[REMOVE ADS]




Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 151 to 178 of 178

Thread: You Do It....

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    6,060
    Rep Power
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceNHarmony View Post
    Speaking of 'Dreamgirl', I did a re-read after Mary's passing as a bit of a memorial to her; I was disappointed at just how much of the book is spent in denigrating others as opposed to discussing her own experiences. I know there are those who love the book; this is just my recent reaction.
    I haven't picked it up again since it was first published, but i recall being very disappointed with the way she criticised so many of her former friends, colleagues and associates. It was most ungracious of her. I kind of cut myself off from her from that point onwards. I would not want my book to turn out that way, but some of those sales figures would be nice!

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,953
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebrock View Post
    I haven't picked it up again since it was first published, but i recall being very disappointed with the way she criticised so many of her former friends, colleagues and associates. It was most ungracious of her. I kind of cut myself off from her from that point onwards. I would not want my book to turn out that way, but some of those sales figures would be nice!
    I do wonder if Mary was not encouraged to spice things up for those all important sales figures. She admitted herself that her memory of events was often a little hazy.
    I understand the book contained points of view that many Ross fans would have difficulty in accepting, preferring to believe Mary was either lying or exaggerating. At the end of the day it was her personal perspective. . A Flo or/and Cindy book would have balanced things up.
    Last edited by Ollie9; 04-06-2021 at 03:32 AM.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,633
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    I do wonder if Mary was not encouraged to spice things up for those all important sales figures. She admitted herself that her memory of events was often a little hazy.
    I understand the book contained points of view that many Ross fans would have difficulty in accepting, preferring to believe Mary was either lying or exaggerating. At the end of the day it was her personal perspective. . A Flo or/and Cindy book would have balanced things up.
    I'm trying to figure out who are all these people Mary slammed in Dreamgirl. She did not paint the most flattering picture of Diana, and to some extent Berry, although she never failed to compliment Diana's talent and work ethic. She didn't paint the most flattering picture of Flo after a certain point either, but she also managed to make her a sympathetic "character", so everything kind of balanced out where Flo was concerned. Am I missing something? I've read that book a billion times and I'm hard pressed to remember all the horrible Marvelettes and Vandellas and Temptations and Tops and Marvin and Stevie and Miracle stories that apparently line every other page.

    I don't know that a Flo autobio would've been any less criticized, or considered more balanced if she decided to "dish" on her experience with Diana Ross. Her words in the PB bio do paint a more balanced picture of her view of Diana as opposed to the way some fans and sympathizers want to believe she felt, which was not that Diana was a total bitch, but that she did have her moments. I think for those who worship at the feet of Ross [[not to be confused with those of us who love the hell out of the lady's music but refuse to exalt her to deity level) any criticism beyond a sentence or two is going to amount to a full on attack. Cindy's book might have escaped that. Flo's book would've sat right alongside Mary's in the "trash bin" of some fans' book sections...if they kept the books at all.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,953
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    I'm trying to figure out who are all these people Mary slammed in Dreamgirl. She did not paint the most flattering picture of Diana, and to some extent Berry, although she never failed to compliment Diana's talent and work ethic. She didn't paint the most flattering picture of Flo after a certain point either, but she also managed to make her a sympathetic "character", so everything kind of balanced out where Flo was concerned. Am I missing something? I've read that book a billion times and I'm hard pressed to remember all the horrible Marvelettes and Vandellas and Temptations and Tops and Marvin and Stevie and Miracle stories that apparently line every other page.

    I don't know that a Flo autobio would've been any less criticized, or considered more balanced if she decided to "dish" on her experience with Diana Ross. Her words in the PB bio do paint a more balanced picture of her view of Diana as opposed to the way some fans and sympathizers want to believe she felt, which was not that Diana was a total bitch, but that she did have her moments. I think for those who worship at the feet of Ross [[not to be confused with those of us who love the hell out of the lady's music but refuse to exalt her to deity level) any criticism beyond a sentence or two is going to amount to a full on attack. Cindy's book might have escaped that. Flo's book would've sat right alongside Mary's in the "trash bin" of some fans' book sections...if they kept the books at all.
    Good points Ran. I personally haven’t read the book since it was published, but really don’t remember Mary being highly critical of people she had worked with in the music industry. I have actually met people in the industry who have told me Diana was a total bitch. Like Mary’s book and anything else in life, it all comes down to personal experience.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    I'm trying to figure out who are all these people Mary slammed in Dreamgirl. She did not paint the most flattering picture of Diana, and to some extent Berry, although she never failed to compliment Diana's talent and work ethic. She didn't paint the most flattering picture of Flo after a certain point either, but she also managed to make her a sympathetic "character", so everything kind of balanced out where Flo was concerned. Am I missing something? I've read that book a billion times and I'm hard pressed to remember all the horrible Marvelettes and Vandellas and Temptations and Tops and Marvin and Stevie and Miracle stories that apparently line every other page.

