The discussions here about the recent [[successful) run by the Tops/Temps at Broadway’s Palace Theatre has me thinking: is there a point at which a group should throw in the towel? Generally it seems to me that if there are no original members, and the current line-up has never had their own hit[[s), they should not tour using a known group’s name. What do you think?
The Four Tops have expressed the desire to continue on even after Duke calls it quits. I wouldn't really have a problem with that, as long as the original members are/were okay with it, which would be true in this case.
So what Thomas is saying is really a reflection of the law.
The public also has a say in it all because if a current lineup does meet the standards and the public stays away, they can pretty much end a career or cause it to have to appears in very modest settings.
Many older people aren't interested in the current Temptations and Tops but many younger people who like the sound and the show sure are.
It just seems bogus to me. I wonder what percentage of the audience realizes what/who they are really seeing? In the mid-70’s I saw the “Ronettes” as part of a Cousin Brucie group show. At least Ronnie was the lead … she was wonderful. But it wasn’t “The Ronettes”. In the early “aughts” I saw another BIG “do-wop” [[really: Oldies) group show. It was fun. But the “Shangri Las” weren’t probably even born when the group recorded. I felt duped. And on a PBS fundraiser a few years back Mary Wilson introduced “the girls”, who lip-synched “… the fabulous Three Degrees hit WWISYA”… Me – I ain’t buying! But you are correct in saying the public has the final say -
The general public today that likes this music doesn't seem to care. That's why tribute groups seem to do so well. I guess as long as the group can legally use the name they will continue if it's successful to do so. Look at the Drifters, Platters, Coasters!
I just wish some of the $ were funneled back to the retirees - or their families.Quote:
Originally Posted by rrussi
As for the Three Degrees Helen Scott and Valerie Holiday have been long time members of the group. They didn't lip sync because that's Val on lead. Sheila originally sang lead on WWISYA.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertZ
Well, some of the money is going to the families. Herb Reed's Platters, Carl Gardner's Coasters, Harold Melvin's Blue-Notes. These group's are managed or "owned" by family members. Veta Gardner was the manager of the Coasters long before Carl retired from the group due to health reasons. She still owns and manages the group today.
I have a problem with it, but I guess it's up to the groups. I saw The Spinners with just Bobbie Smith and Henry Fambrough and they were excellent. But now Fambrough is the only original left and though they're coming to a show in my region, I've lost a bit of interest. I saw them once with Fambrough, Smith, Henderson, Jackson, and G.C. Cameron, that felt true to me. When Fambrough passes, I have a problem with the group calling themselves The Spinners. They weren't there in the 50's at the origin, didn't pay the dues, switch labels, producers, etc. It just feels weird to me, I guess.
Then again, the average public couldn't name you a guy in the group and probably thinks it's still the originals. The Tempts I have less of a problem with [[though I'm a bigger Spinners fan) because Tyson has been with the group around 30 years and Otis is an original. I'd say my own personal standard is at least two originals or long-time guys.
The Four Tops, Spinners, and Temptations, are all kind of different right now. But if the original members want to perform, that's their choice. When they pass and there are no originals left, I think the names should be changed to Temptations Tribute Group, Spinners Tribute, etc.
Yeah, I'm picky.
I said some years ago that maybe it was time for otis to retire the temps,it hurt me to say it,we all have our memories depending on when we started listening to a group and how far we are willing to go with our loyalty,of course i still love the temps,but they are no longer the[temptin temptations]of my youth and young adulthood,yes we all get older but i'm picky too.
I sat at a Spinners concert just a few years ago and watched a group that I loved since I was 11 years old. Funny thing, after a while I noticed that I was now older than 3/5th's of the current group! LOL!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tsull1
I saw the Drifters at a Christmas party in 1994. I knew that none of the many great singers would be there and I didn't want to enjoy it. But the strength of the music wouldn't allow me to not sing along. I'll bet I knew every song and had fun in spite of myself. I wouldn't pay to see any group from the '50s and '60s though. The magic is gone.
I won't even pay to see Earth Wind and Fire without Maurice White. It's just not them with Philip Bailey singing his parts. I stopped enjoying Heatwave after Johnny Wilder, Jr.'s horrible departure as well. The guy singing his parts didn't have the same feel that he did. And a lot of Journey fans have moved on beyond Steve Perry, but I haven't.
