[REMOVE ADS]




Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 106
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    110

    Accuracy of the charts ?

    I'm working on tracking Diana in the various charts, and I realize how different they are

    Name:  Capture d’écran 2020-01-27 à 08.23.50.jpg
Views: 711
Size:  8.8 KB

    GETTIN’ READY FOR LOVE CB B RW

    15 13 12
    October 29, 1977 85

    November 5 79 82 83
    November 12 69 53 72
    November 19 60 43 69
    November 26 50 41 65
    December 3 49 39 62
    December 10 46 35 55
    December 17 43 33 49
    December 24 38 29 44
    December 31 34 - 42
    January 7, 1978 33 27 41
    January 14 32 27 44
    January 21 41 55 72
    January 28 52 67 82
    February 4 76


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    i'm not sure of how each compiled their rankings. sales, airplay.

    I too am working on chart rankings for Billboard Pop charts. we all are very familiar with the peak positions on Billboard of the Sups/DR material but i wanted to better understand the climb to the peak and subsequent weeks. what i've found most surprising is how quickly a song drops off the charts. often the girls would peak and then spend a couple weeks in the top 10. but then 1 week they'd be in the low 20s and then GONE! completely out of the Top 100. it's surprising that songs didn't drift downwards but rather plummeted downward.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    110
    It's a little bit frustrating that Diana Ross, Supremes, but also, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder and Smokey Robinson are almost absent from RIAA criteria.
    I don't know why The Temptations managed to get many certification in 1999.
    At least, this gave the Supremes 2 gold LP and a platinum single for their joined venture. In the process, Baby Love and Stop In The Name Of Love are gold, SWBT is platinum.


    Berry Gordy said in a french interview that their best seller were WDOLG, and along with Love Child, the latter his her longest run in the Cashbox and Billboard charts.
    It seems Come see about me, You can't hurry love and YKMHO were strong.


    Also looking at the charts, year end chart, and all, at least 3 others supremes LP should be gold or platinum.


    For her solo career, best seller LP were IMO, LSTB, TMITM, Ross, Diana Ross, Greatest hits 76.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,279
    Rep Power
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Albator View Post
    It's a little bit frustrating that Diana Ross, Supremes, but also, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder and Smokey Robinson are almost absent from RIAA criteria.
    I don't know why The Temptations managed to get many certification in 1999....
    I think a lot of record companies went back and had older records officially certified in the 90s. I remember some Stax singles like Carla Thomas' B-A-B-Y earning a gold record.

    Re the Tempts' certifications in 1999, I think that came about after the success of their miniseries and maybe they were celebrating something else as well. I remember when the whole list was published in Billboard [[I think) and I thought they would now have official RIAA discs for some albums that they already had received gold discs for from Motown.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    my list is not complete yet - I'm about to June 1970 so Stoned Love isn't done yet. and i'm only looking at Billboard.

    Longest time in Top 100 - 16 weeks
    Love Child
    Someday We'll Be Together

    Longest time in Top 10
    Love Child - 11 weeks
    I'm Gonna make - 11 weeks
    Someday, Where, Come See - all 9 weeks
    Baby Love, You can't hurry love - 8 weeks

    Shortest time in Top 100 [[not including pre-WDOLG "non hits")
    The Young Folks, The Weight - 5 weeks
    No Matter Sign, Composer - 6 weeks
    I'll try something new - 7 weeks
    ithin, in and out, shame - 8 weeks

    Shortest time in top 10
    Stop, reflections - 7 weeks
    Back in arms - 5 weeks
    Symphon, You keep me hanging on, happening - 6 weeks
    My world - 4 weeks
    itchin, in and out, - 2 weeks
    shame, up the ladder - 1 week

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    927
    Rep Power
    187
    I remember reading, [[no crap!) about 30 years ago the top 5 selling copies sold singles were:
    Someday We'll Be Together
    Love Child
    Baby Love
    Stoned Love
    Come See About Me

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    my list is not complete yet - I'm about to June 1970 so Stoned Love isn't done yet. and i'm only looking at Billboard.

