9 Superstars Who Became Bigger Than Their Bands

**jobeterob** · 10-22-2015, 11:20 AM

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/fe...prRaO8PbD3pDAr

**Bluebrock** · 10-22-2015, 11:49 AM

I saw this a few weeks ago. All the usual suspects are here.

**Ngroove** · 10-22-2015, 12:20 PM

Sorry jobeterob, but I don't listen / care about rock or pop or country, or most of 21st century music. Just saying.

1. Michael Jackson [[of the Jackson Five / Jacksons)
2. Diana Ross [[of the Supremes)
3. Bob Marley [[of the Wailers)
4. Smokey Robinson [[of the Miracles)
5. Tina Turner [[of Ike / Tina Turner)
6. George Clinton [[of Parliament / Funkadelic)
7. Bootsy Collins [[of Parliament / Funkadelic)
8. Lionel Richie [[of the Commodores)
9. Curtis Mayfield [[of the Impressions)

Honorable Mentions - Not as maintained modern relevance as most of above singers today, or for the past two-four decades, but they were top great once, their influence never to be forgotten.

Sam Cooke [[of the Soul Stirrers)

Nat King Cole [[of the Nat King Cole Trio)

**jobeterob** · 10-22-2015, 12:31 PM

Ngroove: Your list is better for us!

I don't even know one Beyonce song that I could sing! Bad me.

**marybrewster** · 10-22-2015, 12:55 PM

The standard obvious choices, paired with a few questionable ones.

I might add:

Fergie [[Wild Orchid, Black Eyed Peas)
Or Chaka [[Rufus)
Or Anita Baker [[Chapter 8)
Or Will Smith [[DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince)

Tony Orlando might be an honorable mention. While he never had much chart success after Dawn, he still plays close to 100 dates a year.

**Ngroove** · 10-22-2015, 01:35 PM

Ahhh, wait--LUTHER VANDROSS!!!---oh, nevermind----not like "Luther" the group, was ever fully appreciated, not even by R&B, nor was he ever officially a member of Change neither.

And sorry Marybrewster - Anita Baker has many fine tunes - but like Luther, probably not too many heard of Chapter Eight neither, about the group's "success" before the solo singer. I could say the same of Rotary Connection before Minnie Riperton too.

**milven** · 10-22-2015, 04:14 PM

Hey ! What about Teddy Pendergrass ? He went on to superstardom after leaving the Bluenotes.

And on the reverse side, there are some group members who leave and go into oblivion. Tony Williams was the voice of the Platters [[the other Platters were basically his background singers). The name of the group was changed to The Platters featuring Tony Williams. He then left and started a solo career which never took off. I loved the group and when Tony was appearing as a soloist in my home town, I had to go. It was a cheap little bar. Tony was there, but his voice wasn't. It was sad and depressing to see.

**lockhartgary** · 10-22-2015, 05:07 PM

Going back a ways with some of these [[some debatable):
Clyde McPhatter [[Dominoes and Drifters)
Jackie Wilson [[Dominoes)
Jeffrey Osbourne [[L.T.D.)
Johnny Taylor [[Soul Stirrers)
Lou Rawls [[Highway QC's)

**marv2** · 10-22-2015, 05:23 PM

What is meant by bigger than their bands? Do they mean that an individual had more solo hits than the band they originated from?

**marv2** · 10-22-2015, 05:26 PM

This list by Lewis Corner [[who?) of Digital Spy, is bogus and rather stupid. I could poke holes all through it, but I don't have time right now. The reader's comments do a lot of that for me already!

The mistake the writer made was being blinded by the fact that most of the groups these people came from disbanded, while their front persons continued on for many years afterwards. That does not equate to a "superstar" becoming bigger than the band that they came from, during the band's heyday. The space of time caused the writer to come up with a very faulty list. He should have spent a bit of time researching before writing.