    I don't know that a Flo autobio would've been any less criticized, or considered more balanced if she decided to "dish" on her experience with Diana Ross. Her words in the PB bio do paint a more balanced picture of her view of Diana as opposed to the way some fans and sympathizers want to believe she felt, which was not that Diana was a total bitch, but that she did have her moments. I think for those who worship at the feet of Ross [[not to be confused with those of us who love the hell out of the lady's music but refuse to exalt her to deity level) any criticism beyond a sentence or two is going to amount to a full on attack. Cindy's book might have escaped that. Flo's book would've sat right alongside Mary's in the "trash bin" of some fans' book sections...if they kept the books at all.
    at best, Dreamgirl has limited complimentary content towards Diana. and [[as to be expected) there's little to no recognition of Mary's own role in things. of course an author probably wouldn't list all of their own faults.

    Some things have come to light about how both D and M tried to really help Flo and how D tried to push for some of Flo's solo songs and such. Of course those might be stories Mary didn't remember as they're from others.

    and the biggest omission is her not including the story of how Diana helped her financially in the early 80s. I don't care if it "wasn't part of the timeline" of Dreamgirls. the entire Epilogue was post DRATS anyway. there were no plans or immediate contracts at the time of Dreamgirl for Sup Faith so it doesn't hold any water to say "i was saving that for the next book" Bullshit

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,666
    Rep Power
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebrock View Post
    I haven't picked it up again since it was first published, but i recall being very disappointed with the way she criticised so many of her former friends, colleagues and associates. It was most ungracious of her. I kind of cut myself off from her from that point onwards. I would not want my book to turn out that way, but some of those sales figures would be nice!
    As many have said in previous statements here, it's unlikely that, given the state of Mary's career before the book was published, there would have been any interest at all without major dirt-dishin', tea-spillin' and kiki-cake for dessert. Yet ... once Mary meets anyone who would play a part of her singing career virtually every episode of the book is a clap-back at someone in her orbit. Upon it's first publication Wilson's was [[perhaps) the first well-known Motown insider book so that, too, gave it cachet. In retrospect I'd say the book is a chatty, frequently mean-spirited quick read without a smidge of insight or personal reflection.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    6,060
    Rep Power
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    at best, Dreamgirl has limited complimentary content towards Diana. and [[as to be expected) there's little to no recognition of Mary's own role in things. of course an author probably wouldn't list all of their own faults.

    Some things have come to light about how both D and M tried to really help Flo and how D tried to push for some of Flo's solo songs and such. Of course those might be stories Mary didn't remember as they're from others.

    and the biggest omission is her not including the story of how Diana helped her financially in the early 80s. I don't care if it "wasn't part of the timeline" of Dreamgirls. the entire Epilogue was post DRATS anyway. there were no plans or immediate contracts at the time of Dreamgirl for Sup Faith so it doesn't hold any water to say "i was saving that for the next book" Bullshit
    Agreed. I seem to recall her criticising Jean, Lynda and even Susaye. Not just Diana.
    Of course it was all written from her perspective and there is no way she would ever have got the book deal without making it lurid and spicy to some extent.
    I am the first to admit to how difficult Ms Ross can be and i have occasionally discussed such behaviour on these pages despite certain people on here preferring to disregard that when it suits them.
    I almost quit 2 days into the gig, but ironically it was one such outburst that was a major turning point in my relationship with her. I saw a sometimes vulnerable human being constantly in the spotlight.
    Despite all her wealth and privilege it is not always easy being Diana Ross. The biting criticism [[some of it fully justified i might add) that was regularly aimed at her sometimes disgusted me. No one should have to put up with such behaviour - even a very needy and demanding diva such as Diana Ross. She is far more sensitive than you might think.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    one thing i will agree with is that Dreamgirl didn't necessary kill DR's pop career.

    Dreamgirl was published in 86 although i don't know when in the year - spring, fall?

    as for Diana's career, Eaten Alive [[single) was released Sept 1, 85 and EA album later that month. Chained Reaction was released in Nov 85.

    Diana didn't have any releases in 86.

    RHR&B tv special was aired in late May 87 and the album earlier that month.