    Longest time in Top 100 - 16 weeks
    Love Child
    Someday We'll Be Together

    Longest time in Top 10
    Love Child - 11 weeks
    I'm Gonna make - 11 weeks
    Someday, Where, Come See - all 9 weeks
    Baby Love, You can't hurry love - 8 weeks

    Shortest time in Top 100 [[not including pre-WDOLG "non hits")
    The Young Folks, The Weight - 5 weeks
    No Matter Sign, Composer - 6 weeks
    I'll try something new - 7 weeks
    ithin, in and out, shame - 8 weeks

    Shortest time in top 10
    Stop, reflections - 7 weeks
    Back in arms - 5 weeks
    Symphon, You keep me hanging on, happening - 6 weeks
    My world - 4 weeks
    itchin, in and out, - 2 weeks
    shame, up the ladder - 1 week
    Here are the same from Cashbox

    longest in top 100
    16w: Someday We'll Be Together [[platinum)
    15w:WDOLG, Comme See about me, Love Child

    Longest at n°1
    3w: love child
    2w: WDOLG, Baby love [[gold), SWBT [[platinum),

    longest in top 5
    love child : 9w
    WDOLG: 7w
    I hear a Symphony: 7w
    Comme See about me: 6w
    You can't hurry love: 6w

    longest in top 10
    love child: 13w
    WDOLG: 9w
    baby love: 8w [[gold)
    come see about me: 8w

    shortest in top 10

    in & out of love: 1w
    Love is like an hitching: 3w
    living in shame: 3w
    my world is empty : 4w
    reflexion: 6w
    love is here: 6w
    YKMHO: 6w
    back in my arms: 6w
    IGMYLM: 6w [[platinum)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by gman View Post
    I remember reading, [[no crap!) about 30 years ago the top 5 selling copies sold singles were:
    Someday We'll Be Together
    Love Child
    Baby Love
    Stoned Love
    Come See About Me
    i heard Where, You Can't Hurry love, I'm gonna make you love me, Love Child, Someday and Stoned were all the biggest sellers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21,798
    Rep Power
    460
    You know there are a series of books around with all their chart information ?

    We court take a picture of their page if you want

    I recall one of them says Diana would be one of the Top 3 artists of the Rock Era if you include her solo and Supremes work

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    165
    The fascinating topic of the Supremes' best selling singles - information has always been scant and anything further is highly unlikely to emerge.

    Someday We'll Be Together from reports at the time and Love Child are reckoned to be their two biggest selling singles.

    Berry Gordy Jnr says in his autobiography that at the time of release Love Child became their biggest seller to date.

    The 90s certifications are rather strange e.g. I had always understood Where Did Our Love Go was a bigger seller than Love Child.

    At one stage the RIAA had dropped the threshold for certifications from 2m to 1m for Platinum and from 1m to 500k for Gold and this was made retrospective - many companies took advantage of this.

    As has been said whie the Supremes' singles flew up the charts they also dropped away very quickly so sales may not be as great as you might think.

    While there may not be so many million sellers there must undoubtedly be quite a few which sold 500k and not just the paltry few for which certifiaction was claimed.

    I think Love Child is the perfect example. Why no certification for it?

    The key is the Cashbox chart. During the 60s and most of the 70s this was compiled on sales alone. Love Child was a #1 and high in the top 10 during December 1968 the busiest selling period of the year - it certainly looks like a million seller to me but without question it was easily 500k+.

    Apparently much of the documentation regarding the Supremes' sales had been "lost" and as a result only a handful of certifications could be claimed.

    We may all have our own theories as to how this happened!

    But it seemed strange to me that there didn't seem to be any problem with producing the sales evidence for the Temptations just a couple of yers later.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by florence View Post
    As has been said whie the Supremes' singles flew up the charts they also dropped away very quickly so sales may not be as great as you might think.
    11/15 weeks on the charts may seem a short run from a seventies or eighties perspective, but in the sixties, this was average for a hit single.
    This didn't prevented "SWBT" or "IMGMYLM" from being platinum.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Albator; 01-28-2020 at 03:49 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    110
    as it can be seen here

    Attachment 16821

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,018
    Rep Power
    314
    I have been wondering how great the sales of their singles were. Seems like most of their hits reached a peak and then taper off in sales. If I have to guess, I think Marvin Gaye was probably the best-selling singles artist on Motown. I could be wrong about that but that's the feeling I have.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    954
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Albator View Post
    as it can be seen here

    Attachment 16821
    I cannot get this attachment to work...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    I have been wondering how great the sales of their singles were. Seems like most of their hits reached a peak and then taper off in sales. If I have to guess, I think Marvin Gaye was probably the best-selling singles artist on Motown. I could be wrong about that but that's the feeling I have.
    Well, this is not what the charts are telling us.