**copley** · 10-22-2015, 06:00 PM

Some notable omissions

Phil Collins [[Genesis)

Peter Gabriel [[Genesis)

Lou Reed [[Velvet Underground)

Billy Idol [[Generation X)

Cher [[Sonny & Cher)

Eric Clapton [[Yarbirds & Cream)

Dusty Springfield [[Springfields)

Neil Young [[Buffalo Springfield)

Paul Simon [[Simon & Garfunkel)

Rod Stewart [[Faces)

Stevie Nicks [[Fleetwood Mac)

**vgalindo** · 10-22-2015, 06:28 PM

I don't think the writer was listing singers that started in a group. And had greater success after leaving their groups. He was listing singers that were with a superstar group and became a bigger superstar than their groups. Rod Steward may have started in Faces but they were not a superstar group. Stevie Nicks was never bigger than Fleetwood Mac. I don't agree with all his list but this is just his opinion.
This is why Paul McCartney or any of the Beatles are not listed

**marv2** · 10-22-2015, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by vgalindo

I don't think the writer was listing singers that started in a group. And had greater success after leaving their groups. He was listing singers that were with a superstar group and became a bigger superstar than their groups. Rod Steward may have started in Faces but they were not a superstar group. Stevie Nicks was never bigger than Fleetwood Mac. I don't agree with all his list but this is just his opinion.
This is why Paul McCartney or any of the Beatles are not listed

He still has it all wrong. That's because no Beatle was bigger than group in their heyday, same thing with the Supremes which is why this thread was even posted here.

**jobeterob** · 10-22-2015, 07:54 PM

I wonder if Paul McCartney was bigger than the Beatles?

He is a megastar as well but not sure he was bigger than the Beatles. [[Which reminds me of the Whitney blunder ~ coming on stage and mumbling "I'm bigger than the Beatles", lol).

**marv2** · 10-22-2015, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by jobeterob

I wonder if Paul McCartney was bigger than the Beatles?

He is a megastar as well but not sure he was bigger than the Beatles. [[Which reminds me of the Whitney blunder ~ coming on stage and mumbling "I'm bigger than the Beatles", lol).

You don't have to wonder , if you can read! I just told he was not! You are older than I , so you had to have been around when the Beatles were at their peak in the 60s. Paul McCartney comes nowhere near that as a solo artist.

**marv2** · 10-22-2015, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by jobeterob

[[Which reminds me of the Whitney blunder ~ coming on stage and mumbling "I'm bigger than the Beatles", lol).

Maybe at the time, in her mind she was.

**luke** · 10-22-2015, 11:18 PM

Diana certainly achieved stardom as a solo but as the Beatles, the Supremes were same as the Beatles especially in USA. And the Supremes launched Diana as the Beatles launched John etc.

**marv2** · 10-23-2015, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by luke

Diana certainly achieved stardom as a solo but as the Beatles, the Supremes were same as the Beatles especially in USA. And the Supremes launched Diana as the Beatles launched John etc.

Look at it this way. The Supremes achieved 13 number ones[[I am including Stoned Love)
in a 5 and a half year period. Diane had 5 solo number ones in 45 years and 1 duet number one in 45 years!

The Beatles as a unit vs Paul McCartney solo? Fugettaboutit! LOL

**jillfoster** · 10-23-2015, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by marv2

Look at it this way. The Supremes achieved 13 number ones[[I am including Stoned Love)
in a 5 and a half year period. Diane had 5 solo number ones in 45 years and 1 duet number one in 45 years!

The Beatles as a unit vs Paul McCartney solo? Fugettaboutit! LOL

Yep!! Let's not forget the 5 number ones in a row! 'd say what Diana achieved in the 70's and up to about 84, was a continuation of the Supremes success, but by no means surpassed it.

**marv2** · 10-23-2015, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by jillfoster

Yep!! Let's not forget the 5 number ones in a row! 'd say what Diana achieved in the 70's and up to about 84, was a continuation of the Supremes success, but by no means surpassed it.

That's all it was!

**vgalindo** · 10-23-2015, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by marv2

Look at it this way. The Supremes achieved 13 number ones[[I am including Stoned Love)
in a 5 and a half year period. Diane had 5 solo number ones in 45 years and 1 duet number one in 45 years!

