I'm wondering at what point did Diana Ross become more of a legacy act rather than a current contemporary artist? Yes she kept recording and issuing new albums, but at what juncture, in your opinion, did she become better known for what she had done, rather than an artist people anticipated new work from?
An interesting question. As far as Europe is concerned, Diana was still scoring major hits throughout the entire 90’s, being considered a current veteran artist.
Very different from the USA where her hit making days came to an abrupt end from 86 onwards.
As a long time hardcore Diana Ross fan, I have viewed her as more of a legacy act for the past 20 years. It appears, from the many concert appearances I have seen via Facebook, that her selections, with the exception of some beautiful standards, are merely 'going through the motion' performances.
I love the glamor; however, the balloon gowns with the many wraps present her as a caricature of her former self. I am no stylist/designer, by any means; however, I wonder she might be taken more seriously if she would 'dress down'. How about some simplicity similar to her opening number on the Motown 25 special? How about some gowns without being weighted down with ruffles and wraps.
All in all, I believe that she might believe that most concert goers are looking to her as a nostalgic act as they reminisce her glory days and bask in her glamor and 'how good she looks.' In my opinion, I don't really believe it's about basking in the music for music's sake.
Not so sure about that, Ollie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie9
If we ignore the abomination with Westlife Diana had little success in mainland Europe in the 90s.
Ireland to a large degree followed the UK but the only chart records she had were When You Tell Me #4, Shining Moment top 20 and If We Hold On top 30.
In The Netherlands in which relatively speaking Diana's popularity was second only to the UK, the only two hits she had were When You Tell Me #4 and If We Hold On #36.
That's it - although maybe she had minor hits which didn't make the top 50, I don't have the information.
Chain Reaction was the last record which was really a hit in multiple markets.
Strangely, she did pop up now and again in the Zimbabwean charts! - she was pretty popular there.
I think it was the turn of the century. RTL, her depression, her substance abuse, her DUI, these were the headliners, not her music. Once she got herself together, there was very little music of note, just performances here and there and the collab with other stars for the charity single. When she released the very karaoke ILY album, full of other people's songs with second and third rate production, I think it was the final nail in the coffin of her "relevancy". After that she became just another touring legend, which, for the record, I don't have a problem with. She paid her dues, put in her time, created hit records and albums. I can appreciate the feeling of relief she might have had to no longer concern herself with how many copies will this or that sale. My problem with touring legacy act Diana Ross is that the artistry that used to present itself in a live setting is all but gone. Fans are forever complaining that she does the same songs over and over with very little attention to diversity. There's no reaching back into the old catalog for songs she hasn't performed in eons or songs she recorded but never performed that she knows fans would love for her to tackle. At this point I liken Diana to someone with a toy she loves to play with. It gives her great joy to perform for an audience but she doesn't think too hard about how to do it. It's just something to do when she feels like it. It gives her a rush. She loves to be publicly adored. The music isn't quite so important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadinglove21
I think Diana is a bit spot on when it comes to knowing that people want to see her looking over the top. I don't think if she toned it down that the public would object in any real way, but they definitely have their preference. But you are spot on about the music. The music seems so secondary to her gowns and being able to talk ad nauseum about her children. Everyday people are discovering just how fantastic Diana Ross' catalog and her vocal abilities truly are, instead of seeing her as this rumored cooer who got where she is because she slept with the boss. But Diana isn't capitalizing on any of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jobucats
I always assumed the box set singles did well across Europe. With so little info available it’s hard to know. Do you by chance have any listings Flo?.Quote:
Originally Posted by florence
I think the Glinda The Good plus accessories look got a little out of control. She could still knock em dead with a slightly simpler, but expectedly chic and sparkly creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jobucats
I think SHE knew when EDIAND failed, which I believe had a hand in her vastly reduced recording product. That’s some day of reckoning to come to terms with. Personally, I think it happened sometime between FBTP and TMH. Even taking certain circumstances into account that would work towards the betterment of those two projects, radio basically ignored them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadinglove21
When radio play ended and the quality of the recordings dramatically dropped, the writing was on the wall for being a legacy act, AKA has-been.