    By the way, is phenomenal hit "I HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE" spent 15 weeks in Cashbox charts. Entry november 16, 1968 : 78 - 55 - 28 - 13 - 5 - 1- 1 - 1 - 1 - 1- 4 - 4 - 11 - 12 - 16


    As you can see, it spent 15 weeks in the top 100 and drop completely out of the charts.
    Last edited by Albator; 01-28-2020 at 05:33 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by jobeterob View Post
    You know there are a series of books around with all their chart information ?

    We court take a picture of their page if you want

    I recall one of them says Diana would be one of the Top 3 artists of the Rock Era if you include her solo and Supremes work
    I'm familiar with the BillBoard book of #1 hits. they do a 1-page write up of every song since the start of the rock era. they also include the Top 5 list [[although that only reflects the top 5 for the week that song first reached #1. if it's #1 for multiple weeks, you don't know how the makeup of Top 5 adjusts).

    lots of fun memories with this book! was forever checking it out from library back in the day. eventually bought one from early 2000s.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by florence View Post
    The fascinating topic of the Supremes' best selling singles - information has always been scant and anything further is highly unlikely to emerge.

    Someday We'll Be Together from reports at the time and Love Child are reckoned to be their two biggest selling singles.

    Berry Gordy Jnr says in his autobiography that at the time of release Love Child became their biggest seller to date.

    The 90s certifications are rather strange e.g. I had always understood Where Did Our Love Go was a bigger seller than Love Child.

    At one stage the RIAA had dropped the threshold for certifications from 2m to 1m for Platinum and from 1m to 500k for Gold and this was made retrospective - many companies took advantage of this.

    As has been said whie the Supremes' singles flew up the charts they also dropped away very quickly so sales may not be as great as you might think.

    While there may not be so many million sellers there must undoubtedly be quite a few which sold 500k and not just the paltry few for which certifiaction was claimed.

    I think Love Child is the perfect example. Why no certification for it?

    The key is the Cashbox chart. During the 60s and most of the 70s this was compiled on sales alone. Love Child was a #1 and high in the top 10 during December 1968 the busiest selling period of the year - it certainly looks like a million seller to me but without question it was easily 500k+.

    Apparently much of the documentation regarding the Supremes' sales had been "lost" and as a result only a handful of certifications could be claimed.

    We may all have our own theories as to how this happened!

    But it seemed strange to me that there didn't seem to be any problem with producing the sales evidence for the Temptations just a couple of yers later.
    keep in mind a single would sell for YEARS after the initial release. So if Baby Love spent 13 weeks on the BillBoard 100, the single continued to be available at record stores for years after that. Those sales certainly flowed through as royalties to the girls but wouldn't have impacted the chart listings.

    in the end, i'd assume all [[or very nearly all) of the #1 singles eventually sold 1 million copies. it's possible Back in Arms, Happening and Love is here [[all were shorter runs) didn't sell as well while Reflections, I'm Gonna, Stoned Love sold a million.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    Bayou has mentioned on here that songs like What Becomes of the Brokenhearted were massive hits that sold tons, but didn't reach #1. I quickly pulled up the charts from 66 and WBOTB was on the charts for 16+ weeks. That's the same as what Love Child and Someday did

    Marvin's Grapevine was on the charts about 15 weeks. of course 9 of those were at #1

    but after it broke out of the top 10, it too disappeared quickly. within a couple weeks it was gone from the Top 100

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21,798
    Rep Power
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    I'm familiar with the BillBoard book of #1 hits. they do a 1-page write up of every song since the start of the rock era. they also include the Top 5 list [[although that only reflects the top 5 for the week that song first reached #1. if it's #1 for multiple weeks, you don't know how the makeup of Top 5 adjusts).

    lots of fun memories with this book! was forever checking it out from library back in the day. eventually bought one from early 2000s.
    There's lots of other book with more than that too; some specifically on R & B, some on albums, some on Top 100, some on artists. But they were pretty pricey.

    And in the 60's, nothing stayed on the chart for long - 15 weeks would about max it out.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    110
    One wonders if there wasn't a policy of removing singles from the charts after a certain period of time.


    3 Rolling Stones singles received gold records the year they were released.


    Satisfaction charted 14w, Ruby Tuesday 13w, ans Honky Tonk Women 16w.