The Beatles as a unit vs Paul McCartney solo? Fugettaboutit! LOL

You can also look at it this way. Yes Diana had more number one records while with the Supremes. They were huge as a group. But I don't think the writer was only looking at number one records. Diana Ross solo achieved so much that you can probably say she surpassed the group. Solo she became an International Superstar all over the world. Sold out Arena and Stadium tours around the world. Has been the highest paid entertainer several times for engagements as a solo artist. An Academy Awards nominated actress, Tony Award for her one woman show that broke all box office records. Movies, Spectacular TV specials, Central Park with over 800,000 people. First female singer to have 4 number one records, Number one and top ten albums and singles, Highest paid recording contract at the time 20 million at RCA. She has achieved so much solo. I can go on and on. So in many ways she did surpass her group!

**Bluebrock** · 10-23-2015, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by vgalindo

You can also look at it this way. Yes Diana had more number one records while with the Supremes. They were huge as a group. But I don't think the writer was only looking at number one records. Diana Ross solo achieved so much that you can probably say she surpassed the group. Solo she became an International Superstar all over the world. Sold out Arena and Stadium tours around the world. Has been the highest paid entertainer several times for engagements as a solo artist. An Academy Awards nominated actress, Tony Award for her one woman show that broke all box office records. Movies, Spectacular TV specials, Central Park with over 800,000 people. First female singer to have 4 number one records, Number one and top ten albums and singles, Highest paid recording contract at the time 20 million at RCA. She has achieved so much solo. I can go on and on. So in many ways she did surpass her group!

I think you are probably right vgalindo. If you look at the bigger picture and take your above comments into consideration then it is probably true to say she became an even bigger solo star than when she was in the Supremes. Love her or hate her she is an icon and is instantly recognisable to the majority of the population over 30. Even my young Granddaughter knows who she is!!

**marv2** · 10-23-2015, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by vgalindo

You can also look at it this way. Yes Diana had more number one records while with the Supremes. They were huge as a group. But I don't think the writer was only looking at number one records. Diana Ross solo achieved so much that you can probably say she surpassed the group. Solo she became an International Superstar all over the world. Sold out Arena and Stadium tours around the world. Has been the highest paid entertainer several times for engagements as a solo artist. An Academy Awards nominated actress, Tony Award for her one woman show that broke all box office records. Movies, Spectacular TV specials, Central Park with over 800,000 people. First female singer to have 4 number one records, Number one and top ten albums and singles, Highest paid recording contract at the time 20 million at RCA. She has achieved so much solo. I can go on and on. So in many ways she did surpass her group!

Diana Ross was never and will never be as big as The Supremes [[which is why she tried that thing in 2000). The writer of the article did a poor job. The person that posted this is a Diana die-hard and I am done with this weak thread.

**Bluebrock** · 10-23-2015, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by marv2

Diana Ross was never and will never be as big as The Supremes [[which is why she tried that thing in 2000). The writer of the article did a poor job. The person that posted this is a Diana die-hard and I am done with this weak thread.

I think it is true to say that the Supremes AND Diana Ross both deserve their place in history. What the Supremes did was groundbreaking and opened the doors for other black acts to be universally accepted, but Diana as a solo artist also opened many doors and has to be respected for her achievements whether you love her or hate her.

**midnightman** · 10-23-2015, 12:41 PM

Digital Spy is known for its tacky lists... I agree with marv. The list doesn't make sense.

If any artist made sense of being BIGGER than their group, Michael Jackson would be the big stand out.

**midnightman** · 10-23-2015, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by jillfoster

Yep!! Let's not forget the 5 number ones in a row! 'd say what Diana achieved in the 70's and up to about 84, was a continuation of the Supremes success, but by no means surpassed it.

Some would say "but she got an Oscar nod in her solo career" but that wouldn't really count. Diana as a solo musical artist didn't really match the Supremes. Sure both the Supremes and Diana's solo career were indeed groundbreaking in terms of what it did for black music and entertainment in general, but Diana wasn't bigger than the Supremes in general regards to what they achieved in the '60s. And I say that as a fan of both Diana solo and the Supremes.

