after You Can't Hurry Love, he would have issued You Keep Me Hangin' On [[already done) as a Diana Ross record. It probably would have worked to a degree, but it was just entirely too soon. Therefore he opted to change the name to Diana Ross and the Supremes first. That was HIS decision, not Ross's. It was in 1962 that he decided Diana had the more commercial voice and all leads would be done by her. The other Supremes agreed. They had not bargained for the enormous success that would occur because of this. Could Diana have been more generous to her Supremes? Quite possibly. But these were three young ladies who never sat down and discussed very much between them for whatever mysterious reason. Berry Gordy is an astute businessman. He knew the money was on Ross. Their personal relationship did not occur until Motown toured Europe in 1965. This relationship bothered Florence intensely. Some say it is because she had had a previous relationship of her own with Gordy, but this has never been proven. More likely, she suspected Gordy's motives and was trying to protect her friend from heavy involvement.

As far as your defense of your friend, it is admirable but obviously not carefully researched. For over a decade he has spread malicious unfounded rumors about performers, usually in defense of his idol Mary Wilson, that were cruel and slanderous, such as what he has just done. He misquoted me. This individual has NEVER conducted an interview with these artists, done a tv show, does not have direct contact with these performers yet wants to give the illusion that he has. Until a month ago Mary Wilson did not know who he was until a representative of the FLOS obtained a photo of him, which he stupidly posted online, and now Mary knows who he is. This will change his dynamic with her greatly. All he ever did was show up backstage at her shows for autographs and a photo opp.

Diana, Mary and Florence were nearly worn to death in the mid-60s. Gordy worked them like dogs. Often it was a 7 day week, 18 hour days. It's a small miracle that all three survived with only the baggage they had. Florence Ballard never stopped caring about Diana Ross, which was why she decided not to go through with the book she was planning. They had their problems, but they also had an enduring affection for one another.

It is possible you know.

[rod_rick]

Didn't Florence state in her interview with Peter Benjamin that someone was being groomed to replace her as early as 1966? Just asking.

[bradsupremes]

They had their problems, but they also had an enduring affection for one another.

Exactly my thoughts! I feel this was the way it was between all of the ladies.

[juicefree20]

Though I honestly wish that the group had remained in tact, no matter who made the decision to put Diana upfront, taking into consideration the direction in which Berry was trying to go [[Pop, Supper Clubs, Vegas), placing sentiment aside, then I have to say that Berry made the right choice & history bears that out.

There may have been more soulful, more powerful singers out there & that can't be disputed by anyone gifted with the sense called hearing. However, when you think back to those days & the type of singers whom were playing Vegas, seen on The Ed Sullivan Show & Hollywood Palace & playing the Copacabana's of the world where the big money was & the long chitlin' circuit bus trips WEREN'T, you have to be honest & say that Diana's voice, enunciation & package fit perfectly.

The people with the big money loved entertainers like Diana & whether it's popular to say this or not, the truth is that back then there were a whole lot of ladies who could've blown Diana away vocally, I mean totally overpowered her without a mic in their hands & despite that, a whole lot of them came, then exited the scene just as quickly as they appeared.

I love Flo & Mary dearly & I adore them, but despite the fact that they had fine singing voices, Diana voice was distinctive & unique. It's really as simple as that & it took me years to accept that fact. I would guess that if we were calling the shots back then & basing our decisions on having a group that could be stars or having a group that could be MEGASTARS, unless we didn't like the idea of being able to keep the doors to our company open, or like the idea of struggling to pay the bills, more than likely we'd have followed the trail that led to the money. Especially when that road requires you to work as hard as you already were, but with the ability to play dates which paid you well, didn't require you to run yourself into the ground while zig-zagging across the country in buses & cars, sleeping in dives, while hardly getting enough food or sleep.

We can say whatever we want to say nearly 50 years after the fact, especially since we didn't have to make those types of decisions. I understand ambition & I understand ego & I understand that it couldn't have been easy for Mary & Flo to have to take a back seat to anyone. But purely from an business & economic standpoint, in the years 1963/1964, Diana was perfect for the vision that Berry had & it worked perfectly. And despite the fact that I've always been partial to Mary & Flo, I simply don't believe that they would've been as successful with either as lead over Diana. Not at that point in time. Remember, it wasn't until 3 years later that Aretha kicked down the Pop doors for a woman doing straight-up ballsy soul singing. I simply don't believe that the voices of Mary nor Flo were distinctive enough to grab that audience & spin it on its collective ear.

I used to think so & I'd always heard that was the case, but a listen to the CD The Supreme Florence Ballard answered that question for me. What I heard was a good enough singer, but I didn't hear anything that was much different than I heard from a lot of other female vocalists of that period. As much as I wanted to be knocked out by that CD, the truth was I just didn't hear spectacular & at times, barely good. I wasn't knocked off of my seat & after having read & heard so much about how I was going to be floored by what I'd hear, the sad truth is that I just didn't hear that & that was a huge disappointment.

I don't know if it was the lousy production qualities which had her purring like Mae West on some songs & others with arrangements which drained her of any semblance of spark or fire. Whatever, it was just a huge disappointment. While I was happy to have finally heard those songs & bought the CD for the sake of completion, I didn't hear that strong, fiery & sassy voice that I had been told about for more than 20 years.

And frankly, neither did anyone whom I played the music for who wasn't already a hardcore Supremes fan. No one could believe who it was whenever I played that CD & some told me that I had to be lying when I told them. It simply didn't go over well with anyone whom I knew & that too, was disappointing.

I know that it's damn near heresy to some, but I don't believe that the magic that was The Supremes could have been pulled off by anyone other than Diana on lead. Perhaps a few years later when that particular audience was ready to get a little hipper & embrace Soul music in its own right, perhaps it might've worked. But certainly not back in 1963 or 1964. At that point & time, her sound was the sound that was getting over where the big money was. Most deep-throated or straight R&B singers just weren't getting over with them, as they were accused of "shouting' or being "TOO Black" for that particular audience.

Again, just think about the majority of the Black singers whom were considered to be Pop or MOR & playing for that particular audience in those days. Sammy, Harry, Pearl, Louis, Nat...THOSE were the singers who you always saw on Sullivan, Hollywood Palace & getting the gigs in those clubs & making the money. How many straight R&B belters were getting those types of gigs back then?

I'll wait...

It was a business decision & history records it as the right call at the right time.

So as for the charge that anyone was sold-out, I simply don't agree with that. Berry was shooting for the stars & he definitely succeeded. I guess that the phrase is not necessarily realistic, but rather totally subjective.

Keeping it real, I've seen people sell people out right here on this forum for less than the price of a Happy Meal.

[ajk93]

Keeping it real, I've seen people sell people out right here on this forum for less than the price of a Happy Meal.

HAHAHA!!! I loved that Juice!

Your entire post was very well spoken! I like your style of thinking!!

[ajk93]

Gratefully I just figured out how to put people on ignore.

Whatever hang-ups you have on other members do not to be brought into our conversations about the music.

[motony]

Juice is right and ofcourse history proves it. I don't think Florence Ballards records were made with her best interest[[ABC)I think they were done to satisfy a contract.Wasn;t her husband her manager?Mary Wells got rid of Herman Griffin, Aretha got rid of Ted White.I don't think singers letting their spouse handle their profesional career is a good idea.

[juicefree20]

AJK

Good evening & thank you very much. Sadly, in both cases, I've discovered this to be true.

What I've never understood is how the fans of this much beloved group could harbor such hatred for ANY member of the group.

Maybe it's simply that I was 4 years-old when they finally scored that first big hit & simply was too young to be caught up with favorites. But as a child I liked Mary, then Flo & then Diana. But that was more a visual thing because those women were gorgeous & even at that age I would've loved to have been hugged by either of them.

For years I heard all of the stories about who did what to whom, whom was horrible & I formed opinions based on that. But when I became an adult, I understood that there are 3 sides to every story. And after discovering that most of the feel-good stories that we had been fed about groups, movie stars & athletes were anything but the truth, I began to understand that just because someone makes accusations against another person doesn't necessarily make it the truth. I've learned that the fact that I know & like someone doesn't mean that they won't lie to me or tell me a half-truth.

And another truth is that while so many are praying for a reunion, they fail to understand that their constant bickering, picking old sores & constantly playing one side against the other virtually guarantees that there will NEVER be the reunion that they so desperately hope for. They're so consumed with hate for their "enemy" who are fans of the "other side", that they can't grasp the fact that they're working as their own worst enemy. Frankly, I don't even think that they care. Just so long as they can get off their insults & blaming folks for things that not only happened 40 years ago, but truthfully didn't affect them in the least, it's all good.

I would hazard a guess that the constant bickering has set back any hopes for a possible reunion at least 20 years.

And that possibility won't prevent even one future argument.

[jobeterob]

Very thoughtful posts Bayou and Juice.

I always thought the Florence Ballard album was pretty weak and definitely not something Motown would ever have released on anyone. Some of it was "small bar" or "karaoke" quality - like It's Not Unusual.

Did any of you listen to Andy Skurow last week on Nightflight? He talked about the "salacious" talk about The Supremes and how he avoids that and how all 9 Supremes are very good people? And he also said the name was "Diana" in 1960 and that other than Mary, Smokey and Berry, it is not appropriate to be calling her "Diane".

Juice is totally right about the fans and these negative posts having dashed any chance of a reunion. They've also dashed all hopes of awards being given to the Supremes as a group. Some of the Supremes have family members that would now vigorously oppose Diana being involved in any thing like that. And Mary Wilson has asked that this kind of talk stop as well.

[carlo]

Whatever hang-ups you have on other members do not to be brought into our conversations about the music.

Well said. In my opinion, it's fine to have a simple disagreement, but to add in all sorts of other things such as "this is why you're so unpopular on this forum" or "you were kicked out of a Diana Ross concert" is really over the top.

[marv2]

Marv, where did I say "Diane" was trying to get rid of Flo as early as 1966? This is why you are so unpopular on boards.

Diana Ross NEVER wanted Flo to leave, if for no other reason than the repurcussion this change would have on a group that she was lead singer of. Diana sympathized with Flo, but no one, especially Gordy or his colleagues, had the capability of dealing with nor the patience to deal with it. The Supremes were white hot. They were in demand all over the world. I would have to say that Motown was as patient with Florence as they could economically be. When a person is angry, exhausted and on a substance, it is enormously difficult to deal with this.

Perhaps if you, Marv, would honor an artist's announced wish not to snap photos of her in concert, then you wouldn't be escorted out and be so bitter 20 years later.

That was a bad idea for Diane to try to encourage Mr. Gordy to get rid of Florence in 1966. The Supremes never really recovered from it. Are you serious? I don't even go to Diane's shows to be escorted anywhere. However I wished that had've happened, I would have been rolling in dough! LOL!

[marv2]

Why is such negativity necessary? Myself and many others including Ralph think highly of Marv. Here we go again. Maybe I will get attacked for saying this but one book says "Diana was almost giddy " when Flo left and Cindy came in room. She is also quoted in books as wanting Flo out earlier-for whatever reasons-earlier than 1967 but Berry told her to hold on.

Thank you Luke and I always enjoy your posts and the threads you start. They are always interesting. I don't know why this guy always attempts slur me here. I've been on this forum at least nine years and enjoy most of the people I communicate with at SDF. This guy just seems to have a bad disposition along with his handful of buddies.

[marv2]

Why is such negativity necessary? Myself and many others including Ralph think highly of Marv. Here we go again. Maybe I will get attacked for saying this but one book says "Diana was almost giddy " when Flo left and Cindy came in room. She is also quoted in books as wanting Flo out earlier-for whatever reasons-earlier than 1967 but Berry told her to hold on.

Oh and you are right! Diane nearly had an embolism she was so happy and excited that Flo would no longer be in the group. That is part of what caused her and Mary to fall out somewhat. It was also quickly known around Detroit what the deal was.....

[Roberta75]

Though I honestly wish that the group had remained in tact, no matter who made the decision to put Diana upfront, taking into consideration the direction in which Berry was trying to go [[Pop, Supper Clubs, Vegas), placing sentiment aside, then I have to say that Berry made the right choice & history bears that out.

There may have been more soulful, more powerful singers out there & that can't be disputed by anyone gifted with the sense called hearing. However, when you think back to those days & the type of singers whom were playing Vegas, seen on The Ed Sullivan Show & Hollywood Palace & playing the Copacabana's of the world where the big money was & the long chitlin' circuit bus trips WEREN'T, you have to be honest & say that Diana's voice, enunciation & package fit perfectly.

The people with the big money loved entertainers like Diana & whether it's popular to say this or not, the truth is that back then there were a whole lot of ladies who could've blown Diana away vocally, I mean totally overpowered her without a mic in their hands & despite that, a whole lot of them came, then exited the scene just as quickly as they appeared.

I love Flo & Mary dearly & I adore them, but despite the fact that they had fine singing voices, Diana voice was distinctive & unique. It's really as simple as that & it took me years to accept that fact. I would guess that if we were calling the shots back then & basing our decisions on having a group that could be stars or having a group that could be MEGASTARS, unless we didn't like the idea of being able to keep the doors to our company open, or like the idea of struggling to pay the bills, more than likely we'd have followed the trail that led to the money. Especially when that road requires you to work as hard as you already were, but with the ability to play dates which paid you well, didn't require you to run yourself into the ground while zig-zagging across the country in buses & cars, sleeping in dives, while hardly getting enough food or sleep.

We can say whatever we want to say nearly 50 years after the fact, especially since we didn't have to make those types of decisions. I understand ambition & I understand ego & I understand that it couldn't have been easy for Mary & Flo to have to take a back seat to anyone. But purely from an business & economic standpoint, in the years 1963/1964, Diana was perfect for the vision that Berry had & it worked perfectly. And despite the fact that I've always been partial to Mary & Flo, I simply don't believe that they would've been as successful with either as lead over Diana. Not at that point in time. Remember, it wasn't until 3 years later that Aretha kicked down the Pop doors for a woman doing straight-up ballsy soul singing. I simply don't believe that the voices of Mary nor Flo were distinctive enough to grab that audience & spin it on its collective ear.