I don't think Diana Ross had entered the top 100 Pop singles chart since 1986, so for the mass public that perhaps ended her as a contemporary artist. That's not to say she didn't continue to release singles and tried to stay contemporary until 2000. Much like how the forum said the Supremes were no longer relevant past 1973 when Jean left, it seems they both had their time when they became an oldies act. None of Ross' music released past 1986 really captured the mass audience although she continued to release music. I think by 2000, she was definitely a legacy artist which is not a slight as she had a long career of many hits but I do find it interesting that her releases do not excite the mass public like her other contemporaries like Barbra Streisand,Rod Stewart,Paul McCartney,Elton John,Cher, Tina Turner and others still seem to. I don't understand why as she is a legend and still very talented.
i think the term "legend" is more in line with her status. and it certainly changed depending on countries.
If you went to a Cher show in the 2000s, it was mostly a legends show too, with of course Believe and a couple of the new tunes. but otherwise 90% was the older content. Same with Dolly.
My guess is after Force Behind the Power, she began to step back from the idea that she was a contemporary pop artist. and i'm not meaning that as a put down. when the Sups were a "contemporary pop act" they were putting out 2 or 3 albums a year, 5 or 6 singles. constant touring and tv appearances. so i think Diana was enjoying a more Senior role and not having to do all of that.
i do think that didn't happen was these "legends" will, on occasion, have hits. sometimes massive hits. there could have been opportunities for this but seems like things just didn't work out. these "feel good" songs or these songs with too lofty of a message are tough to make into huge hits. the ballads on her 90s albums were often very lovely but again, those are hard to make into big hits. I Will Survive is probably her strongest track that has the right sound. but the song is SO iconic for Gloria's version [[and gloria herself did a remake of it around this time). so there just really wasn't the change for this to be her big comeback.
possibly Carry On could have. Believe had already been a sensation so for another "legend" to come back with a mega hit could have worked. her singing on this track is just on fire!! it's a super hot song that could of and should have garnered significant airplay. but i think all of the negatives in her life were converging at this point - the ruined relationship with motown, drinking, divorce, menopause, etc. because the album was essentially lost, the song had no chance
I have to respectfully interject here because I was thinking about how often we have discussed the fact that by 1972, when The Supremes were dipping heavily back into their late '60s wardrobe, not wearing contemporary stage wear/gowns/fashion, and how "bad" it looked for them. Why weren't they wearing something that flattered them in that time? Why weren't they putting that "old look" away and presenting a more contemporary look?! Valid concerns, IMO. Of course, also easier said than done in a time when they were making less and less money and new stage wear that would seemingly fit the glamorous style of The Supremes didn't come cheap. So... they continued on wearing outfits that harkened to their better days and could still display a fashionable look--even if it wasn't necessarily contemporary...Quote:
Originally Posted by RanRan79
So... all that being said... Diana Ross has done the exact same thing. No, I'm not claiming that she is re-wearing her same gowns from years before [although, maybe she is?]. I'm saying that she's wearing the balloon gowns... the big wraps... the huge ruffles... It's that look of the late '90s. Yet... there isn't much criticism of her about that as there is for The '70s Supremes not keeping their wardrobe as contemporary as they might have.
Now, I don't suggest that Diana Ross should come out on stage wearing something scant and highly revealing and singing a cover of "WAP." But... she could certainly wear something delicate, sparkling and beautiful, focus on the music--the performance--and leave behind about the poofy, ruffly, over-the-top outfits. This is what comes to my mind: for better or worse, no average music fan is likely looking at Diana Ross onstage in 2022 or 2023 and saying, "gosh, I hope she changes outfits a few more times and wears something even fluffier!" It's no longer 1982.
In terms of stage wear, Diana Ross in the last 20+ years has gotten to where The Supremes were from 1972 through 1977--repeating old looks and showing questionable/tired taste. I guess it shows it happens to everyone? Maybe The Supremes shouldn't be given such a hard time [here] for when they did the same thing during their last years together?
The Christmas in Washington concert being a prime example of Diana getting it right and wrong. She starts out performing the Christmas medley in a figure flattering, classic deep blue gown that makes her look both youthful and chic.
For Amazing Grace she chooses a frock that looks possibly like a left over from the stage version of Cinderella or good witch Glinda’s from the 1939 version of The Wizard Of Oz.