**jobeterob** · 10-23-2015, 02:07 PM

The real issue is that the only voice the public in general knows in the Supremes is Diana. It never really mattered who the backup was - which Supreme or which Andantes or others. The voices are interchangeable and all that matter is Diana's voice - just like for Gladys, Smokey, Michael etc.

**Jaap** · 10-24-2015, 11:21 AM

This is a UK based article. Although popular, The Supremes were not as big in Europe as they were in the US. From an American perspective, Diana Ross is a Supreme who left the group for a solo career. From an European perspective, The Supremes are the group in which Diana Ross sang before becoming famous. In most European countries, Diana Ross had more success as a solo artist than as singer of the Supremes.

**robb_k** · 10-24-2015, 12:28 PM

ATTENTION: RANT ALERT! BEWARE!
All of those groups or duos that didn't even play one instrument shouldn't be referred to as "bands". The Supremes weren't a "band". So. I think the title of that article should have been:
"9 Superstars Who Became Bigger Than Their Groups or Duos".

If we widen narrow terms, such as "cover" and "band", language becomes a lot more cumbersome and wordy, and less understandable. We've got enough cumbersome languages as it is [[German, being a good example). We don't need to make an efficient one [[English) into one of those.

**jobeterob** · 10-24-2015, 01:47 PM

Good point and not a rant!

**antceleb12** · 10-24-2015, 05:48 PM

You cannot talk about chart hits when it comes to long-term cultural impact. It just doesn't work. For example, the Supremes had a No. 1 hit with "The Happening." However, Lesley Gore had a No. 2 hit with "You Don't Own Me." Poll anyone on the street and most people will say they know "You Don't Own Me." Why? Cultural impact. "The Happening" may have been no. 1, but it is nothing but fluff.

To talk about success one must look at the decades of collective work and impact an artist has had on society.

In regards to the Beatles, each Beatle has had their own high level of success post-Beatle fame. Many hit singles, albums, and concerts later, they have each established themselves as successful solo artists. However, not even the success of Paul McCartney as a solo artist or John Lennon with "Imagine" has ever matched the impact they made as a group in the sixties. Part of it, I'm sure, had to do with their collective efforts as a group. Other factors were more social and political - their musical fusion of "white" and "black" music, their appeal to an increasingly anxious youth, and their ability to accommodate changing tastes in music through the decade.

Now the Supremes. It is well-documented that even by the time Diana went solo, there were major doubts [[even on Diana's end) that it would be successful. As big as Diana was, black female singers were typically more successful as groups than as solo singers at that time. Nonetheless, Diana's impact on music and fashion is unquestionable. Still, Diana's legacy owes itself to the success of the Supremes, and her path to solo stardom, as a black woman, was made easier by the path that the Supremes took in the sixties. The group broke barriers. Without Florence and Mary, it is plausible that the likelihood of Diana playing the Copa, appearing on "white" television programs, and opening for megastars like Judy Garland would be greatly diminished.

In both cases with the Beatles and the Supremes, I believe that the circumstances in which they achieved their successes helped to define not only their success, but why they were successful. When Paul, John, and Diana went solo, they did not have the same obstacles to overcome, and therefor the cultural and societal impacts are lesser. Unless you consider John Lennon's "Happy Christmas" and "Imagine," which are still historically and culturally important because of the level of impact both songs had on society, as well as the relevance they had then and still have today.

**midnightman** · 10-24-2015, 08:37 PM

I considered solo John highly overrated. I hate how Janet used to refer to Marvin as the "black John Lennon" when his music hit on a more personal level than anything John ever put out [[though both musicians' messages of peace, love and no war/hatred still are popular to this day).

The Supremes, like the Beatles, were greater together than they were apart. That's not to diminish the solo successes of Mary and, especially Diana, but I think the reason Diana's career wasn't bigger was because she just worked better in a group setting. She was no MJ but then again what she accomplished for black female artists and entertainers can not be ignored, same with what the Supremes accomplished for female groups in general can't be ignored.

That said, yeah, none of the Supremes' hit singles had any real cultural impact compared to the feminism of "You Don't Own Me" and "Respect" or the civil rights of "A Change Is Gonna Come", "People Get Ready" and "What's Going On".