July 1965: What if? Just thinkin'

Printable View

09-17-2018, 04:04 PM
mowest

July 1965: What if? Just thinkin'

Two songs, with more than a few similarities, were released in July, 1965:
“Danger Heartbreak Dead Ahead” by the Marvelettes and “You’ve Been In Love Too Long” by Martha & The Vandellas. Both were written by Hunter, Paul and Stevenson and produced by them. Both have somber themes. Both of them did pretty well on Billboard R&B [[#11 and #25, respectively) but less so on Billboard Pop [[#61 and #36). What if the artists had been switched with each doing the other’s song? Do you think their chartings would have been significantly different? I’ve always thought they were great recordings which should have done much better than they did.
09-17-2018, 04:34 PM
motony

"You've Been In Love Too Long" would have been a lot bigger then #36 on the Pop Charts but it suffered from split air-play as the flip was "Love[[Makes Me Do Foolish Things).Which I think made it to #66 on the Hot 100. I loved both "Danger....and YBILTL, either group could have done either song & be great although would not have sounded he same.
09-17-2018, 06:20 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by mowest

Two songs, with more than a few similarities, were released in July, 1965:
“Danger Heartbreak Dead Ahead” by the Marvelettes and “You’ve Been In Love Too Long” by Martha & The Vandellas. Both were written by Hunter, Paul and Stevenson and produced by them. Both have somber themes. Both of them did pretty well on Billboard R&B [[#11 and #25, respectively) but less so on Billboard Pop [[#61 and #36). What if the artists had been switched with each doing the other’s song? Do you think their chartings would have been significantly different? I’ve always thought they were great recordings which should have done much better than they did.

I don't think their placings would have been very much different unless Motown pulled out all the stops to promote them and get the groups on television more. I can imagine Wanda Rogers singing "You've Been In Love Too Long", but never doing a better job with it than Martha Reeves.
09-17-2018, 06:41 PM
luke

It’s always been a mystery to me why I’ll Keep on Holdin On wasn’t a smash. Danger was pretty similar to that one.
09-17-2018, 07:06 PM
mowest

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke

It’s always been a mystery to me why I’ll Keep on Holdin On wasn’t a smash. Danger was pretty similar to that one.

You’re absolutely right Luke. “I’ll Keep” had all the ingredients to go top 10. So did “Too Many Fish.” Hard to figure.
09-17-2018, 09:21 PM
TheMotownManiac

Quote:

Originally Posted by mowest

Two songs, with more than a few similarities, were released in July, 1965:
“Danger Heartbreak Dead Ahead” by the Marvelettes and “You’ve Been In Love Too Long” by Martha & The Vandellas. Both were written by Hunter, Paul and Stevenson and produced by them. Both have somber themes. Both of them did pretty well on Billboard R&B [[#11 and #25, respectively) but less so on Billboard Pop [[#61 and #36). What if the artists had been switched with each doing the other’s song? Do you think their chartings would have been significantly different? I’ve always thought they were great recordings which should have done much better than they did.

I’m surprised both didn’t chart higher. Danger is my fave Marvelettes 45 ever . YBILTL is a great record but I don’t know how pop it is for that year. I think Danger would have fared better with Martha as Wanda’s voice is not for everybody although I like her sound on many tracks.
09-17-2018, 09:37 PM
TheMotownManiac

Quote:

Originally Posted by marv2

I don't think their placings would have been very much different unless Motown pulled out all the stops to promote them and get the groups on television more. I can imagine Wanda Rogers singing "You've Been In Love Too Long", but never doing a better job with it than Martha Reeves.

How on earth is Motown going to get basically one-hit wonders like The Marvelettes on TV 3 years after they last barely scraped into the top 20? Just a few months after Oprah was yelling, “colored people on tv” and you expect these groups to get on tv just because Motown wants them to Be? The Supremes had Carte Blanche to TV but that was it for prime time for blacks except music shows. Even The Tempts n Tops had to wait and they sold it Les around Martha and T M’s.

When Martha finally got on Sullivan, she was hardly captivating and looked silly doing the blocking. These groups were not ready for prime time and were lucky to get the daytime gigs and hullsballos that they got. Personally, I think The M’s had it all over Martha when it came to polish and prime time quality style. But they had no hits and very weak sales. Gladys was cute and charming - and Wanda had something as well. Poor Martha was a dullard on TV for years but began to open up in the very late 60’s.
09-17-2018, 09:54 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by luke

It’s always been a mystery to me why I’ll Keep on Holdin On wasn’t a smash. Danger was pretty similar to that one.