    Now if all of the music and single released from Red Hot were stellar productions, perhaps you could make something of the theory that Mary's book really impacted Diana's career. but the music wasn't that strong. I believe the tv show ratings were still quite good.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,953
    Rep Power
    378
    It’s been six weeks since we learned of the sudden and tragic death of M’s Mary Wilson. Is yet another debate about how awful Mary was about Diana in her first book really very appropriate or tasteful at this point in time.
    I suspect there is one poster who must have been grinding his teeth regarding the out pouring of love and admiration Mary received following her sad passing. It’s interesting he chose to read Dream girls [[of all things) “as a bit of a memorial to her”. Enough said.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    It’s been six weeks since we learned of the sudden and tragic death of M’s Mary Wilson. Is yet another debate about how awful Mary was about Diana in her first book really very appropriate or tasteful at this point in time.
    I suspect there is one poster who must have been grinding his teeth regarding the out pouring of love and admiration Mary received following her sad passing. It’s interesting he chose to read Dream girls [[of all things) “as a bit of a memorial to her”. Enough said.
    i think we're having a rather evenhanded discussion of Dreamgirls. we aren't getting into what motivated mary to write the book. just a pretty straightforward review of the content that was and was not in the published book

    I don't personally know any of the women and i try to avoid personal attacks as such. in general i try to analyze or discuss career decisions and activities in respect to the career itself. all of the women, i'm sure, could be bitches and could be lovely. they're all human

    what i won't do is martyr any of the Supremes. just because Flo died young does not make her a martyr. just because Barbara died after living [[from all accounts) a wonderfully private and satisfying life does not make her a martyr. Just because mary died unexpectedly does not make her a martyr either.

    IMO our fan discussions on here have been quite civil in the past few months. even when people voice differing opinions. Mary's death does not erase her history - both the good and the bad. therefore so long as there aren't personal attacks on character, i feel no need to simply stop discussion on Sup history.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,279
    Rep Power
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    one thing i will agree with is that Dreamgirl didn't necessary kill DR's pop career.

    Dreamgirl was published in 86 although i don't know when in the year - spring, fall?

    as for Diana's career, Eaten Alive [[single) was released Sept 1, 85 and EA album later that month. Chained Reaction was released in Nov 85.

    Diana didn't have any releases in 86.

    RHR&B tv special was aired in late May 87 and the album earlier that month.

    Now if all of the music and single released from Red Hot were stellar productions, perhaps you could make something of the theory that Mary's book really impacted Diana's career. but the music wasn't that strong. I believe the tv show ratings were still quite good.
    DREAMGIRLS was released in Fall 1986.

    I will agree that it didn't kill Diana's US pop career. But it certainly didn't help and opened the door for many other Motown-related books, culminating in CALL HER MISS ROSS.

    But in truth, Diana had started sliding as far as back as when she released SO CLOSE in 1983, and the subsequent unsuccessful singles from ROSS [1983].She bounced back with a vengeance with the SWEPT AWAY album but then the title track from EATEN ALIVE messed up that resurgence. Then she got married and started having children, putting the career on the backburner.

    After DREAMGIRL, Diana's first single release was DIRTY LOOKS. Ironically, Mary's DON'T GET MAD GET EVEN was released around the same time. ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT did a brief mention of both releases and of course, focused on the title of Mary's release.
    Last edited by reese; 04-06-2021 at 06:05 PM.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,953
    Rep Power
    378
    I beg to differ. She has been accused of denigrating others, of being ungracious and mean spirited. If M’s Ross had passed away six weeks ago, I doubt i would be making posts denigrating her moral fibre. It just wouldn’t seem appropriate. It has noting to do with making someone out a martyr and more to do with what feels appropriate for the time.
    Just my opinion....

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by reese View Post
    DREAMGIRLS was released in Fall 1986.

    I will agree that it didn't kill Diana's US pop career. But it certainly didn't help and opened the door for many other Motown-related books, culminating in CALL HER MISS ROSS.

    But in truth, Diana had started sliding as far as back as when she released SO CLOSE in 1983, and the subsequent unsuccessful singles from ROSS [1983].She bounced back with a vengeance with the SWEPT AWAY album but then the title track from EATEN ALIVE messed up that resurgence. Then got married an started having children, putting the career on the backburner.