I’m sure there are fans who go weak at the knees at the sight of such theatrical presentation. I know which style i prefer.
I Know very little about the album sales in Europe but The Ultimate Collection did surprisingly badly in The Netherlands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie9
Here's a site which covers 13 major European markets plus two in Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada and of course the US.
Superb site and very few inaccuracies:
http://artisteschartsventes.blogspot...iana-ross.html
Thank you so much for the link Flo. It’s a bit of an eye opener to be honest. Other then the UK and Ireland, it seems single success came to an abrupt end with “Eaten Alive’ and “Chain Reaction”. It makes a follow up album With Mr Gibb seem a better idea then i thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by florence
i think with Diana,.... its a case of out of sight out of mind.
i see Dolly P and Cher on tv a lot. they seem active but ,DR seems to just disappear. no talk shows, no netflix, no radio interviews,no specials
just nothing. so people just think she retired. imo.
i see her kids on tv more then i see her.
also ,Diana doesnt even promote the expanded editions'
she was asked to write liner notes for Funny Girl album, agreed, but then she declined.
her stage show has remained almost exactly the same for 20 years.only recently did she add new songs
she made decisions ,for whatever reason, rubbed people the wrong way. not judging, just offering ideas
I think people like Diana Ross, Cher and Dolly Parton are all icons - a picture comes to mind when the name is spoken - big hair, flashy dress etc.
They will all be remembered for things they did many years ago; they may do some current things from time to time but it's the past they'll be remembered for.
I think after 2002 or so, Diana Ross became a legacy artist who occasionally still causes a splash like Glastonbury or singing for Barack Obama or the Queen. I wondered if King Charles would want or ask her to come?
i completely agree with you. and the long mane of hair has essentially gone unchanged since 1979. there have of course been variations but she introduced the look on the cover of The Boss and is still sporting it todayQuote:
Originally Posted by danman869
There was a book written about EMI and Diana Ross was listed as one of the top sellers, if not the #1 selling artist of the 90s for EMI. I will try and locate the article. Diana Ross had several multi platinum albums in the 90s for EMIQuote:
Originally Posted by Ollie9
How many territories did EMI actually cover, as several multi platinum albums does seem rather a lot?. The “One Woman” hits collection sold by the squillion with “FBTP” also a major success, if predominantly in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by vgalindo
If you could locate the article vgalindo that would be brilliant.
The last tour that really had new material rather than just the Greatest Hits Diana Ross show was 1995 Take Me Higher one; more than half of the album was included in the set list, even before the album was released. The 2000 Return To Love tour was clearly a "nostalgia" act [regardless how it turned out] and I would argue that all the tours after 2000 were "nostalgia" tours [interestingly, in 2004 there was an attempt to suggest it was her final tour with renaming the tour "This Is It" at least in Europe; little did we know she would still doing tours two decades later]. "New" songs that she later included were mostly cover versions ["You Are Not Alone" and songs from the I Love You album].
There always seems to be a moment in pop stars careers that they seem to become imitations of their own star image... impersonators of themselves. That point for Ross seems to be in the mid-80s, I would argue, with the music videos of Missing You and Chain Reaction, which seem to present the "quintessential" Ross. That's one thing I really like about the I Will Survive video: the drag queens look more like the "quintessential" Ross than Diana Ross does herself there.
I remember going to see the ‘This Is It tour’ of 2004 with a huge sense of melancholy, thinking it the last. As you mention, who would have thought she would still be at it 19 years later lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaap
Totally agree regarding the drag queens looking the quintessential Ross image. Referring back to her dress sense, Diana looks far more hip in that low cut, rather chic black number and trouser suit. I so wish she had held into that look.
In My opinion there were 4 events in the early to mid 80s that, at least in the US, were influenctial in making Diana Ross a legacy act, albeit a legendary one, not an oldies fairground and street festivals act:
1: Why Do Fools as first single on RCA. Doing a 50s throwback cover was a retro move. IT was a hit, but certainly gave impression that Diana Ross was letting nostalgia become a part of her act. Follow up singles such as So Close and Chain Reaction which have retro elements in the music re inforce this.