"I'll Keep Holding On" was a great record. He had a nice swing to it and it was soulful!
09-17-2018, 09:55 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by mowest

You’re absolutely right Luke. “I’ll Keep” had all the ingredients to go top 10. So did “Too Many Fish.” Hard to figure.

"Too Many Fish In the Sea" was a killer record for 1964. It just explodes from the turntable and keeps pushing all the way through.
09-17-2018, 09:57 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMotownManiac

How on earth is Motown going to get basically one-hit wonders like The Marvelettes on TV 3 years after they last barely scraped into the top 20? Just a few months after Oprah was yelling, “colored people on tv” and you expect these groups to get on tv just because Motown wants them to Be? The Supremes had Carte Blanche to TV but that was it for prime time for blacks except music shows. Even The Tempts n Tops had to wait and they sold it Les around Martha and T M’s.

When Martha finally got on Sullivan, she was hardly captivating and looked silly doing the blocking. These groups were not ready for prime time and were lucky to get the daytime gigs and hullsballos that they got. Personally, I think The M’s had it all over Martha when it came to polish and prime time quality style. But they had no hits and very weak sales. Gladys was cute and charming - and Wanda had something as well. Poor Martha was a dullard on TV for years but began to open up in the very late 60’s.

Knowing what I know, they could have did what they wanted! The Marvelettes were always very popular with the young crowd all through the 60s. I don't want to talk about no darn Supremes. The Marvelettes were short changed and that's all there was to it!
09-17-2018, 10:55 PM
TheMotownManiac

lol ..... this is not a question of whether or not they were short changed, although I don’t know how they were short changed, if they were, Dr. Martin Luther King himself could not of gotten the Marvelettes on television in early 1965…. The supreme’s Appeared one time after Sullivan in primetime television before I’ll keep holding on came out… And that was with their fourth consecutive number one record on Hollywood Palace. One song and off. Even the music shows shied away from them.

FYI: The young crowd in southern Illinois didn’t even know who the Marvelettes were unless they listened to KATZthe sound of SOUL in St. Louis. They got no airplay on white stations from Playboy until don’t mess with Bill. After that, Hunter got some play and that was it. The Marvelettes were not at all popular in southern Illinois. Their albums did not sell. They had three top 10 records in 11 years…… And they never had lined concerts That I have ever heard of. They only played St. Louis as part of the Motown review. They may have been popular where you lived, but they were nothing where I lived.
09-17-2018, 11:04 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMotownManiac

lol ..... this is not a question of whether or not they were short changed, although I don’t know how they were short changed, if they were, Dr. Martin Luther King himself could not of gotten the Marvelettes on television in early 1965…. The supreme’s Appeared one time after Sullivan in primetime television before I’ll keep holding on came out… And that was with their fourth consecutive number one record on Hollywood Palace. One song and off. Even the music shows shied away from them.

FYI: The young crowd in southern Illinois didn’t even know who the Marvelettes were unless they listened to KATZthe sound of SOUL in St. Louis. They got no airplay on white stations from Playboy until don’t mess with Bill. After that, Hunter got some play and that was it. The Marvelettes were not at all popular in southern Illinois. Their albums did not sell. They had three top 10 records in 11 years…… And they never had lined concerts That I have ever heard of. They only played St. Louis as part of the Motown review. They may have been popular where you lived, but they were nothing where I lived.

You're always doing that. Putting every other Motown artist to elevate the Supremes. The Supremes have their place in history and don't need your help. If the Marvelettes were so worthless, then why did Motown keep them signed to the label for such a long period of time?
09-17-2018, 11:37 PM
daviddesper

In my area [[rural Virginia) my perception at the time was that all three groups were quite popular. Yes I guess I realized at the time that the Supremes had the most hits, but the other two got tremendous airplay around here and the DJs seemed to respect them. I can recall the Marvelettes being called "those Marvelous Motown Marvelettes" more than once, although I am sure that term was not a local invention.