I used to think so & I'd always heard that was the case, but a listen to the CD The Supreme Florence Ballard answered that question for me. What I heard was a good enough singer, but I didn't hear anything that was much different than I heard from a lot of other female vocalists of that period. As much as I wanted to be knocked out by that CD, the truth was I just didn't hear spectacular & at times, barely good. I wasn't knocked off of my seat & after having read & heard so much about how I was going to be floored by what I'd hear, the sad truth is that I just didn't hear that & that was a huge disappointment.

I don't know if it was the lousy production qualities which had her purring like Mae West on some songs & others with arrangements which drained her of any semblance of spark or fire. Whatever, it was just a huge disappointment. While I was happy to have finally heard those songs & bought the CD for the sake of completion, I didn't hear that strong, fiery & sassy voice that I had been told about for more than 20 years.

And frankly, neither did anyone whom I played the music for who wasn't already a hardcore Supremes fan. No one could believe who it was whenever I played that CD & some told me that I had to be lying when I told them. It simply didn't go over well with anyone whom I knew & that too, was disappointing.

I know that it's damn near heresy to some, but I don't believe that the magic that was The Supremes could have been pulled off by anyone other than Diana on lead. Perhaps a few years later when that particular audience was ready to get a little hipper & embrace Soul music in its own right, perhaps it might've worked. But certainly not back in 1963 or 1964. At that point & time, her sound was the sound that was getting over where the big money was. Most deep-throated or straight R&B singers just weren't getting over with them, as they were accused of "shouting' or being "TOO Black" for that particular audience.

Again, just think about the majority of the Black singers whom were considered to be Pop or MOR & playing for that particular audience in those days. Sammy, Harry, Pearl, Louis, Nat...THOSE were the singers who you always saw on Sullivan, Hollywood Palace & getting the gigs in those clubs & making the money. How many straight R&B belters were getting those types of gigs back then?

I'll wait...

It was a business decision & history records it as the right call at the right time.

So as for the charge that anyone was sold-out, I simply don't agree with that. Berry was shooting for the stars & he definitely succeeded. I guess that the phrase is not necessarily realistic, but rather totally subjective.

Keeping it real, I've seen people sell people out right here on this forum for less than the price of a Happy Meal.

Very well said Juice.

Fondly Roberta

[carlo]

Juice is totally right about the fans and these negative posts having dashed any chance of a reunion. They've also dashed all hopes of awards being given to the Supremes as a group. Some of the Supremes have family members that would now vigorously oppose Diana being involved in any thing like that. And Mary Wilson has asked that this kind of talk stop as well.

I disagree. While the negativity created by the fans is all too ridiculous, I don't believe it is the reason why there are no reunions or no awards/tributes. In my opinion, most of the drama and craziness that is associated with Supremes fans only occurs on the internet for the most part. I usually make a conscious effort to meet fans at the different concerts I have attended and most are every day civilized people. I guarantee most of them would not say the things they post on the internet in public. These overzealous fans you see on the internet make things seem worse than they really are. They only account for a small fraction of the fan base, which is why I believe that they are not the main reason for dashing all chances of a reunion or any sort of honourary awards or tributes.

I've been to plenty of concerts and I've never seen a Diana Ross fan and Mary Wilson fan getting into a full out physical altercation or argument. Most people are nice. Some have expressed their dislike for one Supreme or the other in conversations I have had with them, but there's never any exchange of harsh words or anything of the sort. Just speaking from my own experience...

[Roberta75]

Luke, things are published in books to sell the books; it doesn't make them true.

Both Diana Ross and Berry Gordy were keenly aware of what a change in the group's lineup would mean to the group's future as well as Diana's. This had to be done with great care.

While Flo, in her last years was bitter towards Diana she also had nasty remarks about Mary. These are in her own words now available. It was Berry Gordy that she was most angry at, and not so much about putting her out but for not securing her future as she thought she should have.

In a situation like this, there is always going to be one person who is going to take the blame. Diana being the most visible, got that. I think it quite notable that the last person Florence Ballard spoke with, about two months before her death, was Diana. They had a long phone conversation and Diana wanted to help Flo get her career back on track. It was Diana Ross who tried to save Florence's house, with Flo's husband insisting the check be made out to him rather than the bank. Diana wisely refused this.

Decisions about the Supremes, and Diana Ross, during this period were entirely made by Berry Gordy. One of the reasons he wanted to pull Diana out as early as 1966 was because of the frictions in the group. Diana felt she deserved special considerations and Gordy gave her that. She was the voice that sold the records. Her look and image became the Supremes look and image. If Gordy had pulled her out after You Can't Hurry Love, he would have issued You Keep Me Hangin' On [[already done) as a Diana Ross record. It probably would have worked to a degree, but it was just entirely too soon. Therefore he opted to change the name to Diana Ross and the Supremes first. That was HIS decision, not Ross's. It was in 1962 that he decided Diana had the more commercial voice and all leads would be done by her. The other Supremes agreed. They had not bargained for the enormous success that would occur because of this. Could Diana have been more generous to her Supremes? Quite possibly. But these were three young ladies who never sat down and discussed very much between them for whatever mysterious reason. Berry Gordy is an astute businessman. He knew the money was on Ross. Their personal relationship did not occur until Motown toured Europe in 1965. This relationship bothered Florence intensely. Some say it is because she had had a previous relationship of her own with Gordy, but this has never been proven. More likely, she suspected Gordy's motives and was trying to protect her friend from heavy involvement.

As far as your defense of your friend, it is admirable but obviously not carefully researched. For over a decade he has spread malicious unfounded rumors about performers, usually in defense of his idol Mary Wilson, that were cruel and slanderous, such as what he has just done. He misquoted me. This individual has NEVER conducted an interview with these artists, done a tv show, does not have direct contact with these performers yet wants to give the illusion that he has. Until a month ago Mary Wilson did not know who he was until a representative of the FLOS obtained a photo of him, which he stupidly posted online, and now Mary knows who he is. This will change his dynamic with her greatly. All he ever did was show up backstage at her shows for autographs and a photo opp.

Diana, Mary and Florence were nearly worn to death in the mid-60s. Gordy worked them like dogs. Often it was a 7 day week, 18 hour days. It's a small miracle that all three survived with only the baggage they had. Florence Ballard never stopped caring about Diana Ross, which was why she decided not to go through with the book she was planning. They had their problems, but they also had an enduring affection for one another.

It is possible you know.

Bravo Rick. Bravo. Keep spreading the truth.

[Roberta75]

I disagree. While the negativity created by the fans is all too ridiculous, I don't believe it is the reason why there are no reunions or no awards/tributes. In my opinion, most of the drama and craziness that is associated with Supremes fans only occurs on the internet for the most part. I have met a lot of fans at the different concerts I have attended and most are every day civilized people. I guarantee most of them would not say the things they post on the internet in public. These overzealous fans you see on the internet make things seem worse than they really are. They only account for a small fraction of the fan base, which is why I believe that they are not the main reason for dashing all chances of a reunion or any sort of honourary awards or tributes.

And yet you constantly defend one of the more overzealous fans here who wouldn't know civility if it hit him between the eyes. Astounding. Simply astounding.

[Roberta75]

Well said. In my opinion, it's fine to have a simple disagreement, but to add in all sorts of other things such as "this is why you're so unpopular on this forum" or "you were kicked out of a Diana Ross concert" is really over the top.

Well it certainly explains the said persons constant viciousness towards Diana Ross.

[marv2]

Luke, things are published in books to sell the books; it doesn't make them true.

Both Diana Ross and Berry Gordy were keenly aware of what a change in the group's lineup would mean to the group's future as well as Diana's. This had to be done with great care.

While Flo, in her last years was bitter towards Diana she also had nasty remarks about Mary. These are in her own words now available. It was Berry Gordy that she was most angry at, and not so much about putting her out but for not securing her future as she thought she should have.

In a situation like this, there is always going to be one person who is going to take the blame. Diana being the most visible, got that. I think it quite notable that the last person Florence Ballard spoke with, about two months before her death, was Diana. They had a long phone conversation and Diana wanted to help Flo get her career back on track. It was Diana Ross who tried to save Florence's house, with Flo's husband insisting the check be made out to him rather than the bank. Diana wisely refused this.

Decisions about the Supremes, and Diana Ross, during this period were entirely made by Berry Gordy. One of the reasons he wanted to pull Diana out as early as 1966 was because of the frictions in the group. Diana felt she deserved special considerations and Gordy gave her that. She was the voice that sold the records. Her look and image became the Supremes look and image. If Gordy had pulled her out after You Can't Hurry Love, he would have issued You Keep Me Hangin' On [[already done) as a Diana Ross record. It probably would have worked to a degree, but it was just entirely too soon. Therefore he opted to change the name to Diana Ross and the Supremes first. That was HIS decision, not Ross's. It was in 1962 that he decided Diana had the more commercial voice and all leads would be done by her. The other Supremes agreed. They had not bargained for the enormous success that would occur because of this. Could Diana have been more generous to her Supremes? Quite possibly. But these were three young ladies who never sat down and discussed very much between them for whatever mysterious reason. Berry Gordy is an astute businessman. He knew the money was on Ross. Their personal relationship did not occur until Motown toured Europe in 1965. This relationship bothered Florence intensely. Some say it is because she had had a previous relationship of her own with Gordy, but this has never been proven. More likely, she suspected Gordy's motives and was trying to protect her friend from heavy involvement.

As far as your defense of your friend, it is admirable but obviously not carefully researched. For over a decade he has spread malicious unfounded rumors about performers, usually in defense of his idol Mary Wilson, that were cruel and slanderous, such as what he has just done. He misquoted me. This individual has NEVER conducted an interview with these artists, done a tv show, does not have direct contact with these performers yet wants to give the illusion that he has. Until a month ago Mary Wilson did not know who he was until a representative of the FLOS obtained a photo of him, which he stupidly posted online, and now Mary knows who he is. This will change his dynamic with her greatly. All he ever did was show up backstage at her shows for autographs and a photo opp.

Diana, Mary and Florence were nearly worn to death in the mid-60s. Gordy worked them like dogs. Often it was a 7 day week, 18 hour days. It's a small miracle that all three survived with only the baggage they had. Florence Ballard never stopped caring about Diana Ross, which was why she decided not to go through with the book she was planning. They had their problems, but they also had an enduring affection for one another.

It is possible you know.

Are you serious? Is Diane paying you to write this stuff? Why do you not mention the 5 pieces of blank paper that Diana Ross' lawyers wanted Florence to sign before releasing any money?

But more importantly this nonsense and made up BS you keep telling your buddies about ME and I don't even know you. I do know you have a very bad reputation and I am not talking about with your little fan club you brought with you to this forum. First you don't me or who I know. It must kill you that NO ONE is going share their true business or info about friendships and long standing relationships they built over the years with you.... A stranger! That includes celebrities! Obtain a photo of me? Shit there have been all kinds of pictures of me posted right in here at SDF and in the group I moderate. Now you know I would not come to a gunfight with a knife....do you feel lucky or should I unload everything about you here? My advice is that you'd better stick to just talking about what you think you know about the Supremes and leave the hard stuff alone because you will be playing with a fire you will not be able to put out. Why I am being nice to you is beyond me at this moment!

[marv2]

Juice is right and ofcourse history proves it. I don't think Florence Ballards records were made with her best interest[[ABC)I think they were done to satisfy a contract.Wasn;t her husband her manager?Mary Wells got rid of Herman Griffin, Aretha got rid of Ted White.I don't think singers letting their spouse handle their profesional career is a good idea.

Florence was produced all wrong at ABC Records. It also did not help that she was pregnant during those sessions.

[marv2]

Well it certainly explains the said persons constant viciousness towards Diana Ross.

He [[Bayouman) was referring to me and he was lying about me. Now if I were to tell the truth in this open forum about this guy and why he has such a chip on his shoulder when it comes to me, not many would be able to take it and this thread would get zapped! If I told the truth with the details,[[and it has nothing at all to do with the Supremes, Ross, Motown ...any of it), you'd freak completely out! I am sure of that! .

Bayouman, so what you want to do?

[carlo]

And yet you constantly defend one of the more overzealous fans here who wouldn't know civility if it hit him between the eyes. Astounding. Simply astounding.

Uh huh. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

You call it "defending", I call it being fair when it's warranted.

Roberta, if I may suggest from one Christian to another...just let it go. Try to forgive this person and move on...like I am.

[rod_rick]

Though I honestly wish that the group had remained in tact, no matter who made the decision to put Diana upfront, taking into consideration the direction in which Berry was trying to go [[Pop, Supper Clubs, Vegas), placing sentiment aside, then I have to say that Berry made the right choice & history bears that out.

There may have been more soulful, more powerful singers out there & that can't be disputed by anyone gifted with the sense called hearing. However, when you think back to those days & the type of singers whom were playing Vegas, seen on The Ed Sullivan Show & Hollywood Palace & playing the Copacabana's of the world where the big money was & the long chitlin' circuit bus trips WEREN'T, you have to be honest & say that Diana's voice, enunciation & package fit perfectly.

The people with the big money loved entertainers like Diana & whether it's popular to say this or not, the truth is that back then there were a whole lot of ladies who could've blown Diana away vocally, I mean totally overpowered her without a mic in their hands & despite that, a whole lot of them came, then exited the scene just as quickly as they appeared.