2. Appearing at Motown 25. This special was strictly a celebration of the past. Perhaps Diana should have insisted on performing something like Muscles or Pieces of Ice [[if it was out by then) as a condition for her appearance so she would have done something contemporary? Michael Jackson only signed on when producers gave in to demand he perform Billie Jean, his current hit.
3. Central Park. Sure she performed some newer material such as nostalgic So Close and Pieces of Ice and covered a song from contemporary show Dreamgirls. And there was The Prophet segment, lol. But this show was a survey of her greatest hits and most memorable musical moments of her career.
4. Missing you single. A hit to be sure, but the lyrics are nostalgic/sentimental and the video with its footage/salute to Florence Ballard, Paul Williams and Marvin Gaye showed Ross in a nostalgia frame of mind.
I agree Ran. The failure of RTL and her personal issues along with the ascension of Tracy as a current superstar all sort of put Diana in her place. For the first time in her life record companies, who had fought over her, were now run by younger execs and not interested in veteran artists. It seems after 2000 she started gearing her show strictly with the oldies.
Diana Ross has songs from her current album, "Thank You", in her current tour show. She was nominated for a Grammy Award for the "Thank You"
album. The "Thank You" album has many great touches of different musical genres. Also, did she recently record a holiday album with a British Symphony? It is unfair to label someone as a "Legacy Act" with a current album of contemporary songs. "Tomorrow"!
I would not consider noting that a pop star has become a "legacy act" as something negative, let alone unfair labelling. Ross recently has presented herself as a legacy act by naming her tours "Some Memories Never Fade" and "Endless Memories." Nothing wrong with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSUN
When her Motown contract wasn't renewed, after EDAND.
She stopped recording new songs, with the exception of "I love You" if it can be considered new songs.
She became a legacy artist as soon as U.S. contemporary urban radio stopped playing her. "Workin' Overtime" and "No Matter What You Do" got real airplay -- nothing she released after those two received any U.S. airplay. FBTP was a dud. TMH and EDIAND were better suited for airplay but urban radio had already decided against her. As of the TMH tour her set list consisted almost entirely of pre-80s Motown hits.
A legacy act to me can still record and issue new songs and albums, but the general public and their more casual fans turn out for their shows to hear the hits and associates them with their biggest hits. Paul McCartney has released a lot more new material over the last 25 years than Diana Ross but he's also been a legacy act these last 25-30 years. Only the hard core fans are really into the new stuff and look forward to hearing it for the live show. The more casual fans of a legend will tolerate performances of "new songs". When I saw Diana at Radio City Music Hall last fall, I sat further back on the main floor and when she did the "thank you album" segment of her show, many of the people around me were checking their phones, or chatting, or went to the concession stand or bathroom.
Visioins Of Diana Ross music videeo was ceretified Gold in the US in April 1986 and according to Wiki was released that year so maybe that's her last big US hit!
It would be interesting to know just how much Upside Down did sell in the US.
Massive in the charts of course but Motown did claim certifications for Diana from 1979 until she left the label.
Considering they claimed a Platinum award for Endless Love it's odd that only a Gold Disc was given to Upside Down [[500k) and that was in December 1981.
If they certified UPSIDE DOWN as gold in 1981, I think it actually sold at least a million. At that time, the standard for a gold single was 1 million copies. The standard was reduced to 500,000 for a gold single some years later, I think in the 90s.Quote:
Originally Posted by florence
On the RIAA website, they seemed to have applied that 500,000 standard to even some of their older certifications by mistake, I believe. For instance, Aretha's RESPECT was certified gold in 1967, when the standard for a gold single was a million. Yet if you click on the More Details button, it says it sold 500,000.
I believe Reese has that all right
How does it work today?
When Flo left the Supremes, Diana Ross was starting to become old hat to some since she was in a "The Supremes"-- a fad that a few people moved on from.
Or when Diana left the group people thought they "broke up" like the Beatles, so she became a 50s-60s oldie, with "Someday We'll Be Together" being the finale.