    After DREAMGIRL, Diana's first single release was DIRTY LOOKS. Ironically, Mary's DON'T GET MAD GET EVEN was released around the same time. ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT did a brief mention of both releases and of course, focused on the title of Mary's release.
    see i would label Swept Away as a decent rebound but i wouldn't categorize it as "with a vengeance." the title track and All Of You only just made the top 20. as the pop culture world became more crowded and more lucrative, i would label that as only a so-so performance. Even with the Supremes in the 70s, I wouldn't call Nathan Jones a "smash" nor FJ either. and neither SA or AOY are really enduring hits like Upside Down, Missing You, Why Do Fools. even The Boss seems to have endured better than SA

    Had the SA project been a massive hit, then maybe there could have been interest in her subsequent projects, assuming the music quality was there.

    It sort of mirrors the Sups in the 70s. strong initial interest but then questionable productions and a lack of real innovation seems to have caused it to peter out in the public's eye.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    I beg to differ. She has been accused of denigrating others, of being ungracious and mean spirited. If M’s Ross had passed away six weeks ago, I doubt i would be making posts denigrating her moral fibre. It just wouldn’t seem appropriate. It has noting to do with making someone out a martyr and more to do with what feels appropriate for the time.
    Just my opinion....
    and i certainly respect your opinion Ollie and am not trying to jump on you. I don't think it's disparaging to refer to Dreamgirl [[and Sup Faith) as taking a more negative tone towards Diana. Compare that to the much more even handed approach Mary took with the chapters in the gowns book. I haven't gone through DG to tally up the nice things and the bad things. the omission of Diana lending Mary money was a very unwise decision. But again these are all focusing on the book itself. we aren't getting into personal attacks on Mary about what prompted her to write the book, her motivations, etc. We're focusing really on what was put into print.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,953
    Rep Power
    378
    That’s fair enough sup. I certainly wasn't referring to any of your posts and always appreciate your point of view. I guess emotions are still pretty raw with it only being weeks since Marys sudden and unexpected death.
    I will have to fish out my copy of DG as like Ran, i don’t recall it being excessively derogatory.

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    That’s fair enough sup. I certainly wasn't referring to any of your posts and always appreciate your point of view. I guess emotions are still pretty raw with it only being weeks since Marys sudden and unexpected death.
    I will have to fish out my copy of DG as like Ran, i don’t recall it being excessively derogatory.
    i think Sup Faith was more harsh towards Diana, at least more of the personality clashes with Mary. Mary acknowledges in Sup Faith that much of the problems of the original Sups probably were the result of their youth and super fast success and she says that motown was more responsible for the dissent within the group than Diana.

    so given that was her POV while writing Sup Faith, i wish she had maybe approached some of the 60s stories with that in mind. I don't think Mary ever point blank blames Diana for the Flo problems or the problems within the group. But she does pretty clearly position that D & B were in cahoots and didn't give a damn about what she or Flo thought/wanted. That doesn't really align with the later POV in Sup Faith. So that's probably my biggest concern with how she covers the issues in the 60s.

    Also she sort of goes out of her way to highlight every petty thing Diana did - demand a pizza in middle of night and then not wanting it, fights with girls on the tour buses, hogging the shared bathroom mirror, etc. And yet Flo, Mary or Cindy never ever had a single diva moment ever? these complaints come across as silly and childish. like why bitch about something a 17 year old did 30 years ago? whereas if Diana was more directly involved with the decision to force M and F in the background, or if she demanded song be taken from them, or things more directly related to the group.

    that's sort of my reasoning as to why i see Dreamgirl as a slam

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,279
    Rep Power
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    see i would label Swept Away as a decent rebound but i wouldn't categorize it as "with a vengeance." the title track and All Of You only just made the top 20. as the pop culture world became more crowded and more lucrative, i would label that as only a so-so performance. Even with the Supremes in the 70s, I wouldn't call Nathan Jones a "smash" nor FJ either. and neither SA or AOY are really enduring hits like Upside Down, Missing You, Why Do Fools. even The Boss seems to have endured better than SA

    Had the SA project been a massive hit, then maybe there could have been interest in her subsequent projects, assuming the music quality was there.

    It sort of mirrors the Sups in the 70s. strong initial interest but then questionable productions and a lack of real innovation seems to have caused it to peter out in the public's eye.
    Vengeance may be a strong word. But considering Diana had had four flop singles in a row, hitting the pop Top 20 three times in a row with ALL OF YOU, SWEPT AWAY, and MISSING YOU [Top 10] was a pretty good "rebound".

    As I remember it, SWEPT AWAY went gold on just the strength of the first two hits alone. So the public really did take to the project. It is just surprising how badly MISSING YOU did on the pop chart initially.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    yeah i get it but i think we're just not seeing eye to eye in regards to flop or hit lol. So Close and Pieces of Ice did at least enter the Top 40. although i'm certainly not qualifying them as hits. I agree that SA and AOY are both stronger songs and performances and if they hadn't been competing against one another, i bet both would have charted higher. Maybe both could have just reached the Top 10. i doubt any higher though.