I guess I'm just particular. If the "voice" is gone, then the group/band is gone, in my opinion. The voice can be a vital musician as well as a singer of that person was the driving force. I couldn't go to see Slave without Mark Adams, Zapp without Roger Troutman, or the Ohio Players without Sugarfoot.
Lots of interesting responses and opinions here! It seems to be both an individual and selective decision, which I entirely understand. Years ago I attended a big package tour of mostly 1950s and early 60s groups; I was unfamiliar with the groups but knew the songs. I told my friends [[who were 50s fanatics!) to NOT tell me which groups featured original members; I guessed correctly each time during the first song, and always liked the originals more than the pretenders [[no pun …) regardless how strained the vocals may have been. I just “can’t” with some random ladies [[no matter how talented) saying, say, “WE’RE the Bobettes-Shangri Las-Whatevers” now!
Two interesting points – I once read a story about the un-original member phenomenon, and someone in the biz expressed the opinion that vocal groups were a “franchise”, similar to sports teams, and the “players” were subject to change. I didn't agree. Which brings up point 2 – we sure would not accept some massively talented, unknown 25 year old advertising himself AS Otis Redding!
Thoughts?
As for the 'franchise' concept, I will buy it as it pertains to a group like the Drifters in the '50s and '60s. They moved from lead singer to lead singer and still had hits with each new lineup. Clyde McPhatter and Ben E. King became stars in their own right but the group carried on. The Temptations moved similarly when Eddie Kendricks and David Ruffin left. They still cranked out classic music.
That's my idea of a franchise. Not when one group is essentially the 'official cover band' for the label.
I am sorry to say that the tribute acts are getting as much work if not more than the still legit artists. Promoters don't have to pay them as much, don't put-up with a "star"'s demands or bad behavior, the act plays and performs the music as it was originally done on record and the audience sings along and seems to enjoy and love it. I went last year to a little theatre that seats 570 to see an act called Motown Magic. They were out of Miami with four singers and five musicians, all male, and the house was packed and the people loved it. I have to say they did a great show. And then, of course, going in I knew it was a tribute group so no one was pretending to be the Temps or Tops, which is what they mostly did, but they did some Smokey and Marvin too.
Far be it for me to tell any performer when they should pack it up and pursue a hobby but I
know this is the trap of popular music careers. You can outlive both your musical abilities and
your skill to score hits. As great as the music that came from these acts was, the accepted evolution of style and interpretation that comes with age doesn't really happen often in pop
or R&B. That's a jazz and blues aesthetic. The pop/R&B acts are constantly challenged to remind you of your youth but fans of jazz singers and musicians still working after so many
years are saying: I know you are growing older and I want to grow old with you. I don't do
tribute groups. And though I know a lot of times these stripped down acts are people who
need to make a living I'm afraid most of them will have to do so without my support. For me
there are no Four Tops without Levi Stubbs...
If I remember correctly, Ronnie tried to recruit Nedra and Estelle, but Nedra had retired from show business and Estelle was unfit to be performing. Since Ronnie still led the group, there was that. But since the group started off as a family group, it was weird to see two "strangers" as Ronettes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertZ
A couple of interesting things I've seen over the years. In a lot of those oldies specials, some of the original lead singers of those groups pop up with a mix of original members and plant members - some who are CLEARLY to young to have even been conceived when that group recorded. I've seen Barbara Harris of the Toys with one of the original members, Judy Craig of the Chiffons with one of the original members, her niece, and someone else. There was also Dee Dee of the Crystals with various "Crystals." The Blossoms have also reformed over the years with Darlene et al. and Fanita et al. My thing is that as long as the original [[surviving) members are OK with it, I say its okay to bring on new members.
Don't forget the reports last year of B.B. King forgetting the lyrics to his songs and pretty much putting on horrible performances. Some people booed him at those shows, which was heartbreaking to hear. There has to be somebody who can tell performers to pack it in when they are physically incapable of doing it anymore. It's sad to hear that someone who entertained millions is sending his fans home with a tear in their eye at the realization that a beloved artist is not just out of his prime, at the point that his public life should probably be limited to signing autographs. If you can't put on a good show anymore, please don't put on a show.
What happens, though, if performing is an artist's only source of income? Sales of their records aren't exactly stellar, and music is their only valuable skill. It puts some of them in a Catch 22 where they need the money, but their skills aren't very sharp anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Oz
There are no easy answers. I wouldn't want someone to tell me that I can't do something that I love doing. And I don't want to delude myself into thinking that their cheers are because they love the performance and not the performer.