Originally Posted by
RanRan79
To be honest, I think there's too much finger pointing at the live shows. The truth is, how much of the record buying public went to see their favorite artists in concert anyway? Wouldn't it be safe to say that most of the people who bought the singles and albums of the 60s Supremes never even saw them in person? Wouldn't that same thing go for the 70s Supremes?
The live shows were certainly important. There was a lot of money to be made on the road. And the best live acts usually got the best money. The 70s Supremes needed to revamp the live act, no doubt about it. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that all the talk about the live shows is nitpicking. And I don't mean that as an insult to anyone participating in the conversation. Like I said, I'm in agreement that the live act needed to be re-worked a ton. But the real problem was material. The 70s Supremes could've had the hottest live act in the world, but the story would've turned out the same if we're talking the same singles and albums. They needed material for radio that was going to knock the public's socks off, and that rarely happened, and when it did it was early on in the post Diana period.
Glammed up, glammed down, too much Mary, not enough Mary, too many showtunes, not enough showtunes, it wouldn't have mattered much if the group couldn't score major hits. The rest of the issues are distractions because none of those things would really have solved the problem. I'm convinced now more than ever before that there was no one at Motown who was really in a position to give the Supremes material that was going to return them to the top. The writers and producers who could do it were outside the company and either Motown didn't give a shit or it never occurred to them to seek someone outside the label for the Supremes. The talent was there, the chemistry was there, but the hit songs were missing.