Even their lesser hits got played a lot. I remember hearing Sweet Darling, I Can't Dance, Bless You, Here I Am Baby, and When You'e Young on the radio quite a bit.
09-18-2018, 03:10 AM
WaitingWatchingLookingForAChance

To say a group wasn't popular in one region isn't saying much for the rest of the country. There are so many regions, some smaller, some larger where an artist maybe isn't well-known or popular. That doesn't really mean much to anyone else who didn't live in that one region. I recall as a teenager living in Houston, there were R&B tunes and groups that were big in our region, but not so much back in Chicago where we were originally from. Then again, Chicago had hits going on that never played in Houston or other areas of the U.S. I don't see that it lessoned the importance or relevance of any of those groups.

Groups that weren't played in one area could have been tremendously popular elsewhere, as daviddesper's comment illustrate. Maybe the Marvelettes weren't a huge hit in Southern Illinois, but I don't know if that's really a barometer for the tastes of the rest of the world. It's an interesting observation.

I have seen old radio Top 40 Surveys that showed many of the post "Playboy" songs hitting pretty well on the charts in some Southern regions and out west in California. At the same time, I do think on the whole, after "Playboy" or "Beechwood 4-5789", Middle America's pop stations didn't pick up on the Marvelettes until "Don't Mess With Bill." I also believe that is why the group didn't get a good album release until then. Still, looking back at various articles, record surveys and even old radio scopes, the group was very popular on the touring circuit. If I'm remembering it right, Washington was one area that really loved the group. [[don't quote me on that, my memory isn't the best.)

However well they did or didn't do in one region or the other, what counts is that the group is still well-loved today and has even picked up new fans because of sites like YouTube. Our Chicago radio station, MeTV FM has even played "Too Many Fish In The Sea", "Hunter" as well as "Playboy" and "Beechwood" right along side hits by the likes of Carole King, James Taylor, Aretha and Tears For Fears [[it's a VERY all-inclusive radio station.)
09-18-2018, 09:36 AM
RanRan79

Quote:

Originally Posted by mowest

Two songs, with more than a few similarities, were released in July, 1965:
“Danger Heartbreak Dead Ahead” by the Marvelettes and “You’ve Been In Love Too Long” by Martha & The Vandellas. Both were written by Hunter, Paul and Stevenson and produced by them. Both have somber themes. Both of them did pretty well on Billboard R&B [[#11 and #25, respectively) but less so on Billboard Pop [[#61 and #36). What if the artists had been switched with each doing the other’s song? Do you think their chartings would have been significantly different? I’ve always thought they were great recordings which should have done much better than they did.

I don't think it would've made much difference, but if it did: Martha and the Vandellas were big at this point, so my guess is that "Danger" may have done better as a M&V single based off of their name alone. "Been In Love" might have done better as a Marvelette single considering that as a M&V single, it had "Love Makes Me Do Foolish Things" as the flip and consequently suffered from split airplay. Other than that, I do think both songs fit both groups very well and so would have still had a similar effect on me. I love "Danger" but never cared for "Been In Love", and I doubt that would change if you switch the singers.
09-18-2018, 09:42 AM
RanRan79

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaitingWatchingLookingForAChance

To say a group wasn't popular in one region isn't saying much for the rest of the country. There are so many regions, some smaller, some larger where an artist maybe isn't well-known or popular. That doesn't really mean much to anyone else who didn't live in that one region. I recall as a teenager living in Houston, there were R&B tunes and groups that were big in our region, but not so much back in Chicago where we were originally from. Then again, Chicago had hits going on that never played in Houston or other areas of the U.S. I don't see that it lessoned the importance or relevance of any of those groups.

Yup. I'm from the area too and I remember when I moved to Philadelphia some years ago, there were songs my people were talking about back home being played in Chicago that I wasn't hearing in Philly. And then months later, Philly stations were playing some of the stuff I had already heard about months before. The same thing happened when I moved to Cincinnati. When I would go home for visits there were songs that were being played by artist who were popular around Chicago and the rest of the country that never got airplay in Cincinnati. One region cannot be the barometer for the rest of the country's response to a particular song or act.
09-18-2018, 12:09 PM
arr&bee

Haaaaaaaaaaa,by the summer of[65]i don't think that the marvelettes or the vandellas were priorities because the other girl group was getting the push,now all three were popular in d.c. And more than likely most black inner city hoods and to us teens it didn't really matter who was on sullivan because we danced to the radio.
09-18-2018, 04:14 PM
144man