    The rules of business in the 1960s are completely different from what they will become in the following decades.


    From the end of November '68 to January '69, there are no less than 6 Supremes albums and 2 singles in the charts.

    Greatest hits, Live in London, Funny Girl, TCB and Join the Temptations, Love Child LP, living in Shame, IWMYLM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    814
    Rep Power
    261
    In another thread, someone told me that #1 positions don't have anything to do with record company push yet I find it a bit strange that the listings here say that "Stoned Love" was one of the biggest sellers, yet managed to only go to #7 on Billboard[[although it did hit #1 R&B) while other Supremes' #1 songs sold less. Is it possible that during the times they did get a #1 that people were buying less 45's? It seems the 60's were more about singles than the 70's but maybe less people were actually buying 45's? I just also find it odd that on the LP charts that NWBLS only charted at #68 with a top 10 hit yet High Energy was #42, yet only had a top 40 hit that was #40 for only 1 week.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21,798
    Rep Power
    460
    Mary has said if their song got into the Top 10, it sold millions

    I recall some interview saying they sold 750000 singles a week in 1965 or 1966

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    i'm not sure of how each compiled their rankings. sales, airplay.

    I too am working on chart rankings for Billboard Pop charts. we all are very familiar with the peak positions on Billboard of the Sups/DR material but i wanted to better understand the climb to the peak and subsequent weeks. what i've found most surprising is how quickly a song drops off the charts. often the girls would peak and then spend a couple weeks in the top 10. but then 1 week they'd be in the low 20s and then GONE! completely out of the Top 100. it's surprising that songs didn't drift downwards but rather plummeted downward.
    Sup, when you finish compiling your research, will you post it here in the forum? I've always been curious of the chart history of the group's singles and albums, such as how many weeks to peak position and how many weeks until it fell off the chart.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    I have been wondering how great the sales of their singles were. Seems like most of their hits reached a peak and then taper off in sales. If I have to guess, I think Marvin Gaye was probably the best-selling singles artist on Motown. I could be wrong about that but that's the feeling I have.
    Hasn't it been said that "Grapevine" was the label's biggest selling single? Or am I mistaken? If I were going to guess at who had the most best selling singles during the 60s and 70s, I would probably put my money on Stevie. He was killing the game in the 70s.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by jim aka jtigre99 View Post
    In another thread, someone told me that #1 positions don't have anything to do with record company push yet I find it a bit strange that the listings here say that "Stoned Love" was one of the biggest sellers, yet managed to only go to #7 on Billboard[[although it did hit #1 R&B) while other Supremes' #1 songs sold less. Is it possible that during the times they did get a #1 that people were buying less 45's? It seems the 60's were more about singles than the 70's but maybe less people were actually buying 45's? I just also find it odd that on the LP charts that NWBLS only charted at #68 with a top 10 hit yet High Energy was #42, yet only had a top 40 hit that was #40 for only 1 week.
    there are a couple things here. Going to #1 doesn't necessarily mean "huge success." it does certainly claim a bit of honor and status. you're the best! but that doesn't mean a song that only goes to #10 sold poorly. I think the best way to look at it is 1) peak chart position AND 2) duration on the charts.

    Stoned Love ties with Where and Come as 2nd longest Supremes charting singles on Billboard [[14 weeks). only Love Child and Someday had longer runs on the charts [[16 weeks). Bayou and some other fans have pointed out that some of the biggest selling songs from motown were NOT #1 hits - Brokenhearted, Gladys' Grapevine. These songs also ran for a LONG time on the charts.

    As for New Ways, it's hard to say what went wrong. it receive two full-page ads in Billboard at different times. most other Sups albums didn't receive any, much less 2. lots of Sup singles did receive ads and sometimes that ad would credit the lp too.