I love Flo & Mary dearly & I adore them, but despite the fact that they had fine singing voices, Diana voice was distinctive & unique. It's really as simple as that & it took me years to accept that fact. I would guess that if we were calling the shots back then & basing our decisions on having a group that could be stars or having a group that could be MEGASTARS, unless we didn't like the idea of being able to keep the doors to our company open, or like the idea of struggling to pay the bills, more than likely we'd have followed the trail that led to the money. Especially when that road requires you to work as hard as you already were, but with the ability to play dates which paid you well, didn't require you to run yourself into the ground while zig-zagging across the country in buses & cars, sleeping in dives, while hardly getting enough food or sleep.

We can say whatever we want to say nearly 50 years after the fact, especially since we didn't have to make those types of decisions. I understand ambition & I understand ego & I understand that it couldn't have been easy for Mary & Flo to have to take a back seat to anyone. But purely from an business & economic standpoint, in the years 1963/1964, Diana was perfect for the vision that Berry had & it worked perfectly. And despite the fact that I've always been partial to Mary & Flo, I simply don't believe that they would've been as successful with either as lead over Diana. Not at that point in time. Remember, it wasn't until 3 years later that Aretha kicked down the Pop doors for a woman doing straight-up ballsy soul singing. I simply don't believe that the voices of Mary nor Flo were distinctive enough to grab that audience & spin it on its collective ear.

I used to think so & I'd always heard that was the case, but a listen to the CD The Supreme Florence Ballard answered that question for me. What I heard was a good enough singer, but I didn't hear anything that was much different than I heard from a lot of other female vocalists of that period. As much as I wanted to be knocked out by that CD, the truth was I just didn't hear spectacular & at times, barely good. I wasn't knocked off of my seat & after having read & heard so much about how I was going to be floored by what I'd hear, the sad truth is that I just didn't hear that & that was a huge disappointment.

I don't know if it was the lousy production qualities which had her purring like Mae West on some songs & others with arrangements which drained her of any semblance of spark or fire. Whatever, it was just a huge disappointment. While I was happy to have finally heard those songs & bought the CD for the sake of completion, I didn't hear that strong, fiery & sassy voice that I had been told about for more than 20 years.

And frankly, neither did anyone whom I played the music for who wasn't already a hardcore Supremes fan. No one could believe who it was whenever I played that CD & some told me that I had to be lying when I told them. It simply didn't go over well with anyone whom I knew & that too, was disappointing.

I know that it's damn near heresy to some, but I don't believe that the magic that was The Supremes could have been pulled off by anyone other than Diana on lead. Perhaps a few years later when that particular audience was ready to get a little hipper & embrace Soul music in its own right, perhaps it might've worked. But certainly not back in 1963 or 1964. At that point & time, her sound was the sound that was getting over where the big money was. Most deep-throated or straight R&B singers just weren't getting over with them, as they were accused of "shouting' or being "TOO Black" for that particular audience.

Again, just think about the majority of the Black singers whom were considered to be Pop or MOR & playing for that particular audience in those days. Sammy, Harry, Pearl, Louis, Nat...THOSE were the singers who you always saw on Sullivan, Hollywood Palace & getting the gigs in those clubs & making the money. How many straight R&B belters were getting those types of gigs back then?

I'll wait...

It was a business decision & history records it as the right call at the right time.

So as for the charge that anyone was sold-out, I simply don't agree with that. Berry was shooting for the stars & he definitely succeeded. I guess that the phrase is not necessarily realistic, but rather totally subjective.

Keeping it real, I've seen people sell people out right here on this forum for less than the price of a Happy Meal.

Juice
You said what I felt about Flo Ballard solo recording. The best thing I heard from Florence was her version of "Silent Night". Production has a lot to do with the recording process, not just voice. Aretha did quite a few albums for Columbia records that didn't do much. Once she got with Atlantic records, with right production, Aretha blew up. I've always felt that if Diana was not the lead singer, it would have been Mary. Mary Wilson's sound was simular to Mary Wells. It's funny how, as much as Florence was touted as the best singer in the group, but yet it was Diana and Mary on the first Primette recordings.

[Roberta75]

Uh huh. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

You call it "defending", I call it being fair when it's warranted.

Roberta, if I may suggest from one Christian to another...just let it go. Try to forgive this person and move on...like I am.

As a fellow Christian I do forgive this person Carlo. I saw the hateful cruel threatening homophobic comments this person wrote on youtube that were posted here earlier this summer before the thread got deleted and yet I forgive him.

My Christian beliefs extend to him forgiveness, happiness and hopefully great peace someday. I just get astounded by all the free passes he gets here. Sorry but I do. We have to answer for our actions Carlo.

Roberta

[juicefree20]

Thank you motony, Rob & Roberta.

Rod_Rick, Thank you. you know, what that LP really serves to illustrate to me is that it seems to undermine the idea that motown could've taken that music, stuck anyone's voice on it & The Supremes still would've become as huge as they did. I hate to say it but the truth seems to be that the success of the Supremes was due to the music & arrangements being specifically tailored to the voice of Diana & the great harmonies of Mary & Flo & elegant, sophisticated aura of the ladies as a unit.

It's similar to making a great dish. Mix the proper ingredients together & you have something truly wonderful. However, sometimes when you change just one of the ingredients, that same meal loses its flair & that quality which makes it special. Considering that The Supremes sound was constructed around the unique voice of Diana, I believe that that is what separated The Supremes from the pack. There were many excellent lead singers out there, some very spectacular voices out there. But it's completely possible that considering where Berry was trying to head, as well as the tonal quality of the lead vocalists whom were most popular in the setting that he was aiming at, he could've put Flo, Mary or even Aretha on lead & have totally crapped out.

No matter how great the voices of Mary & Flo were, they simply werent as distinctive as that of Diana's. Now if one can be totally objective, I would ask but one question, if you closed your eyes & listened to 100 other vocalists of that era, would you really be able to distinguish between them & Mary or Flo, or would you say that the majority of the 102 of them would have a similar vocal quality? Now close your eyes again with those same 100 women & as regards enunciation, timing & those very tangible intangibles [[if that makes sense) tell me whom amongst them sounded like Diana Ross.

Despite their formidable vocal skills & pleasant qualities, there simply wasn't enough of a distinction which separated them from the other ladies whom were plying their trade during those times. There's a certain sameness about most of them. And that's the key to it all. No one else sounded quite like Diana & that fact shouldn't be a call to war, nor should it be regarded as a slight to Mary nor Flo. All that it means is that Diana had the sound that Berry was looking for at that particular point in time & she had the right sound to pull off what he wanted at exactly the right time.

And that shouldn't be regarded as a slap to either Mary nor Flo, but rather as a function borne out of necessity due to the realities of that particular period of time.

One of the others may have had a sound which was a little too demure that wouldn't have cut through the mix in quite the same way. Or perhaps the other would've overpowered the subtlety of the mix. Of that, I guess that we'll never know. But what we do know is that 3 young girls from Detroit took the world from storm, a fact which no matter how much I wanted to marry Mary or how foxy that I thought that Flo was [[yeah, I wanted to marry her too), their phenomenal success would indicate that Berry made the right choice as regards what he was trying to acheive. Here it is nearly 50 years later & they're still being discussed, they opened doors which had previously been closed to equally talented ladies AND men.

Hell, I say that rather than arguing about them, we should be rejoicing over their success. A success story which was unpredecented & rarely, if ever repeated. And nearly 50 years later, their impact hasn't been surpassed & as evidenced through groups such as EnVogue, SWV, Destiny's Child & even MoKenStef, their influence hasn't waned. Their DNA is firmly stamped on every girl group who's come along after them.

By any measure of the word, I call that a success.

[juicefree20]

Carlo,

Let me try to explain further by giving you scenarios which serve to cause friends & even families to be separated, all because of the power of a body part which The Bible identifies as one of the most dangerous things in existence...the tongue.

People lose jobs because of the power of the tongue & the spoken word. People divorce, friends are lost, family members become estranged & often, people even have lost their lives due to the power of the tongue. A few examples for you to consider...

How often have you seen one friend or acquaintance take an orherwise innocent remark & blow it out of proportion? How often have you seen that when someone attempted to be a peacemaker, that ONE individual drege up the oroginal situationwith the sole reason of keeping those fires burning? We've seen that scenario played out here quite often & in the real world, it often has terrible consequences.

Have you ever known sisters, brothers or cousins whom have petty gripes that were continually stoked by other family members or friends? Instead of trying to bring peace to people whom share the same blood, these people constantly pick at old wounds by constantly reminding the person how horrible the person treated them & why they should NEVER forget, much less forgive the offense, no matter how minor.

How many times have you read about someone being beaten to a pulp, if not killed because of some gossip & he-said, she-said nonsense? Then too, I think back to the days when I was a kid in a playground, when kids had a minor disagreement that they really didn't want to fight about, with that one damn voice in the background egging them on. That was the kid who when things weren't escalating quickly enough would then either push one of the kids into the other, or tell one of the kids to hit him so that he could punch the other kid, hopefully getting the fight started in the process.

Well, that how most of these arguments are. Imagine that you're a family member or a friend of either Diana Ross or Mary Wilson & imagine that you read things just to see what people are saying & preferable, you're hoping that it's good. But in the process, you're reading a bunch of people reading about how your mother, sister or friend did what to whom, how they're terrible & so on & so forth. How do you think that goes over?

Then on the other side, you have another group of people who constantly bring up what so & so said in their book & how so & so trashed your friend or relative publically. If you were to continually read this & if the person being talkedabout got wind of it, fans at live ashows notwithstanding, do you truly believe that this has no negative residual effect? If even on a subconsious level, do you really believe that years of processing this kind of talk & having it as a constant reminder doesn't attach itself to a person's consciousness in some shape, form or fashion?

If you believe that, then it defies the way that most of us are wired, as our natural tendency seems to be to forget the 99 good things that people say about us, but we take to heart & never forget that ONE negative thing that is said about us. Observation has shown me that that seems to be the way that most of us are wired.

Then you also have to consider that the behavior which you see in concert is just that...behavior at a concert. Everyone who was in attendance at the shows of which you speak were there to see one or the other, not both. As such, I would expect Diana Ross fans to come to a show as Diana Ross fans & Mary Wilson fans to attend her shows as Mary Wilson fans. The twain doesn't necessarily meet on those occasions becuase the people attending the shows of either know exactly what theyre coming to see & it's not a reunion.

Remember the saying that the squeakiest wheel gets the oil? Well while it's the genteel & decent fans whom are appreciated, don't kid yourself for even one moment that the arrows of the "overzealous" & "rabid" fans don't hit their mark, because they do far more than you may imagine.

It's hard for most of us to move forward when there's a lot of people whom have made it their appointed duty to make sure that you'll never be able to completely divorce yourself from the past. There seem to be a lot of fans & not just those of The Supremes, as I've seen the same viciousness directed at Stephanie Mills, Jody Watley & other members of Shalamar from opposing factions of Shalamar fans. I've seen the same level of vitriol directed toward Val Young & both camps of Klymaxx from their respective fans, as well as JoJo from the opposing factions of The Mary Jane Girls, to name but a few. So the Supremes are certainly not alone here.

And in each of the cases that I've mentioned above, you can bet that the behavior of the fans has only served to make the cuts just a little deeper & the resultant wounds just a little more infected. And you'll also notice that none of these groups are likely to ever walk onto a stage as a unit ever again, not even for money. And I can tell you that with the same certainty that I can tell you that a 100 degree day is hot.

Aside from the fact that life often leads us down different roads, we all have different visions that we want to pursue, the truth is that old slights die hard & are rarely, if ever forgotten. Especially if you feel as though your career & life was negatively altered forever & that someone is responsible for "robbing" you of our just rewards. And how much more difficult would it be if that same person has gone on to even greater success, or perhaps didn't?

What I'm saying is that festering wounds either untreated, or constantly picked at, take longer to heal or can become gangrenous. And it seems to me that everytime that it seems as though there may be some thawing of the ice, someone pops open their big mouths & the crap starts all over again. It'ssometimes hard to move into the future when so many people want to drag you back into your past.

I still believe that all of this nonsense has had a cumulative effect which has been decidedly negative & harmfull. And if you honestly believe that these folks DON'T pay attention to what is said about them, or that people whom they know don't monitor the buzz, then I'm telling you that you'd better think again. More people keep tabs on these types of forums than you may be led to believe. And very little gets past them without being relayed in some form orfashion to their friend or relative.

And memories can be as long as that of elephants, just as words can be quite hurtful & the passage of years doesn't reduce their sting, not one bit.

[juicefree20]

Let me offer up one suggestion which may help these discussions run a bit smoothly. While i dont believe for one moment that they'll be considered, it's merely food for thought.

Perhaps we'd have a lot less friction if we'd simply focus our responses on the points rased during a particular discussion. Constantly raising old arguments do nothing to advance these discussions & I believe that it leads to a complete inability to discuss anything effectively & often lead to some pretty good points being lost amongst the fighting.

Is it remotely possible for there to simply be a discussion of the thread without the need to resort to individual personal attacks & simply stick to the discussion-at-hand?

By now we all have a pretty good idea of whom said what about whom, whom did what to whom & constantly referring to past practices & deeds only guarantees that yet another potentially thoughtful & informative discussion will slip downthe tubes...

AGAIN

So if we could simply refrain from taking potshots at one another, as well as referring to what Supreme did what to whom, we could one day have a serious & thoughtful discussion about this group of young ladies who accomplished things far beyone their wildest dreams.

We often speak about how groundbreaking The Supremes were & that's nothing but the truth. But I have to say that I find it more than a little ironic that almost every discussion about 3 young ladies whom brought the world together through their music & bridged such a huge gap, serves as grist that divides a segment of a forum consisting of people whom love them damn near every time.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

Either way, despite any previous wrongs done by anyone, i'd rather have proof in the archives that it was them whom fired the first shot in order to support my position about them, than to be the one whom fires the first shot by being the first one to bring up their past misdeeds if it wasn't done at that particular time in that particular thread.

