I just saw a post that Mary will be performing with Bernard Gibson's "Temptations Revue". I am assuming that this was the group once lead by Dennis Edwards?
I just saw a post that Mary will be performing with Bernard Gibson's "Temptations Revue". I am assuming that this was the group once lead by Dennis Edwards?
This must be fake news because Mary has said numerous times that she would not appear on stage with a fake group with no original members.
Keeping track of group changes is hard but I think that Bernard Gibson was part of Dennis' revue and got fired.
He now has a group called Liv-in-Proof and is using is currently touring with a tribute to Dennis
In this world of fake news, take none of this as fact. It is my interpretation of what I just researched.Maybe things have changed since last month
Bernard Gibson performed with Dennis Edwards' Temptations Revue for a decade. Liv-N-Proof of that is Bernard's group that took the stage to honor Dennis' memory at the R & B Music Hall of Fame induction ceremony in 2018.
I saw a similar mention about this show, perhaps on Facebook, but I don't remember. In any event, here is more info.
https://micommonwealth.com/getpdf.asp?imageID=9681
Re the fake groups, I thought as long as they said they were a review that they weren't breaking the law?
It's not fake news. Mary Wilson herself posted it in the MARY WILSON SUPREME Facebook group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/9451...4457820998521/
Here's another reference:
https://www.facebook.com/events/340420363126471/?ti=cl
I think you're right reese. But I wonder how many Temptations Revues there are out there? So you slap on the word "Revue" and you can basically get away with what Mary has been fighting for.
I know the concept is that a touring group of "Supremes" potentially could take bookings away from "real" Supremes, like Mary or Scherrie and Susaye. But wouldn't a "Supremes Tribute" do the same thing?
These people fronting these "fake" groups should be ashamed of themselves. They are appropriating other people's hard work, not to mention their legacies. These people had absolutely no part of these groups when they were at the peak of their successes. They didn't make the sacrifices, they didn't put in the long hours at the studio, yet here they are making money off of other people's accomplishments.
I think there was a Glenn Leonard Temptations Revue at some point. But at least he was an actual member of the group.
I would think the potential for lost income can be a big factor for these acts. I mean, if a promoter books a Tempts revue in January, how likely is he going to book Otis' Tempts months later? It must be hard for those concerned and the market is probably shrinking.
I know both Mary and Martha have said they wouldn't appear with bogus groups. But they also have bills to pay. Martha herself said that she tried not to appear with groups like the bogus Marvelettes, but her own work was cut off so badly that she had no other choice. Mary might be in the same position. That's why it is nice that they have teamed up for some joint dates.
Last edited by reese; 07-26-2018 at 10:28 AM.
I think the real issue was groups touring and promoting themselves as the real thing. The use of the word "revue" is real sketchy IMO, because even a legit act can call themselves a revue, but if they are billed and promoted as a tribute group, I don't see the problem. If you have a Supremes Tribute on one side of town and the actual Supremes on another side of town, I imagine one show will be packed while the other would probably be cancelled. Many times people were paying to see these acts thinking they were seeing the originals. And if you pay to see them once and walk away thinking you've seen the real thing, then the actual real thing comes to town, fans were probably less likely to go to that show thinking they've been there and done that. Of course I've always thought that was a bigger issue for other artists and not so much Mary Wilson, as it's hard for me to believe that any Supremes fan- even a casual one- is duped into believing that the Supremes reunited without a headline.
Mary appeared in the UK with a group of 20 and 30 year old Drifters. I think if the money is good Mary will take the gig if its not muvch money shes gonna pull the Fake Groups card imo. I persionally think she should have never taken that gig but she probably needed the money and weve gotta do what we gotta do to eat.
http://www.digitalspy.com/music/news...legends-shows/
Mary is performing with this group this coming weekend.
It says right here on this concert poster, as clear as day and in perfect English......"Temptations Revue"!
https://micommonwealth.com/getpdf.asp?imageID=9681
I swear to God, if those two sing I'm Going to Make You Love Me, I am calling the police.
A group with NO original members though? Dennis been dead since February.
That's why it is called "Temptations Review" or it could have been called "A Tribute to the Temptations" By the way, this is not Dennis old Temptations Review group. David Sea and Paul Williams Jr. are not a part of this billed act as the Temptations Review. Also, Dennis was not an original Temptation, but he was an original member of the "Dennis Edwards' Temptation Review". Confusing huh? LOL!
Now regarding "The Original Vandellas", Rochelle Laughthunn was not an original Vandella, but Roz and Nettie both were.
Last edited by marv2; 07-27-2018 at 10:59 PM.
thank you for pointing this out Marv - Mary is doing nothing wrong by performing with the tribute act Whoever they are. They are not billing themselves as the Temptations…… It’s like the now defunct, finally, sounds of the supremes - They didn’t fill them selves as the supremes, however their patter and bios often indicated that they were originals. I’m glad it’s over for them and I hope Mary gets more gigs because of it.
This is a video of Mary on a local tv show being interviewed to promote the show. But it is the same old questions that she answered a million times, and of course yes, she still talks to Diana - they are sisters. She wants to called Miss Wilson just like Miss Ross. She seems to be having trouble with her wig because one piece keeps falling in front of her eyes. And, to me, there seems to be something different with her eyes or eye makeup. I can not idenfify what makes her look different here, but she does look different. Also, she seems a bit manic, maybe trying to fit too much into a brief interview. Sadly, she didn't really get a chance to promote the show. Has anyone seen the show?:
http://www.fox2detroit.com/good-day/...f-the-supremes
In the questions and answers segment of her recent live show Diana told the audience she and Mary were not in touch, yet here Mary is insisting that they are in touch. Therefore one of them is telling lies. Mmm. I shall let you guess which one of them is speaking the truth and which one of them is telling porkies.
This has nothing to do with Diana, folks.
I sure wish Mary had brushed her wig before the interview. Unless she's trying to serve some Diana a la Ed Sullivan.
Bookmarks