    I really do think the fact that Mag 7 and River Deep were released right on top of Stone and New Ways negatively impacted things. But New Ways also struggled early on in moving up the charts. usually the albums could catapult up during the first few weeks but New Ways limped along.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Sup, when you finish compiling your research, will you post it here in the forum? I've always been curious of the chart history of the group's singles and albums, such as how many weeks to peak position and how many weeks until it fell off the chart.
    would love to - it's an excel file so i'm not exactly sure how to post it here. if nothing else i'm happy to share/email too. it's most certainly not proprietary data. the more we all have, the better i say

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Hasn't it been said that "Grapevine" was the label's biggest selling single? Or am I mistaken? If I were going to guess at who had the most best selling singles during the 60s and 70s, I would probably put my money on Stevie. He was killing the game in the 70s.
    i think Bayou has listed a few times on here some of the top singles from each year and yes, i believe he said Brokenhearted was top motown single of 66 and Gladys' Grapevine for 67. in 68, it would most certainly be marvin's Grapevine although i'd speculate that Love Child and I'm Gonna Make you love me would be high for motown too. IGMYLM had an amazing chart run - 8 weeks in top 10. just didn't quite squeeze into #1.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by jim aka jtigre99 View Post
    In another thread, someone told me that #1 positions don't have anything to do with record company push yet I find it a bit strange that the listings here say that "Stoned Love" was one of the biggest sellers, yet managed to only go to #7 on Billboard[[although it did hit #1 R&B) while other Supremes' #1 songs sold less. Is it possible that during the times they did get a #1 that people were buying less 45's? It seems the 60's were more about singles than the 70's but maybe less people were actually buying 45's? I just also find it odd that on the LP charts that NWBLS only charted at #68 with a top 10 hit yet High Energy was #42, yet only had a top 40 hit that was #40 for only 1 week.
    Find me a number one record that didn't have any company push...some of the rhetoric around here is opposition to the thought that the 70s Supremes' lack of success had anything to do with Motown's backing, or lack thereof. IMO it's a fair argument, even if I don't totally agree. I think I read a post recently that said a label couldn't push a song to #1. I agree with that, if in fact #1 positions are a result in concrete data as opposed to arbitrary means, like someone voting on what the #1 song this week should be. But publicity, backing, money, anything that falls under promotion has to have an effect on whether or not a song [[or album) makes it up the charts. Of course at the end of the day one can have all the promotion in the world, but if a song sucks and results in little sales and little airplay, it is what it is. But you better believe that promotion is always the name of the game.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by jobeterob View Post
    Mary has said if their song got into the Top 10, it sold millions

    I recall some interview saying they sold 750000 singles a week in 1965 or 1966
    in my excel file, i've listed the release date, the date it entered chart and then date it peaked. then i just note the chart position for Week 1, 2, 3 etc. So currently all of the singles line up at Week 1 and then go across. so you can see which had the longest runs, etc.

    I've thought about running it out horizontally so each column is a week. with 52 weeks/year and all the years the girls were charting, this would be a LONG excel file. but then we'd be able to see what doing each week. For instance, you can clearly see the competition between Stone and River Deep. Also be interesting to see when the next releases were timed base on current single chart run. or were which weeks were the girls not only any charts at all?

    albums ran MUCH longer. of course some of the "poorer" albums like Broadway only ran for 12 weeks. as did Funny Girl. But Where ran for a LONG time - 89 weeks!!!!!! of course much of that was bobbling down in the 80s and all. most of the big DMF lps were charting for months, if not close to a year.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,666
    Rep Power
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by jobeterob View Post
    Mary has said if their song got into the Top 10, it sold millions

    I recall some interview saying they sold 750000 singles a week in 1965 or 1966
    Well, there's our inarguable answer!!

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,666
    Rep Power
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    in my excel file, i've listed the release date, the date it entered chart and then date it peaked. then i just note the chart position for Week 1, 2, 3 etc. So currently all of the singles line up at Week 1 and then go across. so you can see which had the longest runs, etc.

    I've thought about running it out horizontally so each column is a week. with 52 weeks/year and all the years the girls were charting, this would be a LONG excel file. but then we'd be able to see what doing each week. For instance, you can clearly see the competition between Stone and River Deep. Also be interesting to see when the next releases were timed base on current single chart run. or were which weeks were the girls not only any charts at all?

    albums ran MUCH longer. of course some of the "poorer" albums like Broadway only ran for 12 weeks. as did Funny Girl. But Where ran for a LONG time - 89 weeks!!!!!! of course much of that was bobbling down in the 80s and all. most of the big DMF lps were charting for months, if not close to a year.
    This is great info, and I thank you for it. I actually find this type of statistic more interesting than actual sales units. The fact that a singles-oriented group had an lp on the charts for 89 weeks is quite significant.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    As for New Ways, it's hard to say what went wrong. it receive two full-page ads in Billboard at different times. most other Sups albums didn't receive any, much less 2. lots of Sup singles did receive ads and sometimes that ad would credit the lp too.
    Keep in mind also that Billboard, Cash Box and such were music industry trade magazines. They were not [[then or now) geared toward the general public. So when I learn that the trades carried promos for the group, all that it tells me is that the Supremes were still being marketed to the industry, such as venues looking to book acts that might put butts in the seats.