Nobody "cared" about Diana Ross' "New Songs" they just wanted the oldies like Baby Love and Stop.
not sure how to answer this but i say after her motown deal ended.
she just disappears off the face of the earth at times. out of sight out of mind
Started in the USA when she had the babies with Arne in the late ‘80’s
Was later in Europe - maybe late 90’s
Diana Ross to me had one of the weirdest career trajectories after she left the Supremes. Like she STRUGGLED for the most of the early 1970s. She had "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" but it was sandwiched between two middling performed songs [["Reach Out and Touch" and "Remember Me"). Then in 1971, she failed to get a number one, even trying the ANMHE formula again with another bombastic remake [[ROIBT) that only went as high as 29, followed by her stab at funk-soul which did go top 40 but performed worse [[Surrender), then when I'm Still Waiting took off in England, Motown thought it was gonna bring her back to number one and it flopped [[63). Not to mention she became a mother twice in 1971-72 so that didn't help her either.
Doing Lady Sings the Blues really was her saving grace in more ways than one because not only did it help her become A-list again but it stopped her career misfortunes for the time being. Then she finally returned to the top with Touch Me in the Morning, which was seen as a "chart comeback" since it had been three years since she had topped the chart. The Marvin Gaye duet stuff was a bad move commercially for both artists. Then she returned to middling performances. Last Time I Saw Him was her sole top 40 hit in 1974 as a soloist going to number 14.
Again, doing movies saved her, Mahogany led to Theme from Mahogany, which topped the chart and that was quickly followed up by Love Hangover, another number one. And in the middle of that, she released a ballad [[I Thought It Took a Little Time...) that flopped [[47), and then after LH, put out a barely successful song [[One Love in My Lifetime) and after another mild hit [[Gettin' Ready for Love), had a floptastic 1978 and early 1979. Like no top 40 hits in either year until The Boss reached 19 in 1979.
1980-82 was her most successful era obviously. This produced "diana" and, after she left Motown, "Why Do Fools Fall in Love", with around six top ten hits in that stretch.
1983 was likely the year things turned around for the worst but no one knew it at the time. That was the year of the M25 incident with Mary, the year she did Central Park and the year she released a bizarre album trying to keep up with the new wave/pop rock/post disco crowds.
Swept Away from 1984 did briefly bring her fortunes back up - especially with the title tune and Missing You with Lionel, but the writing really was on the wall when Eaten Alive was released later in 1985. I think many radio programmers just did not like to promote Diana Ross unless the song was REALLY GOOD.
Plus Diana had to deal with a new generation of singers that were much younger and accessible - Madonna, Whitney and, later, Janet. Those three gave her problems, especially Whitney, who was to the '80s what the Supremes had been to the '60s.
I will say after Eaten Alive, she was considered an oldies act here and she was basically that way in Europe as well. She'd have comebacks in Europe but it wasn't like she was Tina Turner or anything. The Motown stuff was far too iconic.
No one was here for singing new songs, they wanted the old chestnuts.
That's what I think anyway.
They did that to a lot of classic acts but I remember checking Donna Summer's RIAA certifications and it seemed a few of them still have "1 million" for her sales so IDK.Quote:
Originally Posted by reese
It's not disrespectful at all. Lots of legendary artists have released new albums but they're barely bought. People buy tickets to hear the classics. People like Madonna, Janet and Mariah are legacy acts NOW. If Whitney was still alive, she'd been a legacy act [[she died before that could happen).Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSUN
Pretty much agree with this. I know, y'all get tired of me pointing it out, but it's true: Diana has had a lucky career. At first glance, one would think that her solo career was chocked full of huge hits and million selling albums. Truth is, if her single wasn't #1 on the pop charts, it rarely made it to the top 10. And her albums weren't top 10 pop sellers either. But yet those #1s were instant classics. She had an Oscar nominated acting debut. She broke some box office records with her second movie. She had a Tony award winning concert. But more than that, she turned her stage act into this over the top DIANA ROSS showcase that people would never forget. Even her appearances on TV left an impression on everyone who watched. Diana Ross was more than a single and album artist, she was the total package. Her image did a lot to further her legendary status because without it, she would still be considered a successful artist, but I don't know if she would be considered a legend in her own time.Quote:
Originally Posted by midnightman
Now mind you, I'm looking at her solo career without respect to the Supremes. If you factor the Supremes in her time with the group, she has a ton more hit singles and albums.