Quote:

Originally Posted by mowest

Two songs, with more than a few similarities, were released in July, 1965:
“Danger Heartbreak Dead Ahead” by the Marvelettes and “You’ve Been In Love Too Long” by Martha & The Vandellas. Both were written by Hunter, Paul and Stevenson and produced by them. Both have somber themes. Both of them did pretty well on Billboard R&B [[#11 and #25, respectively) but less so on Billboard Pop [[#61 and #36). What if the artists had been switched with each doing the other’s song? Do you think their chartings would have been significantly different? I’ve always thought they were great recordings which should have done much better than they did.

There's a third song that needs to be added to the equation, the similarly themed "Keep Steppin' [[Never Look Back)" by Carolyn Crawford [also recorded a year later by Martha & the Vandellas]. To me, the three songs individually make up just a part of one whole.
09-18-2018, 04:22 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by arr&bee

Haaaaaaaaaaa,by the summer of[65]i don't think that the marvelettes or the vandellas were priorities because the other girl group was getting the push,now all three were popular in d.c. And more than likely most black inner city hoods and to us teens it didn't really matter who was on sullivan because we danced to the radio.

Exactly! It was what was in the grooves that counted!
09-19-2018, 06:52 AM
Motown Eddie

Good question Mowest. We'll never know what would've happened if "You've Been In Love Too Long" was released by The Marvelettes and "Danger: Heartbreak Dead Ahead" was released by Martha & the Vandellas. I will say that it's intriguing proposition [[and I think "YBILTL" would've made a great LP cut for the album that Motown should've made by The Marvelettes and "D:HDA" could've been on Martha & Co.'s Dance Party).
09-19-2018, 11:08 AM
sup_fan

Danger is quite similar to Martha's Nowhere To Run To. perhaps it could have been a strong follow up to that record.

YBILTL struggled in part because they put an excellent song as the B side. Love Makes Me Do should have been it's own A side.
09-19-2018, 11:12 AM
sup_fan

also the Marvelette's output in late 64 and all of 65 was outstanding. of course we all know Motown was focused on the Sups. but starting with You're my remedy and Too Many Fish, the girls really came into their own. Remedy, Fish, I'll keep holding on, Danger. Wow.

to me the Marvelelles were pure urban. city girls that had updated the girl group sound to be more sassy, more attitude, less demure and prim than the Sups. sure maybe they didn't resonate in more rural regions of the US. I was born Decatur and lived in illinois. I'm more than familiar with Southern and Carbondale, IL. I would never use any of that or any of downstate IL as a litmus test of the overall US population lolol.
09-19-2018, 12:41 PM
lucky2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by sup_fan

Danger is quite similar to Martha's Nowhere To Run To. perhaps it could have been a strong follow up to that record.

YBILTL struggled in part because they put an excellent song as the B side. Love Makes Me Do should have been it's own A side.

Totally agree about Danger. It would have been the perfect follow-up to Nowhere.
I would have loved to hear Martha on it [[and I prefer it over You've Been as a song).

You've Been could have been a Marvelettes follow-up to I Keep Holding On.

Love Makes Me Do Foolish Things is one of my favorite songs and performance by Martha. It was also the bigger hit here in LA as I recall.
09-19-2018, 02:31 PM
sup_fan

fortunately motown didn't too often lose singles by trying double-sided hits. I think the Marvelettes with Strange I Know and Forever was a misstep. Strange is just that - a strange song. Forever is gorgeous and should have been the A

You've Been is a good song but Love Makes Me Do is better and should have been the A
09-19-2018, 03:06 PM
bradsupremes

"You've Been In Love Too Long" has a fantastic intro with the bass and drums. It really grabs you, but then the song starts and the hold isn't strong enough to keep you. I personally think the song itself needed some work. It just wasn't strong enough to go top 10. If they tweaked some things, it could have worked. My favorite version of the song though is Barbara Acklin's version from 1970.