    I'd be very interested in learning from a real music industry insider how record labels approach promotion. It's easy for us laymans to dissect this stuff, but I think we need more information. What was considered sufficient promotion? What was considered "pulling out all the stops"? There had to be an element of understanding that promotion wasn't the only factor. Take Gordy's memo to Motown staff [[Quality Control) that only #1 hits would be released on the Supremes. I figure that if promotion were all it took for a Supremes #1, that memo would've been unnecessary, as anything the Supremes did at that point would've hit the top spot on Gordy's will alone. The sound had to resonant with the public.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    927
    Rep Power
    187
    perhaps time of release had to do with lower chart numbers gaining bigger sales....weren't Stoned Love, River Deep and Remember Me all released in time for the big holiday season sales? Didn't most established acts/record companies always aim for big summer and big holiday hits?

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    ^yes there definitely seems to be a cyclical nature to releases. fall/holiday appears to be the biggest, which makes sense. get as many lps out there for little old grandmas and aunts to buy up for the kiddies for under the Christmas tree

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    we've been so focused here on the singles chart action, that i haven't really shared as much info on the chart runs of lps

    1. Where and Greatest Hits are tied at 89 weeks. It appears that Billboard, though, changed their chart listings and expanded the albums from Top 150 to top 200. Where falls off on Week 89 at 121 while GH is at 165 for week 89. I'd assume that if the album charts did top 200 earlier, then Where would have remained for a few more weeks.

    2. second longest lp run - At The Copa?!?!?! lolol i know. shocked me too. 54 weeks on the charts!

    3. A Go go is 3rd, 52 weeks

    4. More Hits and Symphony tie at 37 weeks

    5. of the "concept" lps:
    *liverpool - 21 weeks
    *country - 8 weeks
    *Sam Cooke - 19 weeks
    *christmas - no chart data, note i'm only doing Pop. Not r&b, holiday or anything else. But i did see multiple ads for the album throughout the years. even for holiday 1970.
    *r&h - 18 weeks
    *funny girl - 12 weeks

    6. live lps
    *copa - ran forever lol
    *TOTT - 17 weeks
    *Farewell - 17 weeks

    7. there's a definite drop in chart activity during the DRATS era. the two mega Temps albums are exceptions. but otherwise
    *Reflections - 28 weeks
    *Love child - 21 weeks
    *sunshine - 18 weeks
    *Cream - 19 weeks

    8. for the new Sups, i have the first two albums done:
    *Right On - 19 weeks
    *new ways - 17 weeks

    9. duets
    *Join - 32 weeks
    *TCB - 34 weeks
    *Together - 18 weeks
    *Broadway - 12 weeks
    *Mag 7 - 16 weeks

    10. DR solo - only just started these so not a lot of data to play with yet
    *DR - 28 weeks
    *Everything - TBD, i'm currently at 13 weeks. but there's more to do

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    as for the discussion about "were the 70s sups getting the promotion they deserve" it might be less a discussion of motown abandoning the 70s sups and the fact that the brand of THE SUPREMES was frankly on a long, slow die.

    yes, DRATS had some incredible successes. but there's clearly a significant and massive drop in the chart successes of DMF vs DMC. although motown was pushing DRATS everywhere, people are just not buying their records as much. this trend really didn't change in the 70s. yes for a year or two, the singles had more chart consistency. But the lps weren't doing much

    it'll be interesting to see how the DR solo material compares. frankly i predict it'll reflect the DRATS era with some amazing peaks and then tons of nondescript chart activity.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    954
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    as for the discussion about "were the 70s sups getting the promotion they deserve" it might be less a discussion of motown abandoning the 70s sups and the fact that the brand of THE SUPREMES was frankly on a long, slow die.

    yes, DRATS had some incredible successes. but there's clearly a significant and massive drop in the chart successes of DMF vs DMC. although motown was pushing DRATS everywhere, people are just not buying their records as much. this trend really didn't change in the 70s. yes for a year or two, the singles had more chart consistency. But the lps weren't doing much

    it'll be interesting to see how the DR solo material compares. frankly i predict it'll reflect the DRATS era with some amazing peaks and then tons of nondescript chart activity.
    I wonder if album chart success was more of a function of oversupply, simply put, in '68 DRATS released 6 albums, SIX! That had to play a factor into sales and chart position. Starting with the Reflection album considering the group Greatest Hit album was still selling well at the time of that albums release. Then to release 5 additional albums in the last 5 months of '68. I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind that. And then to release another 5 albums in '69. How many fans were able to keep up with buying all those albums and singles on top of that?