    Still the entire SA project definitely was more successful than Ross 83. and i MIGHT be able to agree that it's an all-around better effort than Silk Electric. I don't know that I'd rate it higher than WDFFIL. SA does have some higher peaks but it also has some serious duds.

    Why - i don't see this album as bad as others do although i agree for a major debut on a new label, it's lackluster. The only song i detest is the solo version of Endless Love. several of the tracks i think are very strong, like Mirror and Sweet Surrender. then there's a good amount of just "good" tracks plus a couple boring ones

    SE - My biggest problem with this is the amount of echo she uses on every take and the lazy singing. I kinda like I Am Me. Fool For Your Love is a bit tough to listen to. but i'd take it on repeat versus Endless Love from the previous album.

    SA - to me this album has higher highs but also more duds. Missing You is stunning and SA, Touch, it's your move and All of you are all very good. so that's 6 strong numbers. but i hate her vocals on Telephone [[so high pitched and grating) and also hate the breathyness of Forever Young. she sounds so weak that I'd be embarrassed to play this for anyone but a die-hard fan. We Are the Children it hideous with the kids choir - especially a kids choir that's out of tune. come on!!!! just because their young vocalists doesn't mean they can't sing!! So that's 3 crimes against humanity lol

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,633
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    Good points Ran. I personally haven’t read the book since it was published, but really don’t remember Mary being highly critical of people she had worked with in the music industry. I have actually met people in the industry who have told me Diana was a total bitch. Like Mary’s book and anything else in life, it all comes down to personal experience.
    My issues with Mary's first book was the exaggerations, and sometimes the outright lies, of things that we now know for a fact were just not true, such as Mary's account of Flo's last Tonight Show appearance, or "People" being taken away from Flo at the Copa gig, being given to Diana, and Flo never singing it again. Those cannot be "mistakes". And the last one is so painful because Mary even sometimes sang the only solo verse in "People" long after the Copa gig. Those are big statements and I don't believe Mary was ever asked to address these kinds of things. She's gone now, so it has to be chucked into the "it is what it is" bin and move on.

    The other problem I had was Mary writing about Diana's personal life. The Diana/Berry relationship had a huge impact on the Supremes that it was unavoidable. Likewise, the Flo/Tommy relationship affected the group as well, so Mary writing about these things was necessary in order to paint an accurate picture of what was going on behind the scenes and the changes within the group. But we didn't need to know about Diana and Brian Holland or Diana and the white dude she was calling collect. That wasn't Mary's business to tell. Those things alone, I've always felt Diana had a right to decide that Mary was a part of her past and she should stay there. I shudder to think of anyone putting my love life [[or lack thereof) in the pages of a book that isn't mine.

    As far as Diana being a bitch of any sort, I say where there's smoke, there's fire. If enough people have enough stories about your bad behavior, all them folks aint lying. The sad thing is that the bitch stories dominate everything when in fact there are also a lot of stories out there about Diana's kindness and generosity. But it's a good case in point of why you should be careful how you treat people. People may not always remember the nice things you did, but they damn sure don't forget when you're nasty.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,633
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    at best, Dreamgirl has limited complimentary content towards Diana. and [[as to be expected) there's little to no recognition of Mary's own role in things. of course an author probably wouldn't list all of their own faults.

    Some things have come to light about how both D and M tried to really help Flo and how D tried to push for some of Flo's solo songs and such. Of course those might be stories Mary didn't remember as they're from others.

    and the biggest omission is her not including the story of how Diana helped her financially in the early 80s. I don't care if it "wasn't part of the timeline" of Dreamgirls. the entire Epilogue was post DRATS anyway. there were no plans or immediate contracts at the time of Dreamgirl for Sup Faith so it doesn't hold any water to say "i was saving that for the next book" Bullshit
    In her first book Mary did say both she and Diana tried to help Flo with the drinking, but people often skip past that. I do agree that with everything Mary decided to write about in the first book that she should've included Diana helping her when she was in a bind.

    IMO a lot of what Mary wrote about Diana in the first book was a bunch of petty, young girl stuff. I think if Mary had written about herself in a similar fashion alongside Diana's antics, and even Flo's, that a lot of what was written about Diana could've come across as comical, but there was often a bitter bite to these things. And then there were times when Mary completely left herself out of the situation, like Diana and Brenda Holloway going at it about a can of hairspray. Mary writes that she [[and Flo) were embarrassed by Diana's behavior, but Brenda remembers Mary getting in it and ready to rumble. So where the story could've been written as comical youth antics among a group of future legends, it comes across as "here's a time when Diana was bitchy towards Brenda" when ultimately it wasn't important to the story of the group.

