[REMOVE ADS]




Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1

    Wouldn't it been better for for Flo if.....

    ......she didn't be in a group in the first place? Just a solo act at Lupine and Motown?


    I know we wouldn't have the success of The Supremes, and Motown would be known for something else, but maybe she'd wouldn't have time for that sock hop and maybe we'd have the chance to meet her/see her in concert.......

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    Nope.not gonna try n rewrite history.
    Her history is the supremes

  3. #3
    She was a key part of the group, they all were in their unique way.

  4. #4
    If she had been a solo act from the start, it's quite likely we would have never known about her. It was meant to be that she was in The Supremes.

  5. #5
    You know Detroit didn't have any more talent than Ohio, Illinois, Atlanta or DC. It was the 60's and it was a time for a movement and I believe Detroit had Hitsville USA, Hitsville USA had Berry Gordy and Berry Gordy had Flo, Diana, Mary, Wanda, Martha, Melivin, Brian, Eddie, Mary Wells, etc. Every piece of the puzzle fit the right spot at the right time and something magical was created and everyone had to be there because they actually were family at first. Atlantic already had Aretha so Flo would of had to be and do somthing completely different. Flo was a Supreme and that's where the universe put her.

  6. #6
    Flo needed the Supremes just as much as they needed her.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    778
    Quote Originally Posted by floyjoy678 View Post
    Flo needed the Supremes just as much as they needed her.
    Flo was completely ill-prepared vocally and psychologically to be a lead or solo singer. She just didnít have the chops. Period.

  8. #8
    Without Florence, there is no Supremes.

    That's all I'll say about this.


  9. #9
    I agree. I enjoy her as a featured solo.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Circa 1824 View Post
    Flo was completely ill-prepared vocally and psychologically to be a lead or solo singer. She just didn’t have the chops. Period.
    I have to agree with this.... I enjoy her as an occasional featured solo. Her style/range just doesn't appeal to me...yes, she was capable of being powerful and loud. that doesn't make her a great singer.
    Last edited by gman; 07-25-2019 at 12:38 PM.

  11. #11
    ^i agree given where she was in 67 and what she was able to do.

    But that said, it's possible she could have developed more had she had the training, practice and exposure. Diana most certainly advanced and developed over the years. When given the right material (Good News for instance) she shines. Did she have the versatility of Diana Ross, no. But i do think she had a broader appeal, range and potential than Mary's voice. In terms of pop music.

    Flo's voice and style really wasn't the kittenish ingenue that Diana mastered. Flo's worked well with a bigger style, lyrical wit. her folksy, down-home quality lead you to believe she knew a little bit more about what happened behind "closed doors" than the innocence and coquettish style of Diana and the Sup early/mid 60s content.

    Now did she have the discipline to conquer all of this - given what we know about her mental issues and personal problems, i'd say no.

  12. #12
    I beg to differ. If aint that good news is not a lead singers voice i dont kno what is

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.