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    i completely agree Satan. it was a situation of motown just continually flooding the market with material. guess they figured more is better than less. that trend continued post DRATS too. 4 lps released in 1970 and 4 released in the back half of 69. Plus one of those was an expensive double LP box set.

    Maybe they figured that if they did 1 really, really good lp. they could get 500,000 sales

    but if they did 8 decent lps, they'd actually earn more. if each of those weaker lps could sell 70K+, in the end the 8 lps would generate more total sales.

    and as we know, motown was about $. not artistic integrity.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    we've been so focused here on the singles chart action, that i haven't really shared as much info on the chart runs of lps

    1. Where and Greatest Hits are tied at 89 weeks. It appears that Billboard, though, changed their chart listings and expanded the albums from Top 150 to top 200. Where falls off on Week 89 at 121 while GH is at 165 for week 89. I'd assume that if the album charts did top 200 earlier, then Where would have remained for a few more weeks.

    2. second longest lp run - At The Copa?!?!?! lolol i know. shocked me too. 54 weeks on the charts!

    3. A Go go is 3rd, 52 weeks

    4. More Hits and Symphony tie at 37 weeks
    I'm slightly different

    - Go go, 59w from sept 24, 1966 to nov 4, 1967
    - Symphony, 27w from March 19 to sept 10, 1966

    Longest in the Top 10

    - Greatest : 24w
    - WDOLG : 19w
    - Go go : 15w
    - TCB: 12w
    - D&S joins Temptation : 8w
    - IHAS : 6w
    - Sings HDH : 5w
    - MHBTS : 4w

    Not in the top 30

    - Sing C&W
    - remember Sam Cook
    - Funny Girl [[not in top 100)
    - TOTT
    - G.I.T
    - Cream
    - Greatest hits 3

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    Longest billboard top Top 10


    Greatest - 24 weeks
    Where - 19 weeks
    A Go go - 15 weeks
    TCB - 11
    join temps - 8
    symphony - 6
    Sing HDH - 5 [[non consecutive)
    more hits - 4

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,666
    Rep Power
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    as for the discussion about "were the 70s sups getting the promotion they deserve" it might be less a discussion of motown abandoning the 70s sups and the fact that the brand of THE SUPREMES was frankly on a long, slow die.

    yes, DRATS had some incredible successes. but there's clearly a significant and massive drop in the chart successes of DMF vs DMC. although motown was pushing DRATS everywhere, people are just not buying their records as much. this trend really didn't change in the 70s. yes for a year or two, the singles had more chart consistency. But the lps weren't doing much

    it'll be interesting to see how the DR solo material compares. frankly i predict it'll reflect the DRATS era with some amazing peaks and then tons of nondescript chart activity.
    Yes. I agree and have noted before the 'brand' was simply exhausted.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    yep. there was a "perk up" when Diana left and Jean joined. but then it seems the general public started to drift again. the music the girls were doing was superb. but they needed bigger, more dynamic updates and more often. there MAYBE was a chance when they re-emerged in 75 as "glam disco girls" but with Mary attempting in vain to be a pop/dance singer, their sloppy live shows and motown's lack of support/horrible management by Mary & pedro, it was a lost cause

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10,018
    Rep Power
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    Bayou has mentioned on here that songs like What Becomes of the Brokenhearted were massive hits that sold tons, but didn't reach #1. I quickly pulled up the charts from 66 and WBOTB was on the charts for 16+ weeks. That's the same as what Love Child and Someday did

    Marvin's Grapevine was on the charts about 15 weeks. of course 9 of those were at #1

    but after it broke out of the top 10, it too disappeared quickly. within a couple weeks it was gone from the Top 100
    As Albator said, most singles before the '80s didn't have long lives on the top 40 so a song that stayed 17 weeks was considered a record in those days.