What I'm saying is that it's one thing to call someone out right where & when they commit an offense. In that case, whatever they get, they get & rightfully so. But to dredge up those offenses when they aren't being committed, or were done in the past isn't helpful. In a court of law, that would be akin to double jeopardy & the law doesn't support that.

I understand the players & I understand the level of mutual dislike.After 8 years, I totally get it. But putting all of that aside for even a brief moment, does anything that I said in this post sound reasonable?

[ejluther]

I used to think so & I'd always heard that was the case, but a listen to the CD The Supreme Florence Ballard answered that question for me. What I heard was a good enough singer, but I didn't hear anything that was much different than I heard from a lot of other female vocalists of that period. As much as I wanted to be knocked out by that CD, the truth was I just didn't hear spectacular & at times, barely good. I wasn't knocked off of my seat & after having read & heard so much about how I was going to be floored by what I'd hear, the sad truth is that I just didn't hear that & that was a huge disappointment...I didn't hear that strong, fiery & sassy voice that I had been told about for more than 20 years....I know that it's damn near heresy to some, but I don't believe that the magic that was The Supremes could have been pulled off by anyone other than Diana on lead.
Very nicely put and my experience/thoughts, too. And while I think your advice is also nicely put, I'm afraid my limited experience here tells me that you're preaching to the choir and that it's best to just ignore those who want to turn every Supremes discussion into a throw-down. But, as a member of the choir, I say, "Hallelujah!"

In my opinion, most of the drama and craziness that is associated with Supremes fans only occurs on the internet for the most part.
Again, that was my experience. I really had no idea some of the fanbase was like this until I found SDF and asked a Supremes question - I was just someone who loved the Supremes all my life and reconnected with that love during a recent trying medical time when I had a lot of time on my hands and things on my mind. I found that revisiting their music and video clips simply made me feel better and that was a miracle. Anyway, when I did come here and ask a question [[about Motown 25 and the US magazine coverage I'd read about), thankfully, some level-headed posters here jumped right in to warn me how it would go down so it wasn't a total shock, but it still was off-putting to say the least. I, for one, am very interested in the Supremes story and enjoy discussing it and learning about it with other civil and engaging people who can look at it objectively and with perspective. Happily, SDF seems to have plenty of posters like that so that's great...

[smark21]

Juice
You said what I felt about Flo Ballard solo recording. The best thing I heard from Florence was her version of "Silent Night". Production has a lot to do with the recording process, not just voice. Aretha did quite a few albums for Columbia records that didn't do much. Once she got with Atlantic records, with right production, Aretha blew up. I've always felt that if Diana was not the lead singer, it would have been Mary. Mary Wilson's sound was simular to Mary Wells. It's funny how, as much as Florence was touted as the best singer in the group, but yet it was Diana and Mary on the first Primette recordings.

I agree. IMO, Flo was the weakest singer in the original Supremes. She had the loudest voice, yes, but it takes more than volume to make a strong singer.

BTW, I bet this thread will be deleted by this evening.

[Roberta75]

Let me offer up one suggestion which may help these discussions run a bit smoothly. While i dont believe for one moment that they'll be considered, it's merely food for thought.

Perhaps we'd have a lot less friction if we'd simply focus our responses on the points rased during a particular discussion. Constantly raising old arguments do nothing to advance these discussions & I believe that it leads to a complete inability to discuss anything effectively & often lead to some pretty good points being lost amongst the fighting.

Is it remotely possible for there to simply be a discussion of the thread without the need to resort to individual personal attacks & simply stick to the discussion-at-hand?

By now we all have a pretty good idea of whom said what about whom, whom did what to whom & constantly referring to past practices & deeds only guarantees that yet another potentially thoughtful & informative discussion will slip downthe tubes...

AGAIN

So if we could simply refrain from taking potshots at one another, as well as referring to what Supreme did what to whom, we could one day have a serious & thoughtful discussion about this group of young ladies who accomplished things far beyone their wildest dreams.

We often speak about how groundbreaking The Supremes were & that's nothing but the truth. But I have to say that I find it more than a little ironic that almost every discussion about 3 young ladies whom brought the world together through their music & bridged such a huge gap, serves as grist that divides a segment of a forum consisting of people whom love them damn near every time.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

Either way, despite any previous wrongs done by anyone, i'd rather have proof in the archives that it was them whom fired the first shot in order to support my position about them, than to be the one whom fires the first shot by being the first one to bring up their past misdeeds if it wasn't done at that particular time in that particular thread.

What I'm saying is that it's one thing to call someone out right where & when they commit an offense. In that case, whatever they get, they get & rightfully so. But to dredge up those offenses when they aren't being committed, or were done in the past isn't helpful. In a court of law, that would be akin to double jeopardy & the law doesn't support that.

I understand the players & I understand the level of mutual dislike.After 8 years, I totally get it. But putting all of that aside for even a brief moment, does anything that I said in this post sound reasonable?

Juice, your responses are well written, fair, truthful and so on point. You are a brilliant orator. I hope you do public speaking as you have a great gift that should be shared beyond this forum.

Thank you so much.

Fondly.

Roberta

[soulballad]

I agree. IMO, Flo was the weakest singer in the original Supremes. She had the loudest voice, yes, but it takes more than volume to make a strong singer.

BTW, I bet this thread will be deleted by this evening.

I'll add my two cents and then I'm outta here for a while, because the Supremes [[and Motown in general) cause too much of an uproar on these boards.

Here we go pitting one lady against the other again even if it is just a personal opinon.

Just because Mary and Diana did the leads on the Primette's song doesn't mean anything other that it just happened that way. Martha Reeves didn't sing lead on the Vel's first recording and she ended up being THE ONLY Vandellas singer. Flo got a single release with "Buttered Popcorn" and Mary did not. Again it means nothing. It just happened that way. Here's my opinon on Diana. We all know that she was talented and fabulous etc.etc.etc. Diana's trump card was that she didn't have a traditionally black sounding voice which was a cross over dream. Her leads along with Flo and Mary's ability to work those harmonies on the standards is what pushed them to the Copa and all of the other white supper clubs. It was a time when everthing was held to a "white standard" and anything black was looked down upon as low class. That's why Nat Cole and Ella and sammy were excepted. They were able to bend and reshape themselves into what the masses wanted at that time. It's not a bad thing but it was what it was. Commercial sounding equaled a sound that was palatable to whites. All of that was great for in 1964 and 1965 but it got old really quick. This is where I think it was a bad idea not having the others do more leads because with the late 60's black power movemment sounding black and being black became a welcome thing and anything else was considered a sell out. It's all water under the bridge now and I suppose things happened as they were meant to. At some point you have to just let it all go. Diana needed the Supremes and the Supremes need Diana. One would not have worked without the other.

I just don't understand the pettiness and the anger and bitterness from a lot of the posters. The fans have more issues than the actual people involved. This stuff occured 50 years ago and these people were just entertainers, it NOT that serious people!

[marv2]

I'll add my two cents and then I'm outta here for a while, because the Supremes [[and Motown in general) cause too much of an uproar on these boards.

Here we go pitting one lady against the other again even if it is just a personal opinon.

Just because Mary and Diana did the leads on the Primette's song doesn't mean anything other that it just happened that way. Martha Reeves didn't sing lead on the Vel's first recording and she ended up being THE ONLY Vandellas singer. Flo got a single release with "Buttered Popcorn" and Mary did not. Again it means nothing. It just happened that way. Here's my opinon on Diana. We all know that she was talented and fabulous etc.etc.etc. Diana's trump card was that she didn't have a traditionally black sounding voice which was a cross over dream. Her leads along with Flo and Mary's ability to work those harmonies on the standards is what pushed them to the Copa and all of the other white supper clubs. It was a time when everthing was held to a "white standard" and anything black was looked down upon as low class. That's why Nat Cole and Ella and sammy were excepted. They were able to bend and reshape themselves into what the masses wanted at that time. It's not a bad thing but it was what it was. Commercial sounding equaled a sound that was palatable to whites. All of that was great for in 1964 and 1965 but it got old really quick. This is where I think it was a bad idea not having the others do more leads because with the late 60's black power movemment sounding black and being black became a welcome thing and anything else was considered a sell out. It's all water under the bridge now and I suppose things happened as they were meant to. At some point you have to just let it all go. Diana needed the Supremes and the Supremes need Diana. One would not have worked without the other.

I just don't understand the pettiness and the anger and bitterness from a lot of the posters. The fans have more issues than the actual people involved. This stuff occured 50 years ago and these people were just entertainers, it NOT that serious people!

Very good post with good points. Thank you Soulballad. It is true in my opinion that these fans out there cause most of the trouble. Some of them are so hardcore into an artist that if you say anything that they disagree with, they begin with personal attacks. The worst are the ones that don't even know one another, so lies get made up and told to try to score points. It's not the artists I have problems with, it is their fans that feel they can say anything and everyone is suppose to just accept it.

[marv2]

Let me offer up one suggestion which may help these discussions run a bit smoothly. While i dont believe for one moment that they'll be considered, it's merely food for thought.

Perhaps we'd have a lot less friction if we'd simply focus our responses on the points rased during a particular discussion. Constantly raising old arguments do nothing to advance these discussions & I believe that it leads to a complete inability to discuss anything effectively & often lead to some pretty good points being lost amongst the fighting.

Is it remotely possible for there to simply be a discussion of the thread without the need to resort to individual personal attacks & simply stick to the discussion-at-hand?

By now we all have a pretty good idea of whom said what about whom, whom did what to whom & constantly referring to past practices & deeds only guarantees that yet another potentially thoughtful & informative discussion will slip downthe tubes...

AGAIN

So if we could simply refrain from taking potshots at one another, as well as referring to what Supreme did what to whom, we could one day have a serious & thoughtful discussion about this group of young ladies who accomplished things far beyone their wildest dreams.

We often speak about how groundbreaking The Supremes were & that's nothing but the truth. But I have to say that I find it more than a little ironic that almost every discussion about 3 young ladies whom brought the world together through their music & bridged such a huge gap, serves as grist that divides a segment of a forum consisting of people whom love them damn near every time.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

Either way, despite any previous wrongs done by anyone, i'd rather have proof in the archives that it was them whom fired the first shot in order to support my position about them, than to be the one whom fires the first shot by being the first one to bring up their past misdeeds if it wasn't done at that particular time in that particular thread.

What I'm saying is that it's one thing to call someone out right where & when they commit an offense. In that case, whatever they get, they get & rightfully so. But to dredge up those offenses when they aren't being committed, or were done in the past isn't helpful. In a court of law, that would be akin to double jeopardy & the law doesn't support that.

I understand the players & I understand the level of mutual dislike.After 8 years, I totally get it. But putting all of that aside for even a brief moment, does anything that I said in this post sound reasonable?

What you said, you said perfectly clear and anyone reading it should have ability to understand it. What you witnessed in this thread happens over and over again. You get a guy who is some sort of self-proclaimed "Motown expert" that whenever someone disagrees with what he says as gospel, he goes into his smear campaign made up of lies generally about myself. I have held back telling the truth about why this person always responds like that towards me. He feels threatened, but that is his issue to deal with, not mine! There are other issues that he evidently has not resolved in his own mind that again is his problem to deal with.

I never knew until the internet age that there were people that were so hardcore over the Supremes or Diana Ross. It has been more than an eye opening experience for me and others. Mary had some good "public" advice and that was to leave her and Diane out of the petty talk. I've asked this guy and his few buddies to leave me out of the petty talk as well, but that gets ignore when I can routinely open up a thread and find my name being tossed around like I am the subject of discussion. She's given me some good advice over the years and she has not been wrong yet. So Juice you are being more than just reasonable, you are making damned good sense!

Marv

[BayouMotownMan]

There is a difference, and a big one, between disagreement and misquoting me. That I will never allow

[skooldem1]

Diana Ross has never sounded white. She may have recorded some dull, middle of the road music, but she never sounded white. In 1964 what exactly did a traditional sounding black voice sound like? We are talking before "black power" in music. What exactly were "white" fans of the music comparing her voice to? Just who were they exposed to on a national level? Ella, Sammy, and any of the other "black" artist back then didn't sing like Mahalia Jackson either. BTW I can think of many singers that can outsing a host of Motown singers, including Mary Wells and Martha Reeves, and people like Dusty Springfield, but its funny that no one ever mentions that when discussing "singers" . Why is that?? Bottom line is, Gordy felt she had the most potential. His company, his decision.

[BayouMotownMan]

Well, this is a touchy subject, but I think it comes down to what was considered commercial at that time. During the time of Diana Ross's ascension, the sweet-voiced female singer with soft tones were popular. Connie Francis, Brenda Lee, Sue Thompson etc. It wasn't until Aretha burst on the scene that the more high octane vocalist slowly began overcoming the previous trend.

It wasn't that Ross was the better vocalist, it was just something about her voice fronting those powerful Funk Bros that gave her that trademark sound. Personally, I never thought Ross sounded as good on stage as she did in the studio. I can't imagine anyone taking Baby Love or My World Is Empty to the top the way Ross did. Later, she became more confident as a singer and gave stronger performances on Love Is Here and Love Child. I feel Ross was in her prime vocally from 67-71. After she did Billie Holiday her voice just didn't have the same tones to me and personally I don't like a lot of her solo stuff...especially when disco took over.

[detmotownguy]

Hi Marv:
Come on Marv, you grew up in Detroit too lol!!!! You stated, "I never knew until the internet age that there were people that were so hardcore over the Supremes or Diana Ross". This discussion will continue till the end of time! Although Mary asked to leave her and Diane out of petty talk, it just ain't going to happen!

This thread should have been killed as soon as it morphed away from Blueskies ORIGINAL question of, "Does anyone know when Cindy was chosen to replace Florence in The Supremes....was she selected on 'looks' and availability only....or, what she sounded like vocally played into it? I'm wondering if they even knew what she sounded like [[did she audition?) or they weren't particularly interested in her voice? Just wondering". Hell, poor Miss Cindy's name is barely mentioned since the thread started! And Blueskies question was an honest question and not like some whose goal is to instigate trouble between the MW and DR fans.