    To Mary's credit she didn't go as far as she probably could've in either books. If ya'll think those books flew off the shelves as is, imagine had Mary decided to drop the revelation that Rhonda was Berry's daughter. She would've probably sold two copies for every one copy she actually sold. I think that alone shows she wasn't writing from a place of just wanting to do Diana in.

    Diana, though, plays a part in this also. She could've come out and explained a lot of that stuff as a girl growing up, making mistakes, trying to find her place in a world, and in particular, in an industry full of so much talent and competitiveness. Instead she either went silent or blew the book off as something wholly negative, which caused people to continue to buy into the idea that Diana in 1986 was the same person as Diana 1963. Diana could've played Dreamgirl to her advantage, reminding people that [a] everyone has a past, and [b] she was only human.

    For the longest time Mary controlled the narrative about the Supremes, and when others jumped in like JRT, and Lord help us all, Tall Tales Turner, and then some others, and all we got from Diana was Secrets Of A Sparrow Will Not Be Revealed, the legend of Diana The Bitch was allowed to fester.

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    My issues with Mary's first book was the exaggerations, and sometimes the outright lies, of things that we now know for a fact were just not true, such as Mary's account of Flo's last Tonight Show appearance, or "People" being taken away from Flo at the Copa gig, being given to Diana, and Flo never singing it again. Those cannot be "mistakes". And the last one is so painful because Mary even sometimes sang the only solo verse in "People" long after the Copa gig. Those are big statements and I don't believe Mary was ever asked to address these kinds of things. She's gone now, so it has to be chucked into the "it is what it is" bin and move on.

    The other problem I had was Mary writing about Diana's personal life. The Diana/Berry relationship had a huge impact on the Supremes that it was unavoidable. Likewise, the Flo/Tommy relationship affected the group as well, so Mary writing about these things was necessary in order to paint an accurate picture of what was going on behind the scenes and the changes within the group. But we didn't need to know about Diana and Brian Holland or Diana and the white dude she was calling collect. That wasn't Mary's business to tell. Those things alone, I've always felt Diana had a right to decide that Mary was a part of her past and she should stay there. I shudder to think of anyone putting my love life [[or lack thereof) in the pages of a book that isn't mine.

    As far as Diana being a bitch of any sort, I say where there's smoke, there's fire. If enough people have enough stories about your bad behavior, all them folks aint lying. The sad thing is that the bitch stories dominate everything when in fact there are also a lot of stories out there about Diana's kindness and generosity. But it's a good case in point of why you should be careful how you treat people. People may not always remember the nice things you did, but they damn sure don't forget when you're nasty.
    all very well said Ran!!!!

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,633
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    It’s been six weeks since we learned of the sudden and tragic death of M’s Mary Wilson. Is yet another debate about how awful Mary was about Diana in her first book really very appropriate or tasteful at this point in time.
    I suspect there is one poster who must have been grinding his teeth regarding the out pouring of love and admiration Mary received following her sad passing. It’s interesting he chose to read Dream girls [[of all things) “as a bit of a memorial to her”. Enough said.
    Your second comment cracked me up because we all know it's true.

    I do think we all have to tread carefully where Mary is concerned because the sadness is still raw. But we also don't want to squash organic conversations either. As long as one Supreme isn't used to stomp on or lift up the other, I think we'll be okay if we try to stick to "the facts".

    Of course apparently Dreamgirl was introduced into the conversation for something other than good discussion. But again, no surprises there. I think we go a long way into continuing the good spirit around here by by passing the original agenda and doing what we do best: have good, clean ["clean"], respectful conversations, even when the subject isn't as feel good as "We Are the Children Of the World".

    Btw, Ollie I would encourage you to re-read Mary's books if you haven't read them in so long. Criticisms aside, they are excellent reads.

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    i think some of the problem is that sexism that people tend to apply to women. there's the old adage of "aggressive men are go-getters, aggressive women are bitches" or how men can sleep around but women are whores.

    maybe that's more of the issue with Dreamgirl. everyone knows that a woman being portrayed in a more aggressive manner will be interpreted as a bitch. and then that just adds that perception to any and all things associated with that woman.