  44. #44
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    827
    Rep Power
    110
    Charts for Stoned Love

    Cashbox top 100, Cashbox soul charts, Billboard hot 100, Billboard soul charts

    STONED LOVE CB CB B B BB
    October 31 84 October 31
    November 7 65 43 November 7 61
    November 14 54 35 November 14 48 33
    November 21 26 28 November 21 22 17
    November 28 20 22 November 28 21 11
    December 5 15 14 December 5 20 5
    December 12 12 6 December 12 12 5
    December 19 9 2 December 19 7 2
    December 26 8 2 December 26 7 1
    January 2 6 1 January 2 8 3
    January 9 6 2 January 9 8 11
    January 16 5 7 January 16 8 14
    January 23 11 14 January 23 12 17
    January 30 21 18 January 30 21 18
    February 6 71 22 February 6 26 20
    February 13 29 February 13 30
    February 20 49

  45. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    6,060
    Rep Power
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    yep. there was a "perk up" when Diana left and Jean joined. but then it seems the general public started to drift again. the music the girls were doing was superb. but they needed bigger, more dynamic updates and more often. there MAYBE was a chance when they re-emerged in 75 as "glam disco girls" but with Mary attempting in vain to be a pop/dance singer, their sloppy live shows and motown's lack of support/horrible management by Mary & pedro, it was a lost cause
    Good points. What i could never understand is how poor the choreography was with the MSC line up and later the MSS line up. They had the best part of two years to practice and make their live shows and tv appearances slick and professional. They were all over the place. Who the hell was in charge of this? Was it Mary and/or Pedro? It is little wonder these line ups floundered. They sounded great on record, but could not repeat that formula in a live setting.
    Mary was indeed totally out of her comfort zone performing leads that should have gone to Scherrie, but even so they were a hot mess and that was never something you could accuse previous line ups of being. The public no longer identified with the Supremes and voted with their feet. A sad ending for the greatest female group of all time.

  46. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,666
    Rep Power
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebrock View Post
    Good points. What i could never understand is how poor the choreography was with the MSC line up and later the MSS line up. They had the best part of two years to practice and make their live shows and tv appearances slick and professional. They were all over the place. Who the hell was in charge of this? Was it Mary and/or Pedro? It is little wonder these line ups floundered. They sounded great on record, but could not repeat that formula in a live setting.
    Mary was indeed totally out of her comfort zone performing leads that should have gone to Scherrie, but even so they were a hot mess and that was never something you could accuse previous line ups of being. The public no longer identified with the Supremes and voted with their feet. A sad ending for the greatest female group of all time.
    In Wiilson's novelxxx I mean memoir she did mention not being able to afford a choreographer.

  47. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    391
    I agree. there was always a polish to the group before and often that was missing. Now when MSC did something like The Way We Were on Merv, it came across beautiful. I think MSS with Udo doing Walk Away was another strong moment. and the MSS Soul Train clips were hot too, for the most part.

    Their performance of Come Into My Life is very well done. new sexy gowns [[that were some stupid chiffon ball gown), Mary and Scherrie execute VERY complicated background movements very well.

    But then you have moments like MSC doing HMM on Tonight Show.

    My guess [[and it's just a guess) is that there simply wasn't enough focus or discipline with the group leadership and management - Mary and pedro. Their focus was to spotlight Mary and continue to hang onto a tired image of the Sups. They had the misguided notion that they were going to launch her pop career. with the addition of S and S, they should have realized this was a wonderful new opportunity and sound for the group. mary should have recognized the best way for her to shine was a PART of the group. S and S should have been used in writing and production roles.

  48. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    6,060
    Rep Power
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceNHarmony View Post
    In Wiilson's novelxxx I mean memoir she did mention not being able to afford a choreographer.
    That would explain a lot, but i am sure they could have got some help and advice from somewhere?My 8 and 6 year old grandaughters have more polish and co-ordination than the latter line ups.

  49. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,279
    Rep Power
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebrock View Post
    That would explain a lot, but i am sure they could have got some help and advice from somewhere?My 8 and 6 year old grandaughters have more polish and co-ordination than the latter line ups.
    Geoffrey Holder did some of their choreography. Mary included a rehearsal photo of Geoffrey, Susaye, and herself in her second book.

  50. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,523
    Rep Power
    120
    Airplay is the only thing that matters because the music then becomes part of the fabric of the nation. More airplay over more sales ANY DAY of the week.

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.