I will try to email you tonight.

[1382hitsville]

Will this be the final battle between Supremes fans? Most post are well written, well argumented. But my guess is, 10 years on, we will still talk about this...

Isn't that actually a great accomplishment? 50 years ago, 3 girls, 18 hours a day working...and we still discuss them.

Why not be thankfull of all they have given to us?

[Roberta75]

Will this be the final battle between Supremes fans? Most post are well written, well argumented. But my guess is, 10 years on, we will still talk about this...

Isn't that actually a great accomplishment? 50 years ago, 3 girls, 18 hours a day working...and we still discuss them.

Why not be thankfull of all they have given to us?

Isn't that the truth 1382hitsville.

There seems to one one or two here who bash Diana and Mary on a daily basis but the majority here love and respect all Supremes.

Best to you.

Roberta

[marv2]

Hi Marv:
Come on Marv, you grew up in Detroit too lol!!!! You stated, "I never knew until the internet age that there were people that were so hardcore over the Supremes or Diana Ross". This discussion will continue till the end of time! Although Mary asked to leave her and Diane out of petty talk, it just ain't going to happen!

This thread should have been killed as soon as it morphed away from Blueskies ORIGINAL question of, "Does anyone know when Cindy was chosen to replace Florence in The Supremes....was she selected on 'looks' and availability only....or, what she sounded like vocally played into it? I'm wondering if they even knew what she sounded like [[did she audition?) or they weren't particularly interested in her voice? Just wondering". Hell, poor Miss Cindy's name is barely mentioned since the thread started! And Blueskies question was an honest question and not like some whose goal is to instigate trouble between the MW and DR fans.

I will try to email you tonight.

Yeah, but Detroiters were real about things and not manic like some of these guys that start trouble all day about trivial things. Yes email me.

[marv2]

Isn't that the truth 1382hitsville.

There seems to one one or two here who bash Diana and Mary on a daily basis but the majority here love and respect all Supremes.

Best to you.

Roberta

The only bashing I see is that of you and your buddies towards other members here like me. Don't even try it. Remember I know why you are here!

[blueskies]

Hi Marv:
Come on Marv, you grew up in Detroit too lol!!!! You stated, "I never knew until the internet age that there were people that were so hardcore over the Supremes or Diana Ross". This discussion will continue till the end of time! Although Mary asked to leave her and Diane out of petty talk, it just ain't going to happen!

This thread should have been killed as soon as it morphed away from Blueskies ORIGINAL question of, "Does anyone know when Cindy was chosen to replace Florence in The Supremes....was she selected on 'looks' and availability only....or, what she sounded like vocally played into it? I'm wondering if they even knew what she sounded like [[did she audition?) or they weren't particularly interested in her voice? Just wondering". Hell, poor Miss Cindy's name is barely mentioned since the thread started! And Blueskies question was an honest question and not like some whose goal is to instigate trouble between the MW and DR fans.

I will try to email you tonight.

Thank you demotownguy! As soon as the thread went south, I regretted posting it. I sincerely appreciated those who contributed to the original question. Thank you, again.

[marv2]

Thank you demotownguy! As soon as the thread went south, I regretted posting it. I sincerely appreciated those who contributed to the original question. Thank you, again.

Blueskies it didn't have to [[go south) but whenever you get these "experts" that weren't even anywhere near Detroit when these events occurred start in with their versions of things.......you're going to have a problem.

To the original question, I sincerely believe the overriding factor that won Cindy the job of becoming a Supreme was her perceived resemblance to Florence Ballard and not her voice. It did help that she was an experienced entertainer and singer, but it was not the deciding factor.

[Roberta75]

The only bashing I see is that of you and your buddies towards other members here like me. Don't even try it. Remember I know why you are here!

Oh please stop playing the victim marv2. It's very undignified and most of us see right through your charade.

[marv2]

Oh please stop playing the victim marv2. It's very undignified and most of us see right through your charade.

Okay Roberta Jon! You've been clocked a while ago. Now do you want to keep it up and get into trouble? Your call man.

[Roberta75]

Okay Roberta Jon! You've been clocked a while ago. Now do you want to keep it up and get into trouble? Your call man.

No idea what you are talking about but you've been clocked longer than me marv2. Wanna put me on ignore and I'll do the same to you?

[marv2]

No idea what you are talking about but you've been clocked longer than me marv2. Wanna put me on ignore and I'll do the same to you?

Of course you do man. You are what they call a ringer. You've been banned from here several times and keep coming back to start more crap under new aliases and trumped up personas. Do you want to keep fooling with me?

[Roberta75]

Of course you do man. You are what they call a ringer. You've been banned from here several times and keep coming back to start more crap under new aliases and trumped up personas. Do you want to keep fooling with me?

I have never ever been banned from here. See, there you go with your false accusations and untruths. I have no interest in fooling with you and if you think I'm going to engage you in a petty schoolgirl argument until Ralph zaps the thread you are very much mistaken. Grow up and stop the attacks please.

[robbert]

BayouMotownMan : "Diana started talking to Berry about Cindy in mid to late 1966."
Marv: "So Diane was trying to get rid of Flo as early as 1966?"

The linguistic difference between the verbs 'to talk' [[about Cindy) and 'to get rid of' [[Flo).

This is what the stupid discussion above is all about. One must be mental to take part in such futility.

I'm out of here, AGAIN!

[marv2]

I have never ever been banned from here. See, there you go with your false accusations and untruths. I have no interest in fooling with you and if you think I'm going to engage you in a petty schoolgirl argument until Ralph zaps the thread you are very much mistaken. Grow up and stop the attacks please.

I'm not atacking anyone. I am just stating a fact. Last count, you have been removed 3 times from the old forum to now. I am fully grown, trust me. I'd never be confused for a schoolgirl. It's up to you if this continues.

[Roberta75]

I'm not atacking anyone. I am just stating a fact. Last count, you have been removed 3 times from the old forum to now. I am fully grown, trust me. I'd never be confused for a schoolgirl. It's up to you if this continues.

I have never been removed from this forum. I refuse to indulge you any further. You reek havoc wherever you go and your youtube comments are hateful homophobic disgusting and riddled with threats of violence. You need to get a hold of yourself. There are kids killing themselves everyday because of bullying and homophobia. Think about that before you post another potentially dangerous and irresponsible comment on youtube.

[marv2]

I have never been removed from this forum. I refuse to indulge you any further. You reek havoc wherever you go and your youtube comments are hateful homophobic disgusting and riddled with threats of violence. You need to get a hold of yourself. There are kids killing themselves everyday because of bullying and homophobia. Think about that before you post another potentially dangerous and irresponsible comment on youtube.

Ok Jon! Do yourself a favor.......

[cleoharvey]

Very good post Soulballad. I have been stunned by the vitriol from fans about the Supremes all over the internet. One thing this shows is the impact that these ladies made. There is one person who peruses Youtube to find Mary Wilson videos and then posts some absolutely horrible comments. When you read one, you say to yourself "Okay that is that person's opinion and move on." But when you read 10-15 nasty comments from the same person it gets old, especially about such a lovely person.

[Roberta75]

Very good post Soulballad. I have been stunned by the vitriol from fans about the Supremes all over the internet. One thing this shows is the impact that these ladies made. There is one person who peruses Youtube to find Mary Wilson videos and then posts some absolutely horrible comments. When you read one, you say to yourself "Okay that is that person's opinion and move on." But when you read 10-15 nasty comments from the same person it gets old, especially about such a lovely person.

Some of the Diana Ross and Mary Wilson youtube clips are rife with hateful horrible comments. It's best to watch the video and not read the disgusting comments. I stopped reading them as they upset me terribly.

Best to you.

Roberta

[dianesfan_1965]

Very good post Soulballad. I have been stunned by the vitriol from fans about the Supremes all over the internet. One thing this shows is the impact that these ladies made. There is one person who peruses Youtube to find Mary Wilson videos and then posts some absolutely horrible comments. When you read one, you say to yourself "Okay that is that person's opinion and move on." But when you read 10-15 nasty comments from the same person it gets old, especially about such a lovely person.

Yeah there's a bunch of nut jobs over there. Some freak named TWA or something like that is always fighting with Big Bear Lake. They both need to be locked up.

[rod_rick]

It was not my intention to pit one singer over the other, if that's what I did, I apologize, not into that at all.

[Roberta75]

It was not my intention to pit one singer over the other, if that's what I did, I apologize, not into that at all.

You have no reason to apologize my dear rod_rick.

Best to you.

Roberta

[juicefree20]

ejluther,

Thank you. As for Flo's CD, I really wanted to love it. When an artist I really like comes out with music, I twist myself into knots trying to love everything about it. When I was younger, I wasn't always able to be unbiased about things like that. Growing up, my favorite singer was James Brown & I was a James Brown fanatic. Ill never forget when he came out with the song World in 1969. And though you couldn't really dance to it with all of its dramatic stop-start tempo changes, the truth is that it simply wasn't one of his better efforts & frankly, you never see that song appear on any of his compilations.

But that didn't stop me from brain-washing myself into loving it because hey, it was James Brown, my MAIN man!

The same thing played itself out in the Disco years when I tried to convince myself that evey song recorded by El Coco was great on the strength of the fact that I loved Let's Get It together. Eventually I came to understand that it was alright for me not to like every song made by James Brown, Sam Cooke or any other artist whom I admired.

In fact, it appears to me as though only the most rabid fans of The Supremes honestly believe that they're in love with a group who's never made a bad record, an idea that makes me laugh while considering such a thing.

Jackie Wilson made a ton of songs that I have absolutely no use for, the same for Sam Cooke. In their early years, The O'Jays, The Isley Brothers [[especially The Isley Brothers), The Whispers, hell fill in the blank, have made records that just don't make it. I remember speaking with a couple of The Dells about their first single, Darling I Know & you could hear the groans of pain at the mere mention of the song. And they had no problem saying that they would've loved to have a do-over on that one. And I'm really going to commit some serious Soul blasphemy here & say that James Brown made a whole lot of songs that sucked big time & sometimes that organ playing...WHEW!!!

The point is that there's nothing wrong with admitting that your favorite singer didn't hit a homerun everytime at bat. Hell, sometimes they swing & miss or hit a little pop-up to the catcher. But that fact doesn't diminish their greatness in my eyes, nor does it make me appreciate their music any less. It's no personal slight to say that of hundreds of songs that Sam, Jackie or James recorded that there's roughly 1/4 recorded of each that I absolutely dislike.

But it seems to be the case with some Supremes fans that if someone so much as suggests that they didn't like a glissando on the 3rd noted or bar 4 of whatever song, youve committed a crime far worse than had you simply raped the family dog, molested the town virgin, then slapped your mama in the head. To this type of fans, of all of the great artists whom had put their voices on vinyl, shellac or wax cylinder, they & they alone are the only group whom has NEVER hit a bad note & has NEVER made a record which was less than spectacular.

How can one ever hope to reason with, much less make sense with anyone possessing such logic?

It's cool to be a fan, but a fanatic...not so much.

[juicefree20]

Roberta,

Thank you.

Soulballad,

Within the parameters of this conversation I don't see it so much as pitting one lady against the other, but rather trying to make sense of the differences which led to decisions being made as they were. In order to come up with a vocal blend which is sellable, one has to take into account all of the things which we are discussing because when all is said & done, isn't that was a record company trying to do...to understand what makes people buy records & to give the buyers the sound that they want to hear?

The various vocal qualities are a part of what they consider & I feel fairly safe in guaranteeing you that had Berry Gordy had Big Mama Thornton belting out Where Did Our Love Go instead of Diana Ross, it may have sold R&B, but The Supremes & Motown would've gotten no closer to those supper clubs than I am today.

I believe that pitting one against the other is when you base opinions on personalities & whom screwed over whom. But when were discussing the vocal qualities of the ladies & what made them work as well as what might not have worked so well & why certain decisions were made, that's a much fairer conversation than the ones which deal in conspiracy theories & dogging folks for what happened in 1964, 1967 or 1986 for that matter.

I guess that everyone one will have a favorite & that is personal & subjective. But I don't view discussing their individual vocal qualities as pitting one against the other, but more as trying to make an intelligent guesstimation as to why certain decisions were made within the group in light of the mores of that particular era.

[juicefree20]

Rick,

Indeed there is a tremendous difference between the two & I'm with you 1000% as regards your right to speak up if your words are being twisted. I would do exactly the same thing & probably with a lot less restraint than you. But what I will ask you to do is to re-read the original question posed by Blueskies, then re-read your response & see how your response could read, because it seems to be open to interpretation or even misconstrued by anyone left to their own devices.

Personally, as we already know the history about what happened those 44 years ago, I saw no reason to comment on what you wrote because it happened 44 years ago & truthfully, it never affected me in such a manner that I would be worked up over something like that. But I'll admit that when I read your response to the original question, I wondered exactly what were they discussing about Cindy & why.

With that said, I also understand that you were simply answering a question & didn't say that with the intent of opening a door for anyone to take a shot at anyone else.

sigh...

[dianesfan_1965]

ejluther,

Thank you. As for Flo's CD, I really wanted to love it.

In fact, it appears to me as though only the most rabid fans of The Supremes honestly believe that they're in love with a group who's never made a bad record, an idea that makes me laugh while considering such a thing.




I hear that Jucie. When I finally heard that CD from Florence I was TRYING to like it. Love the woman. She seemed like a real kick ass dame and funny as can be. But that record was not good.

As for songs the Supremes did than stank worse than a batch of clams sitting in the hot sun, there were PLENTY. Back in the 60's and early 70's it seemed that albums were just two hit singles and rest filler. Which is probably why I never bought any of the Supremes albums unless they were a greatest hits set. I will say that I did like about 50% of the songs on the "Right On" album. Ross didn't put out a good complete album until "The Boss" the rest were a hit single or two mixed in a crap salad.