    I found the early teen antics funny but feel they could have been positioned a bit different. I think if mary really had positioned these as funny/comical and just "kids being dumb" and included herself in some examples, it would have come across more even. one of the big take aways of the whole Supremes story is they were SO successful SO quickly and SO young. that's a theme i think most people would relate to and if the overall group dynamics were centered more around that POV, it might have been less of "diana was a bitch" positioning.

    As for the inconsistencies, i agree that it erodes the veracity of the book. none of them are big enough to totally wipe out any relevance or believability. but it just makes it sloppy. Even though youtube wasn't around in 85, there were plenty of fan videos on circulating. She could have been more diligent with digging up the real stories.

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,633
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by reese View Post
    DREAMGIRLS was released in Fall 1986.

    I will agree that it didn't kill Diana's US pop career. But it certainly didn't help and opened the door for many other Motown-related books, culminating in CALL HER MISS ROSS.

    But in truth, Diana had started sliding as far as back as when she released SO CLOSE in 1983, and the subsequent unsuccessful singles from ROSS [1983].She bounced back with a vengeance with the SWEPT AWAY album but then the title track from EATEN ALIVE messed up that resurgence. Then she got married and started having children, putting the career on the backburner.

    After DREAMGIRL, Diana's first single release was DIRTY LOOKS. Ironically, Mary's DON'T GET MAD GET EVEN was released around the same time. ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT did a brief mention of both releases and of course, focused on the title of Mary's release.
    Agree 100 percent. Dreamgirl can't be used as a reason why Diana's career tanked. Had Dreamgirl come out right after the diana80 album had peaked and then she never had another hit, suddenly became a "has been", then maybe the book could've been used to illustrate a "why". But Dreamgirl happened when Diana was already in the middle of a lull and I maintain that had she returned with A+ quality material, she'd continue to have had at least a couple more across the board hits.

    I'm going to go here despite the fact that when I did this before I got labeled some kind of racist, without actually calling me that, but I stick by what I said and I'll reiterate here. Diana had a reputation in the Black community that wasn't always the most positive, because of the image surrounding the way she supposedly treated the other Supremes. When Mary's book came out "confirming" a lot of speculation, this couldn't have done her any favors in a community that, despite it's issues with her, usually found a way to continue to support her. The fact that "Working Overtime" hit the top 3 of the r&b chart suggests to me that whatever people felt about how she may or may not have treated anybody, if they thought the song was good, the radio played it, and the people bought it. I was a kid at the time and I vividly remember people who had the single and how the song was on the radio constantly. So IMO if we could still give Diana a hit after Dreamgirl, Dreamgirl wasn't the problem some people want to think it was. "Pop" audiences were the ones who stopped buying the music, even if some of them still went to her shows. And the truth is, they stopped buying her stuff before Dreamgirl even came out.

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,633
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    i think Sup Faith was more harsh towards Diana, at least more of the personality clashes with Mary. Mary acknowledges in Sup Faith that much of the problems of the original Sups probably were the result of their youth and super fast success and she says that motown was more responsible for the dissent within the group than Diana.

    so given that was her POV while writing Sup Faith, i wish she had maybe approached some of the 60s stories with that in mind. I don't think Mary ever point blank blames Diana for the Flo problems or the problems within the group. But she does pretty clearly position that D & B were in cahoots and didn't give a damn about what she or Flo thought/wanted. That doesn't really align with the later POV in Sup Faith. So that's probably my biggest concern with how she covers the issues in the 60s.

    Also she sort of goes out of her way to highlight every petty thing Diana did - demand a pizza in middle of night and then not wanting it, fights with girls on the tour buses, hogging the shared bathroom mirror, etc. And yet Flo, Mary or Cindy never ever had a single diva moment ever? these complaints come across as silly and childish. like why bitch about something a 17 year old did 30 years ago? whereas if Diana was more directly involved with the decision to force M and F in the background, or if she demanded song be taken from them, or things more directly related to the group.

    that's sort of my reasoning as to why i see Dreamgirl as a slam
    Let's be clear though, Diana was in cahoots with Gordy. He controlled everything. EVERYTHING. But she was on board with a lot of it. And honestly I don't blame her for being on board in every single thing. The truth is that the lady was trying to get someplace and Gordy was giving her the opportunity to get there. Like most people her age she was focused on herself. I think it was in CHMR that there's a statement about how if Flo and Mary couldn't figure out a way to use the Supremes to their advantage like Diana was, then her attitude was "that's too bad". I get it. The problem is that Diana was thinking from a position of power and privilege, neither of which Flo and Mary possessed. Diana also knew better than anyone what Flo and Mary's gripes were because the three of them were really only around each other. Gordy is thought of as the fourth Supreme, but he really did have a record company to run, so he wasn't with them nearly as much as people think he was. A lot of Flo and Mary's anger was at Gordy but Diana was around so she got it instead. She could've gone to him, told him what was up, advocated for them, but it seems she so rarely did that. And when her self absorbing was at an all time high, she probably didn't care what it meant for Flo and Mary whenever Gordy promised her the moon and the stars. It's easy for Mary and Flo to see that as Diana conspiring with an "enemy".