"Danger Heartbreak Dead Ahead" and "I'll Keep Holding On" are two songs that baffle me in chartings. I'm surprised they didn't do better especially "I'll Keep Holding On." To me, that track is a shining, prime example of the Motown Sound. It's a roaring track running on all cylinders. It should have been a smash hit for the Marvelettes. I just wish there was a stereo mix that was equal to the powerful force of the 45 mono mix. Maybe one day they'll give a deserving stereo mix.
09-20-2018, 02:38 AM
mowest

Take a listen to Bonnie Raitt’s bluesy versions of both songs. Both are done well.
09-20-2018, 01:21 PM
TheMotownManiac

Quote:

Originally Posted by marv2

You're always doing that. Putting every other Motown artist to elevate the Supremes. The Supremes have their place in history and don't need your help. If the Marvelettes were so worthless, then why did Motown keep them signed to the label for such a long period of time?

‘I am not putting ANY group down. There’s no comparison to other groups and The Supremes - who is doing that? I am responding to YOUR statement that Motown should have tried harder to get these groups on TV and I’m saying
“black groups had precious little TV exposure just six months after Oprah was happy to see blacks on tv - BECAUSE IT WAS RARE - AND 6 MONTHS LATER IT STILL WAS - and groups that did get on would have to be bigger and current and The Marvelettes were neither in summer 1965. That cannot be argued. They had no hits and their albums didn’t chart. They were very unlikely to get on national tv to plug another flop. Television shows don’t book acts because Motown wants them to, they book acts because they feel it will draw audience aka ratings aka dollars. Who would you expect to get on tv in Summer of 65? Supremes, Sonny & Cher, Beavh Boys or The Marvelettes or Martha? Get a grip, I’m not dissing any group nor am I build up The Supremes. You know the heirarchy as well as anyone here. I’m glad the Marvelettes were big where you grew up, but the fact is they had little chart success at this time and many many many other acts were outselling them by the millions. You are always blaming Motown for failing to make every record popular like it just took a wave of a hand or “promotion” or “just get them on tv” if it were that easy to get on TV back then, Oprah would not have been on the phone screaming. She’d be watching Mary Wells, Smokey and Stevie guest shots from previous years during reruns.
09-20-2018, 06:09 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMotownManiac

‘I am not putting ANY group down. There’s no comparison to other groups and The Supremes - who is doing that? I am responding to YOUR statement that Motown should have tried harder to get these groups on TV and I’m saying
“black groups had precious little TV exposure just six months after Oprah was happy to see blacks on tv - BECAUSE IT WAS RARE - AND 6 MONTHS LATER IT STILL WAS - and groups that did get on would have to be bigger and current and The Marvelettes were neither in summer 1965. That cannot be argued. They had no hits and their albums didn’t chart. They were very unlikely to get on national tv to plug another flop. Television shows don’t book acts because Motown wants them to, they book acts because they feel it will draw audience aka ratings aka dollars. Who would you expect to get on tv in Summer of 65? Supremes, Sonny & Cher, Beavh Boys or The Marvelettes or Martha? Get a grip, I’m not dissing any group nor am I build up The Supremes. You know the heirarchy as well as anyone here. I’m glad the Marvelettes were big where you grew up, but the fact is they had little chart success at this time and many many many other acts were outselling them by the millions. You are always blaming Motown for failing to make every record popular like it just took a wave of a hand or “promotion” or “just get them on tv” if it were that easy to get on TV back then, Oprah would not have been on the phone screaming. She’d be watching Mary Wells, Smokey and Stevie guest shots from previous years during reruns.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make sound? Use your brain. Think about it!
09-20-2018, 07:57 PM
TheMotownManiac

Someone please explain to my brain the above tree analogy - I think it’s on hiatus.
09-20-2018, 08:11 PM
TomatoTom123

If a man posts in a forum and no one understands it, does it make sense?
09-20-2018, 08:22 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomatoTom123

If a man posts in a forum and no one understands it, does it make sense?

Who said no one understood it? If you had been following the thread and the posts here, it would be clear to you.
09-20-2018, 08:24 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMotownManiac

Someone please explain to my brain the above tree analogy - I think it’s on hiatus.

Just go back read what you posted. You should at least understand what you posted here.
09-21-2018, 11:52 AM
144man

Quote:

Originally Posted by marv2

Who said no one understood it? If you had been following the thread and the posts here, it would be clear to you.

I think Tom's referring to the forum in general, not specifically this thread.
09-21-2018, 01:22 PM
marv2

Quote:

Originally Posted by 144man

I think Tom's referring to the forum in general, not specifically this thread.

Oh ok, thanks 144man.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 PM.