[juicefree20]

Rod_Rick

Why are you apologizing? I don't see where you said anything wrong, nor did you pit one person against the other. All that you did was to offer your opinion about how you felt the situation & actually, you spoke more about the way that the ladies were produced & you were 1000% correct about that because as we learned in each of these cases, the production was the difference between tremendous success & moving on to the next phase of one's life.

Even a seasoned record pro like Jerry Wexler admitted this when while discussing Mary Wells, "We couldn't do anything with her, we didn't have Smokey Robinson".

That's a hell of an admission for a guy like Jerry Wexler to make when he's saying that not even he & his staff of writers could figure out an effective way to arrange for Mary's voice.

Not many men would've admitted such a thing & that only serves to underscore the very points which you made.

You have nothing to apologize about.

[BayouMotownMan]

Thank you Juice, and I did re-read it. Only ONE person, the usual one, twisted it and turned into something ugly about Diana Ross. Clueless as always.

Actually, as has already been stated by Diana, when the problems with Flo began it occured to Gordy that illness could strike either Mary or Flo. It was the company's decision that if Diana was ill there would be no performance. I don't necessarily agree with that but Motown was protective of the famous dollar-generating sound of the Supremes. Therefore, usually an Andante was on call for either Mary or Flo. I don't believe that Mary ever missed a performance.

What most people don't know is that when the Supremes opened at the Copa in 1965, Gladys Horton told me that on the second night Diana was so hoarse that Flo did do a large part of the leads. I doubted this, but later when I asked Katherine Anderson about it, she remembered it that way also. I think it was a situation where Jules Podell was adamant that the show go on so Gordy relented. I do believe this to be a factual event.

[detmotownguy]

Marv clean up in in box ok!

[juicefree20]

Dianesfan,

I absolutely loved Flo & always had a great deal of empathy for her. At heart, I'm for the underdog & always want to see them succeed against tremendous odds.

For my part, I was just a little too young to have been caught up in their drama. I was 7 when Flo left the group & at the age of 7, I was worried more about playing Cowboys & Indians & looking up my teacher's skirt, than I was about what was happening with a group of women whom I didn't really know. To be perfectly honest about it, at that point I was more concerned about James Brown or family friend Roddie Joy having a hit than I was about The Supremes.

As a young boy growing up in Brooklyn, The Supremes were a girl group & simply didn't resonate with me in that manner. I liked them because they were cute, they had flair & they were BAD! But I never got caught up in the glamour & glitz & actually hated that kind of pomp & circumstance because I couldn't relate to it. While I could admire their for their beautiful gowns, I never thought in terms of my wearing their gowns. They represented something totally different to me than they did & do to their most rabid of fans. To me as a kid during their heyday, they were girls that a little fella could dream about hugging & I was proud of what they accomplished because back then, they had reached a level of fame & success that precious few of those whom looked like me did. Then again, there were equally gorgeous ladies to feel that way about back then so I never fixated on them.

While I loved Motown & just about all of their stars [[The Four Tops, Temptations & Marvin were my favorites), simply put, they weren't my end-all & be-all. I loved the music coming out of Atlantic, Brunswick & Stax just as much as I loved Motown. I also loved the music coming out of 100 other small labels whom could barely keep their doors open.

If the music touched me, it touched me & whether in was recorded by the huge star, or by a few of the smaller satellites, I loved it all the same. Which is why for as much as I may love the stars whom have gotten their acclaim, it's the lesser-known artists like Alicia Myers, The Fuzz, The Younghearts or Tomorrow's Promise whom resonate within me the most.

So yes, I wanted to love Flo's CD. After hearing & reading so many glowing words for decades, I was all set & more than waiting to have my socks knocked off. I kinda liked It Doesn't Matter How I Say It, but truthfully, it sounded like the tempo was moving just a little too fast for her to really dig into it & beyond that, it was clearly an attempt to give her the Motown sound & honestly, not a very good attempt at that. I only like it because it was Flo & only because it was about the best of the bunch, which is a crime.

I could go track-by-track & state illustrate where & why they go astray but I never wanted to do that, so it's a CD that I never offered a review of. In this case, I'd have been writing about an artist whom has long been one of my favorites, purely on the strength of how I believed her to her been, her beauty & also because I've always believed that justifiably or not, she got a raw deal.

And Im perfectly aware that by merely suggesting that the music & production served her badly & that this isn't the best CD since the Second Coming, that some will regard my words as heresy & somehow twist that into me "hating" on her. If so, so be it. I'm not going to make an idiot of myself by trying to suggest that this material is up to par with that which she recorded with Motown, or any other of 50 labels whom damn well could've done a better job in producing Flo. From where I sit, Helen Keller could've come up with better production than this in braille & if anyone believes that this music failed because DJs were payed not to play it, then I have several of the finest in N.Y. bridges & some swamp land near Gateway that I'm more than willing to sell to anyone who buys into that particular theory.

Understand, this is not to be misconstrued as a slam of Florence's voice, but rather upon the production values [[or lack thereof) & absolute lack of direction, which undermined any hope for success. Listen to her vocals on Buttered Popcorn & you hear a voice there. You hear a voice that you can tell is holding back, but given a chance, you can tell that this is a woman whom can BLOW!

The best way that I can describe it is that it sounds to me as though they were trying so hard to copy her success with The Supremes, that in the process Florence Ballard got lost in their quest to arrange for her & have her phrase as though she were Diana Ross. If you don't think so, just take a listen to a song like Goin' Out Of My Head & listen to how they have her phrasing. Even worse listen to the backing vocals, especially at the fade. The backing vocals are stiff & stilted & they have a metronic quality to them, much akin to the sound that wind-up soldier make as the spring winds down. Sadly, they have Flo sounding too restrained & too well-mannered. This is a song of angst, the protagonist has his loved one at wit's end, which is something that is a very highly emotional-charged situation.

But you don't hear any of that pain, nor do you hear that emotion. For the way they arranged this song, she could've been singing about reading the Sunday paper & it would've had the same impact. There's just a total disconnect between the subject matter & the performance.

None of this was on Flo, it's on the producer/arranger. And no, this is not pitting one against the other, but is simply an analysis as to, conspiracy theories aside, what really went into these decisions, as well as what went wrong & how perhaps, with a few tweks here & there, history as we know it could've been so much different.

Which after the passing of more than 40 years, I guess the point is moot.

[marv2]

Marv clean up in in box ok!

Oh I am sorry. I've gotten a lot emails this week. Check in 5 mins.

[dianesfan_1965]

You crack me up Juice! Lookin up your teacher's skirt!!! You crazy kid!!!!

[marv2]

Dianesfan,

I absolutely loved Flo & always had a great deal of empathy for her. At heart, I'm for the underdog & always want to see them succeed against tremendous odds.

For my part, I was just a little too young to have been caught up in their drama. I was 7 when Flo left the group & at the age of 7, I was worried more about playing Cowboys & Indians & looking up my teacher's skirt, than I was about what was happening with a group of women whom I didn't really know. To be perfectly honest about it, at that point I was more concerned about James Brown or family friend Roddie Joy having a hit than I was about The Supremes.

As a young boy growing up in Brooklyn, The Supremes were a girl group & simply didn't resonate with me in that manner. I liked them because they were cute, they had flair & they were BAD! But I never got caught up in the glamour & glitz & actually hated that kind of pomp & circumstance because I couldn't relate to it. While I could admire their for their beautiful gowns, I never thought in terms of my wearing their gowns. They represented something totally different to me than they did & do to their most rabid of fans. To me as a kid during their heyday, they were girls that a little fella could dream about hugging & I was proud of what they accomplished because back then, they had reached a level of fame & success that precious few of those whom looked like me did. Then again, there were equally gorgeous ladies to feel that way about back then so I never fixated on them.

While I loved Motown & just about all of their stars [[The Four Tops, Temptations & Marvin were my favorites), simply put, they weren't my end-all & be-all. I loved the music coming out of Atlantic, Brunswick & Stax just as much as I loved Motown. I also loved the music coming out of 100 other small labels whom could barely keep their doors open.

If the music touched me, it touched me & whether in was recorded by the huge star, or by a few of the smaller satellites, I loved it all the same. Which is why for as much as I may love the stars whom have gotten their acclaim, it's the lesser-known artists like Alicia Myers, The Fuzz, The Younghearts or Tomorrow's Promise whom resonate within me the most.

So yes, I wanted to love Flo's CD. After hearing & reading so many glowing words for decades, I was all set & more than waiting to have my socks knocked off. I kinda liked It Doesn't Matter How I Say It, but truthfully, it sounded like the tempo was moving just a little too fast for her to really dig into it & beyond that, it was clearly an attempt to give her the Motown sound & honestly, not a very good attempt at that. I only like it because it was Flo & only because it was about the best of the bunch, which is a crime.

I could go track-by-track & state illustrate where & why they go astray but I never wanted to do that, so it's a CD that I never offered a review of. In this case, I'd have been writing about an artist whom has long been one of my favorites, purely on the strength of how I believed her to her been, her beauty & also because I've always believed that justifiably or not, she got a raw deal.

And Im perfectly aware that by merely suggesting that the music & production served her badly & that this isn't the best CD since the Second Coming, that some will regard my words as heresy & somehow twist that into me "hating" on her. If so, so be it. I'm not going to make an idiot of myself by trying to suggest that this material is up to par with that which she recorded with Motown, or any other of 50 labels whom damn well could've done a better job in producing Flo. From where I sit, Helen Keller could've come up with better production than this in braille & if anyone believes that this music failed because DJs were payed not to play it, then I have several of the finest in N.Y. bridges & some swamp land near Gateway that I'm more than willing to sell to anyone who buys into that particular theory.

Understand, this is not to be misconstrued as a slam of Florence's voice, but rather upon the production values [[or lack thereof) & absolute lack of direction, which undermined any hope for success. Listen to her vocals on Buttered Popcorn & you hear a voice there. You hear a voice that you can tell is holding back, but given a chance, you can tell that this is a woman whom can BLOW!

The best way that I can describe it is that it sounds to me as though they were trying so hard to copy her success with The Supremes, that in the process Florence Ballard got lost in their quest to arrange for her & have her phrase as though she were Diana Ross. If you don't think so, just take a listen to a song like Goin' Out Of My Head & listen to how they have her phrasing. Even worse listen to the backing vocals, especially at the fade. The backing vocals are stiff & stilted & they have a metronic quality to them, much akin to the sound that wind-up soldier make as the spring winds down. Sadly, they have Flo sounding too restrained & too well-mannered. This is a song of angst, the protagonist has his loved one at wit's end, which is something that is a very highly emotional-charged situation.

But you don't hear any of that pain, nor do you hear that emotion. For the way they arranged this song, she could've been singing about reading the Sunday paper & it would've had the same impact. There's just a total disconnect between the subject matter & the performance.

None of this was on Flo, it's on the producer/arranger. And no, this is not pitting one against the other, but is simply an analysis as to, conspiracy theories aside, what really went into these decisions, as well as what went wrong & how perhaps, with a few tweks here & there, history as we know it could've been so much different.

Which after the passing of more than 40 years, I guess the point is moot.

Juice, reading this post is like it was a monologue of my own life and experiences in a way. We grew up at the exact same time, same age etc,etc and I can see we saw things similarly! I was 7 when Florence Ballard left the Supremes but it did not cause me to think anything! In those days I was playing Little League, collecting comic books and baseball cards [[Tigers RULE!). The Supremes would come on TV and we'd all watch. They sure were purty and sexy [[even though I may not have known what the word meant at the time, but we city kids were a bit advanced.....hehehehe..) Anyway, the music was good. My parents bought a lot of it and it was always on the radio. Every now and then we'd see a "star" in a store or catch a group like the Marvelettes singing in concert at a local park.

None of the things that are discussed today on forums like this were ever even imagined back in those days. Maybe it was for the better?

[juicefree20]

Rick,

Anytime at all.

I guess what concerns me is that when reading through all of this, the message that Im receiving is that a lot of what's being said in this thread is not so much about anything which has been said in this thread, but rather things which have been written on youtube. Unfortunately, what happens over there usually finds its way back here.

Personally, I have no axes to grind with anyone here. There's enough to have to deal with in a world as crazy as his. Times are hard, there's a lot of turmoil going on & innocent children & mothers are being shot & even killed in the streets & that doesn't take into consideration that I'm sure that we all have to deal with personal or family issues in the real world, I know that I do. I'm sure that you can appreciate how constant near wars over things wwith are relatively trivial as this, absolutely puzzles me.

For my part, I'm merely playing devil's advocate & am doing so for a few reasons. For one thing, while having had a few dust-ups of my own here, I do care about this forum. Over a space of 8 years, there are people here whom I've grown to truly care about & I've never met most of them in person. We've prayed for one another when things were rough, we've smiled together, laughed together & have educated one another along the way. To my knowledge, there are few forums which have the scope of this one when it comes to knowledge of music. Many are somewhat specialist sites which focus on specific genres, but SDF touches base on various genres & perhaps with the exclusion of Country music, there are people here who can speak fluently on those genres.

I'm also coming from a perspective of a person whom has seen situations such as this spiral quickly out of control. Some of these disputes have been going on for so long & have become so personal & vicious that I believe there's going to come a day when it reaches a flashpoint & we're going to be reading about someone in the news.

I realize that many people believe that since this is the internet there's a bit of a safety net built in & I would suggest that that is deceptive. While many people believe that they may never be in the presence of one another, can anyone truly say that with any degree of certainty? It's a small world, a very small world & one never knows what life has in store for them, much less what roads life will lead them down. For example, when I came to SDF, I never dreamed about becoming a photographer & I certainly never dreamed that I would one day meet just about every musical hero of my childhood,much less converse with them at shows or on the phone. But that's exactly what happened because of SDF, which is why I have no problem sending in a donation every month. I've never mentioned it & not even Ralph knows whose name I donate in, but I do out of appreciation not only because of how it's changed my life, but for the information which its freely provided to all of us for 10 years now.

I say all of this because I've seen several people whom I've had disputes with & folks whom had outright lied on me. They knew it & I knew it but some people don't seem to understand that their words can have serious consequences & brush it off like it's a joke. And if I were a different kind of person, they'd have come to know exactly what consequences their words could've had. Out here in the real world, people die every day over the kind of things that always occur in these types of threads. This stuff simply gets way too personal, way too nasty & seriously, people lose their lives for much less than this.

What I'm saying is that in this world there are times when trouble just can't be avoided because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because you simply have no other choice. But this level of dislike constantly popping up over THIS, it's just something that I just don't understand. The only reason why I'm even saying anything at all is because I keep hoping that somehow, someway, someday [[absolutely no pun intended), that all involved will take a look at all of this, see how unnecessary & futile it is & that their better self will prevail & kill these arguments amongst adults, which we wouldn't tolerate from children.

Perchance to dream....

[marv2]

You crack me up Juice! Lookin up your teacher's skirt!!! You crazy kid!!!!

Heck, I can remember falling down on purpose so that my 1st Grade Teacher, Miss Harste would have to pick me up and hold me close to her tight Mohair sweater.........hehehehehehehe.........hehehehe!

[juicefree20]

Yeah Diane, I was a dirty old kid.

When I was in elementary school, we had cause to go to the school library. And they used to have those huge wooden ladders that rolled from one side of the bookcase to the other. Back then, my thing was reading about Baseball. If there was anything that I loved more than music at that age, it was Baseball. While I hadn't figured out their numbering system, I was always more than a little happy whenever I realized that the teacher was about to ascend that ladder.

Talk about a stairway to heaven!

[Roberta75]

Rick,

Anytime at all.

I guess what concerns me is that when reading through all of this, the message that Im receiving is that a lot of what's being said in this thread is not so much about anything which has been said in this thread, but rather things which have been written on youtube. Unfortunately, what happens over there usually finds its way back here.

Personally, I have no axes to grind with anyone here. There's enough to have to deal with in a world as crazy as his. Times are hard, there's a lot of turmoil going on & innocent children & mothers are being shot & even killed in the streets & that doesn't take into consideration that I'm sure that we all have to deal with personal or family issues in the real world, I know that I do. I'm sure that you can appreciate how constant near wars over things wwith are relatively trivial as this, absolutely puzzles me.

For my part, I'm merely playing devil's advocate & am doing so for a few reasons. For one thing, while having had a few dust-ups of my own here, I do care about this forum. Over a space of 8 years, there are people here whom I've grown to truly care about & I've never met most of them in person. We've prayed for one another when things were rough, we've smiled together, laughed together & have educated one another along the way. To my knowledge, there are few forums which have the scope of this one when it comes to knowledge of music. Many are somewhat specialist sites which focus on specific genres, but SDF touches base on various genres & perhaps with the exclusion of Country music, there are people here who can speak fluently on those genres.

I'm also coming from a perspective of a person whom has seen situations such as this spiral quickly out of control. Some of these disputes have been going on for so long & have become so personal & vicious that I believe there's going to come a day when it reaches a flashpoint & we're going to be reading about someone in the news.

I realize that many people believe that since this is the internet there's a bit of a safety net built in & I would suggest that that is deceptive. While many people believe that they may never be in the presence of one another, can anyone truly say that with any degree of certainty? It's a small world, a very small world & one never knows what life has in store for them, much less what roads life will lead them down. For example, when I came to SDF, I never dreamed about becoming a photographer & I certainly never dreamed that I would one day meet just about every musical hero of my childhood,much less converse with them at shows or on the phone. But that's exactly what happened because of SDF, which is why I have no problem sending in a donation every month. I've never mentioned it & not even Ralph knows whose name I donate in, but I do out of appreciation not only because of how it's changed my life, but for the information which its freely provided to all of us for 10 years now.

I say all of this because I've seen several people whom I've had disputes with & folks whom had outright lied on me. They knew it & I knew it but some people don't seem to understand that their words can have serious consequences & brush it off like it's a joke. And if I were a different kind of person, they'd have come to know exactly what consequences their words could've had. Out here in the real world, people die every day over the kind of things that always occur in these types of threads. This stuff simply gets way too personal, way too nasty & seriously, people lose their lives for much less than this.

What I'm saying is that in this world there are times when trouble just can't be avoided because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because you simply have no other choice. But this level of dislike constantly popping up over THIS, it's just something that I just don't understand. The only reason why I'm even saying anything at all is because I keep hoping that somehow, someway, someday [[absolutely no pun intended), that all involved will take a look at all of this, see how unnecessary & futile it is & that their better self will prevail & kill these arguments amongst adults, which we wouldn't tolerate from children.

Perchance to dream....

I am literally standing up applauding you sir. You are a wise man Juice and a good man. Thank you for your wonderful words of wisdom and amazing insight.

May God bless you in every area of your life.

With deep appreciation and respect.

Roberta

[Roberta75]

Yeah Diane, I was a dirty old kid.

When I was in elementary school, we had cause to go to the school library. And they used to have those huge wooden ladders that rolled from one side of the bookcase to the other. Back then, my thing was reading about Baseball. If there was anything that I loved more than music at that age, it was Baseball. While I hadn't figured out their numbering system, I was always more than a little happy whenever I realized that the teacher was about to ascend that ladder.

Talk about a stairway to heaven!

You are a very naughty but awfully nice [[smile) boy Juice

[juicefree20]

Marv,

Yeah, there's something about growing up in a big city that opens your eyes real fast. On the other hand, I sure remember that when some of the girls from other regions came to visit during Summer vacation, they weren't exactly slouches!

I think that the internet can be a blessing & in the wrong hands, it's definitely a curse. Right here on SDF, we communicate with like-minded people whom live thousands of miles away, as well as from other countries. The information available is mind-boggling. Unfortunately, just as with a speak, a knife or a gun, when in the wrong hands it can be dangerous. Given the habit of nonsense & attacks that I've seen written about people on various internet forums, I'm beginning to think that everyone should be verified & registered before being able to access it.

There's a danger of losing a lot of important information, but there are also far too many people having their id's stolen, being stalked, companies putting people's personal & private information on the internet without their knowledge nor their consent. People are being killed over Facebook postings & though it's a slippery slope, it's clear that something has to be done, if only to protect the innocent.

Other than that, we live in a society which is far too voyeuristic & too wrapped up in bullshit & things which really are none of their business. Why I should care about a housewife from Atlanta or New York or a Snooki, I really don't know. And why a guy with a camera feels that I need to know what the vagina of Britney spears looks like, I don't know.But I do know thatif more people worried more about their own lives rather than they do about Snooki's, Wendy's or that of their favorite entertainer, the world might just be a bit better of a place to live in.

In other words, I have no answers!

[juicefree20]

Roberta,

Thank you. I'm wise about some things & not quite as wise about others. As for any wisdom & insight, when I consider my own dust-ups here, I'm little different than a guy who's smart enough to build a bomb, but sometimes lacks the common sense to know how to push the button that detonates it.

All that I am is a guy who understands that years of arguing hasn't solved a thing & wonders why it keeps reoccurring between folks who know that their arguing isn't going to change even one thing that happened 44 years ago.

I'm far from a genius, but just a little wiser than some may believe, even when I don't let on that I am :)

[Roberta75]

Roberta,

Thank you. I'm wise about some things & not quite as wise about others. As for any wisdom & insight, when I consider my own dust-ups here, I'm little different than a guy who's smart enough to build a bomb, but sometimes lacks the common sense to know how to push the button that detonates it.

All that I am is a guy who understands that years of arguing hasn't solved a thing & wonders why it keeps reoccurring between folks who know that their arguing isn't going to change even one thing that happened 44 years ago.

I'm far from a genius, but just a little wiser than some may believe, even when I don't let on that I am :)

Oh I think you are a very wise fair and lovely man Juice.

Have a lovely evening.

Fondly

Roberta

[marv2]

Yeah Diane, I was a dirty old kid.

When I was in elementary school, we had cause to go to the school library. And they used to have those huge wooden ladders that rolled from one side of the bookcase to the other. Back then, my thing was reading about Baseball. If there was anything that I loved more than music at that age, it was Baseball. While I hadn't figured out their numbering system, I was always more than a little happy whenever I realized that the teacher was about to ascend that ladder.

Talk about a stairway to heaven!

You old dawg you! LOL!!!!!

[marv2]

Marv,

Yeah, there's something about growing up in a big city that opens your eyes real fast. On the other hand, I sure remember that when some of the girls from other regions came to visit during Summer vacation, they weren't exactly slouches!

I think that the internet can be a blessing & in the wrong hands, it's definitely a curse. Right here on SDF, we communicate with like-minded people whom live thousands of miles away, as well as from other countries. The information available is mind-boggling. Unfortunately, just as with a speak, a knife or a gun, when in the wrong hands it can be dangerous. Given the habit of nonsense & attacks that I've seen written about people on various internet forums, I'm beginning to think that everyone should be verified & registered before being able to access it.

There's a danger of losing a lot of important information, but there are also far too many people having their id's stolen, being stalked, companies putting people's personal & private information on the internet without their knowledge nor their consent. People are being killed over Facebook postings & though it's a slippery slope, it's clear that something has to be done, if only to protect the innocent.

Other than that, we live in a society which is far too voyeuristic & too wrapped up in bullshit & things which really are none of their business. Why I should care about a housewife from Atlanta or New York or a Snooki, I really don't know. And why a guy with a camera feels that I need to know what the vagina of Britney spears looks like, I don't know.But I do know thatif more people worried more about their own lives rather than they do about Snooki's, Wendy's or that of their favorite entertainer, the world might just be a bit better of a place to live in.

In other words, I have no answers!

You hit it on the head. I hate reality shows or also known as "the cheapest way to produce programming for the further dumbdowning of America!".

Some people getting behind a keyboard and monitor is just as dangerous as a drunk getting behind the wheel of a car! Both can be disillusioned, believing that they are doing the right thing. Think about it?

Regarding girls from other regions. I can remember those summers where we either went down South or a few Southern girls would come to the city to visit relatives...... oohh those southern girls! LOL!

[marv2]

Marv,

Yeah, there's something about growing up in a big city that opens your eyes real fast. On the other hand, I sure remember that when some of the girls from other regions came to visit during Summer vacation, they weren't exactly slouches!

I think that the internet can be a blessing & in the wrong hands, it's definitely a curse. Right here on SDF, we communicate with like-minded people whom live thousands of miles away, as well as from other countries. The information available is mind-boggling. Unfortunately, just as with a speak, a knife or a gun, when in the wrong hands it can be dangerous. Given the habit of nonsense & attacks that I've seen written about people on various internet forums, I'm beginning to think that everyone should be verified & registered before being able to access it.

There's a danger of losing a lot of important information, but there are also far too many people having their id's stolen, being stalked, companies putting people's personal & private information on the internet without their knowledge nor their consent. People are being killed over Facebook postings & though it's a slippery slope, it's clear that something has to be done, if only to protect the innocent.

Other than that, we live in a society which is far too voyeuristic & too wrapped up in bullshit & things which really are none of their business. Why I should care about a housewife from Atlanta or New York or a Snooki, I really don't know. And why a guy with a camera feels that I need to know what the vagina of Britney spears looks like, I don't know.But I do know thatif more people worried more about their own lives rather than they do about Snooki's, Wendy's or that of their favorite entertainer, the world might just be a bit better of a place to live in.

In other words, I have no answers!

Oh, one other thing. Did you know that "The Situation" made over $ 3 million last year? Wonder why they are people occupying Wall Street? LOL!

[rod_rick]

Thank you Juice, and I did re-read it. Only ONE person, the usual one, twisted it and turned into something ugly about Diana Ross. Clueless as always.

Actually, as has already been stated by Diana, when the problems with Flo began it occured to Gordy that illness could strike either Mary or Flo. It was the company's decision that if Diana was ill there would be no performance. I don't necessarily agree with that but Motown was protective of the famous dollar-generating sound of the Supremes. Therefore, usually an Andante was on call for either Mary or Flo. I don't believe that Mary ever missed a performance.

What most people don't know is that when the Supremes opened at the Copa in 1965, Gladys Horton told me that on the second night Diana was so hoarse that Flo did do a large part of the leads. I doubted this, but later when I asked Katherine Anderson about it, she remembered it that way also. I think it was a situation where Jules Podell was adamant that the show go on so Gordy relented. I do believe this to be a factual event.

Rick
I could believe that. That might also explain why they went in and had Diana double her vocals for the live album, because she does sound a bit hoarse on some of the selection on the Copa lp.

[rod_rick]

Thanks Juice for that response. I try my best to stay out of the PISSING matches around here LOL. BTW Juice you are a fantastic writer. :)

[BobC]

I try to love everybody.

I am reading Nile Rodger's book right now and it is very interesting.

[juicefree20]

Marv,

This is nothing more than the natural progression from the days when Morton Downey Jr. had his talk show with his in your face" approach. From there, it's only spiraled downward but that seems to be what the people want. I guess that when you become used to eating potted meat, bologna doesn't seem so bad.

[juicefree20]

Rod_Rick,

Thank you for your kind words. What I find to be most ironic is the fact that just about every argument that I've had here was due to sticking up for someone else.

Rather than say much of what I could say about these kinds of situations, I'll pull back my initial response to you & simply add an observation or two which pretty much sums things up for me.

The very thing that cited which led to Marv's banishment was a post that he posted here which was written on another forum. Do I think that what was written elsewhere should've been posted here? No I don't. But that was the reason for his being banned. Not that he, himself wrote was was posted, but rather it was the fact that he brought outside crap HERE that led to people pushing for him to be banned. They slammed him worse for re-posting the message that he received, than they did the person who wrote the nasty message to begin with. And excuses were made for the person who wrote it & I'll simply leave it at that.

I've been checking through the archives & reading through what was going on during the several months that I was away from the forum & what do you think I see?

Mentions of things that were written on yahoo, youtube or wherever. So my question then becomes this...If it was wrong for Marv to post something that someone sent him elsewhere & posting that nasty message was reason for some to call for his banishment, then isn't constantly referring to what he's written elsewhere & constantly dragging that crap here pretty much the exact same thing?

Remember, he wasn't banned because HE wrote the filth that he posted here. He was banned because he POSTED it here & there's a hell of a difference between reposting the words written to you by someone else & writing that filth yourself.

Then too, I recall upon his return here that it was clearly stated that the goal was to incite him to say or do something which would cause him to get himself banned. That was stated in plain view & only ensured that the problems would never cease because they don't want him here because of the various offenses mentioned.

If we wanted to communicate on youtube, we would. Most of us choose to participate HERE. As such, we're not privy to, nor do we particularly care was was said THERE or in any other yahoo group. That's their thing, not most of ours. My point is that if something was done elsewhere, then it should be dealt with elsewhere.

Now I don't know what Marv has written elsewhere because I'm not in the habit of scouring the internet for trouble,nor scratching where it doesn't itch. All that I do know is that if people weren't dragging crap which happens elsewhere onto SDF, then the battles wouldnt be constantly fought here. Their willingness to do so only fuels these fires. I'm not interested about what someone else does in THEIR home, I'm interested in what they do in mine.

It's like living in an apartment building or working on a job. You can't dictate to your boss with whom you work, nor can you had them booted out purely on the strength that you just don't want them there. As long as they aren't violating any rules of your dwelling or workplace, you can't have them booted out for their behavior elsewhere. That is, unless they violate the law or moral codes which leads to their arrest or reflects badly on their employer.

Another way to look at it is this...do you worry whether someone urinates in an alley so long as they're not urinating in the corner of your room, or would you got to that alley with a roll of Bounty, sop up the urine, drag it into your home, then complain about the urine being there & its smell?

What sane person would do that?

And maybe, just maybe, if people weren't looking for trouble, they wouldn't be so quick to find it. And if you WILLINGLY visit the page of someone whom dislikes someone, then read the bad things that you may see written there, while already FULLY armed with the knowledge of what you're likely to find there &/or have ALREADY seen there, then I would ask why you would willingly visit such a place at all?

I don't frequent Ku Klux klan meetings & I dont frequent bars when skin heads are known to hang out, so why would anyone visit Marv's, a person whom they thoroughly despise, yahoo group, youtube page or anywhere else where he resides? I mean they may not be able to control his membership HERE, but they do have a choice as to whether they visit his outside forums or pages.

So the question then becomes, why do so many frequent the page of a guy whom they absolutely abhor? How would they know so much about him & what he writes elsewhere unless they or their friends were there themselves? How would they know his various screen names if they didn't actively seek them, or had friends who did? If they hate a person so much that being around them in a forum offends their sensibilities so much that they have to constantly engage them in arguments & battles, then why would they even seek out such a person, much less waste their energy & time reading anything that such a person would have to say? I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't do that.

It's like going to a strip club, then complaining when a breast pops into your drink. In other words...

It doesn't make sense. Unless they're actively looking for something...like trouble perhaps?

We had & may still have a forumer whom while speaking about the very type of things that Marv does or did, have a page setup where they made/make fun of some of our SDF members & have said some pretty crappy things, to boot. Someone sent me a message showing me where to go & I saw some crap written about Ralph, as well as myself. And though this person & their friends still participated here, I never went crying to Ralph that he should ban this person simply because they didn't write what they wrote HERE, they wrote what they did elsewhere. I'd have been guilty of looking for trouble by willingly visiting their page, when I already knew what I'd find when I got there & that's an absolutely ridiculous thing to do.

Maybe its just me, but I was always told to never scratch where it don't itch. Perhaps some folks like itching.

[juicefree20]

I was just thinking that there must've been a few people whom were happy that I was gone for so long & I notice that little has changed during my absence. I'm sorry to have to disappoint anyone whom may have thought that they were responsible for my hiatus, but I've already explained that & everyone should've known better than to believe such a thing for even a moment. SDF is home & there are far too many good people here & I've had far too many good times to ever walk away from it totally & completely.

It's nice to have the time to be able to stop through a little more often. But I guess the old tv show said it best & I'm sure much to the chagrin of some. Either way...

Baby, I'm back.

[Laurel]

Rod_Rick,

Thank you for your kind words. What I find to be most ironic is the fact that just about every argument that I've had here was due to sticking up for someone else.

Rather than say much of what I could say about these kinds of situations, I'll pull back my initial response to you & simply add an observation or two which pretty much sums things up for me.

The very thing that cited which led to Marv's banishment was a post that he posted here which was written on another forum. Do I think that what was written elsewhere should've been posted here? No I don't. But that was the reason for his being banned. Not that he, himself wrote was was posted, but rather it was the fact that he brought outside crap HERE that led to people pushing for him to be banned. They slammed him worse for re-posting the message that he received, than they did the person who wrote the nasty message to begin with. And excuses were made for the person who wrote it & I'll simply leave it at that.

I've been checking through the archives & reading through what was going on during the several months that I was away from the forum & what do you think I see?

Mentions of things that were written on yahoo, youtube or wherever. So my question then becomes this...If it was wrong for Marv to post something that someone sent him elsewhere & posting that nasty message was reason for some to call for his banishment, then isn't constantly referring to what he's written elsewhere & constantly dragging that crap here pretty much the exact same thing?

Remember, he wasn't banned because HE wrote the filth that he posted here. He was banned because he POSTED it here & there's a hell of a difference between reposting the words written to you by someone else & writing that filth yourself.

Then too, I recall upon his return here that it was clearly stated that the goal was to incite him to say or do something which would cause him to get himself banned. That was stated in plain view & only ensured that the problems would never cease because they don't want him here because of the various offenses mentioned.

If we wanted to communicate on youtube, we would. Most of us choose to participate HERE. As such, we're not privy to, nor do we particularly care was was said THERE or in any other yahoo group. That's their thing, not most of ours. My point is that if something was done elsewhere, then it should be dealt with elsewhere.

Now I don't know what Marv has written elsewhere because I'm not in the habit of scouring the internet for trouble,nor scratching where it doesn't itch. All that I do know is that if people weren't dragging crap which happens elsewhere onto SDF, then the battles wouldnt be constantly fought here. Their willingness to do so only fuels these fires. I'm not interested about what someone else does in THEIR home, I'm interested in what they do in mine.

It's like living in an apartment building or working on a job. You can't dictate to your boss with whom you work, nor can you had them booted out purely on the strength that you just don't want them there. As long as they aren't violating any rules of your dwelling or workplace, you can't have them booted out for their behavior elsewhere. That is, unless they violate the law or moral codes which leads to their arrest or reflects badly on their employer.

Another way to look at it is this...do you worry whether someone urinates in an alley so long as they're not urinating in the corner of your room, or would you got to that alley with a roll of Bounty, sop up the urine, drag it into your home, then complain about the urine being there & its smell?

What sane person would do that?

And maybe, just maybe, if people weren't looking for trouble, they wouldn't be so quick to find it. And if you WILLINGLY visit the page of someone whom dislikes someone, then read the bad things that you may see written there, while already FULLY armed with the knowledge of what you're likely to find there &/or have ALREADY seen there, then I would ask why you would willingly visit such a place at all?

I don't frequent Ku Klux klan meetings & I dont frequent bars when skin heads are known to hang out, so why would anyone visit Marv's, a person whom they thoroughly despise, yahoo group, youtube page or anywhere else where he resides? I mean they may not be able to control his membership HERE, but they do have a choice as to whether they visit his outside forums or pages.

So the question then becomes, why do so many frequent the page of a guy whom they absolutely abhor? How would they know so much about him & what he writes elsewhere unless they or their friends were there themselves? How would they know his various screen names if they didn't actively seek them, or had friends who did? If they hate a person so much that being around them in a forum offends their sensibilities so much that they have to constantly engage them in arguments & battles, then why would they even seek out such a person, much less waste their energy & time reading anything that such a person would have to say? I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't do that.

It's like going to a strip club, then complaining when a breast pops into your drink. In other words...

It doesn't make sense. Unless they're actively looking for something...like trouble perhaps?

We had & may still have a forumer whom while speaking about the very type of things that Marv does or did, have a page setup where they made/make fun of some of our SDF members & have said some pretty crappy things, to boot. Someone sent me a message showing me where to go & I saw some crap written about Ralph, as well as myself. And though this person & their friends still participated here, I never went crying to Ralph that he should ban this person simply because they didn't write what they wrote HERE, they wrote what they did elsewhere. I'd have been guilty of looking for trouble by willingly visiting their page, when I already knew what I'd find when I got there & that's an absolutely ridiculous thing to do.

Maybe its just me, but I was always told to never scratch where it don't itch. Perhaps some folks like itching.

I'm new here and what I'm reading here disturbs me. Maybe this isn't a good place to show my grandchildren. I love the Disney thread, it's family friendly and I feel I can show that to my granddaughter. But I'm not going to let her look at this.The Supremes were such a special group and bring back such good memories of growing up and having fun with my friends and dancing at parties and school dances. How can people get angry about such happy music? I thought this forum was to talk about the good times of yesterday. Not everything about the 60's was good, I know that, Vietnam, the loss of Martin Luther King, the Kennedys, riots, poverty, but the music was so good and it just makes me happy to hear it again. Why can't we just remember and celebrate how the music help us through the hard times, whether it was a war or a killing or breaking up with boyfriend or girlfriend or a fight with your mom or dad? Life is too short to be angry all the time. I'm sorry, but I'm really upset by what I'm reading here, there's no need to be this angry.

[juicefree20]

Hi Laurel,

I agree with you 100%.

Truthfully, there's nothing wrong with this forum. Unfortunately, years of experience has proven to all of us that its nearly impossible to discuss The Supremes without an argument occurring.

To be completely honest, the spats which happen here on SDF are far milder than anything that your granddaughter would encounter while on youtube or several other internet blogs & forums. Those are the places where you'll find cursing & some very vicious words written about various Supremes.

The only danger that exists is that from time to time, your granddaughter may see people behaving a bit childishly during discussions of The Supremes, but very little of the horrible language & threats that you can find posted on youtube & elsewhere. As you can see from what I've written, most of the problems are not because of any bad language written here. from what I've read & know of happens outside of SDF.

Your granddaughter is safe, the water is fine here. Just a few bumps in the road fromtime to time.

[Roberta75]

I was just thinking that there must've been a few people whom were happy that I was gone for so long & I notice that little has changed during my absence. I'm sorry to have to disappoint anyone whom may have thought that they were responsible for my hiatus, but I've already explained that & everyone should've known better than to believe such a thing for even a moment. SDF is home & there are far too many good people here & I've had far too many good times to ever walk away from it totally & completely.

It's nice to have the time to be able to stop through a little more often. But I guess the old tv show said it best & I'm sure much to the chagrin of some. Either way...

Baby, I'm back.

And baby I am thrilled that you are back even if you did peak up your teacher's skirt. LOL

I'll have to make sure to wear a pantsuit when I'm around you.

Fondly.

Roberta

[captainjames]

Ok I will finally throw this out since I have been discussing this with a few folks. Wouldn't this be the best way to bring forth the Supremes story ? Cindy coming in as the replacement for Florence and then going back and then going forward.

[jobeterob]

Juice referred to Youtube.

The other evening, Piers Morgan was interviewing Jermaine Jackson, who as usual, came off as a stunned bunny but he did mention that Michael's children aren't allowed to go Youtube.........thankfully.

[marv2]

Juice referred to Youtube.

The other evening, Piers Morgan was interviewing Jermaine Jackson, who as usual, came off as a stunned bunny but he did mention that Michael's children aren't allowed to go Youtube.........thankfully.


They are probably not allowed to hang out in bars and clubs with grown people either.

[Laurel]

Hi Laurel,

I agree with you 100%.

Truthfully, there's nothing wrong with this forum. Unfortunately, years of experience has proven to all of us that its nearly impossible to discuss The Supremes without an argument occurring.

To be completely honest, the spats which happen here on SDF are far milder than anything that your granddaughter would encounter while on youtube or several other internet blogs & forums. Those are the places where you'll find cursing & some very vicious words written about various Supremes.

The only danger that exists is that from time to time, your granddaughter may see people behaving a bit childishly during discussions of The Supremes, but very little of the horrible language & threats that you can find posted on youtube & elsewhere. As you can see from what I've written, most of the problems are not because of any bad language written here. from what I've read & know of happens outside of SDF.

Your granddaughter is safe, the water is fine here. Just a few bumps in the road fromtime to time.

I decided saturday it was best to just bring up the links to the Disney music and play them for my granddaughter and it would not be a good idea for her to sit with me and read messages on this forum. None of my grandchildren are old enough to be on the internet without being closely supervised and we make sure they only go to sites for kids. Do you let your children or grandchildren read the messages here?

[candykamaine]

I agree with you with some about youtube, SDF is the mildest when it comes to supremes talk. The ones on YT are i'm just gonna say it, frickin crazy and vile especially when it comes to Diana and Mary. And it's usually by the same idiots on every Mary video.

Although I prefur the Diana Flo and Mary line up the surpremes, I do like the Diana, Cindy and Mary one a bit too.

[Roberta75]

I decided saturday it was best to just bring up the links to the Disney music and play them for my granddaughter and it would not be a good idea for her to sit with me and read messages on this forum. None of my grandchildren are old enough to be on the internet without being closely supervised and we make sure they only go to sites for kids. Do you let your children or grandchildren read the messages here?

Absolutely not Laurel. This great site is for people over 18. It isn't a site for kids.

Fondly.

Roberta