  26. #176
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,633
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    i think some of the problem is that sexism that people tend to apply to women. there's the old adage of "aggressive men are go-getters, aggressive women are bitches" or how men can sleep around but women are whores.

    maybe that's more of the issue with Dreamgirl. everyone knows that a woman being portrayed in a more aggressive manner will be interpreted as a bitch. and then that just adds that perception to any and all things associated with that woman.

    I found the early teen antics funny but feel they could have been positioned a bit different. I think if mary really had positioned these as funny/comical and just "kids being dumb" and included herself in some examples, it would have come across more even. one of the big take aways of the whole Supremes story is they were SO successful SO quickly and SO young. that's a theme i think most people would relate to and if the overall group dynamics were centered more around that POV, it might have been less of "diana was a bitch" positioning.

    As for the inconsistencies, i agree that it erodes the veracity of the book. none of them are big enough to totally wipe out any relevance or believability. but it just makes it sloppy. Even though youtube wasn't around in 85, there were plenty of fan videos on circulating. She could have been more diligent with digging up the real stories.
    My favorite part of Dreamgirl is the pre-"Where Did Our Love Go" part. One of the standouts is how busy and how serious these young girls were about their craft, as early as the Primettes formation. They did become successful "quickly" and while so young, but they put in the work. That's why I would love a Supremes documentary. The books often rely on the drama, but I'd love to hear the recollections of people who recall just how dedicated these three young ladies were.

    Whatever gripes are to be had about Dreamgirl, I do still consider it the primary source of all things Primettes and early Supremes.

  27. #177
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,666
    Rep Power
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    i think some of the problem is that sexism that people tend to apply to women. there's the old adage of "aggressive men are go-getters, aggressive women are bitches" or how men can sleep around but women are whores.

    maybe that's more of the issue with Dreamgirl. everyone knows that a woman being portrayed in a more aggressive manner will be interpreted as a bitch. and then that just adds that perception to any and all things associated with that woman.

    I found the early teen antics funny but feel they could have been positioned a bit different. I think if mary really had positioned these as funny/comical and just "kids being dumb" and included herself in some examples, it would have come across more even. one of the big take aways of the whole Supremes story is they were SO successful SO quickly and SO young. that's a theme i think most people would relate to and if the overall group dynamics were centered more around that POV, it might have been less of "diana was a bitch" positioning.

    As for the inconsistencies, i agree that it erodes the veracity of the book. none of them are big enough to totally wipe out any relevance or believability. but it just makes it sloppy. Even though youtube wasn't around in 85, there were plenty of fan videos on circulating. She could have been more diligent with digging up the real stories.
    I would have retained more respect for Wilson if she had told her story instead of focusing so intently on passive-aggressive victim-hood. The proof is in the pages, and the sex-ism-ism is HUGE. As is the jealousy of someone who plots their path and is successful. There's nary a whisper about Smokey ditching the Miracles, Marvie-poo's various transgressions, the boilin' hot mess that most of the members of our beloved Temptations were, the extra-marital transgressions of at least one of Four Tops [[with ... guess who?) As Ralph himself has stated here, 'It's the record business - get over it'.

  28. #178
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,754
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Let's be clear though, Diana was in cahoots with Gordy. He controlled everything. EVERYTHING. But she was on board with a lot of it. And honestly I don't blame her for being on board in every single thing. The truth is that the lady was trying to get someplace and Gordy was giving her the opportunity to get there. Like most people her age she was focused on herself. I think it was in CHMR that there's a statement about how if Flo and Mary couldn't figure out a way to use the Supremes to their advantage like Diana was, then her attitude was "that's too bad". I get it. The problem is that Diana was thinking from a position of power and privilege, neither of which Flo and Mary possessed. Diana also knew better than anyone what Flo and Mary's gripes were because the three of them were really only around each other. Gordy is thought of as the fourth Supreme, but he really did have a record company to run, so he wasn't with them nearly as much as people think he was. A lot of Flo and Mary's anger was at Gordy but Diana was around so she got it instead. She could've gone to him, told him what was up, advocated for them, but it seems she so rarely did that. And when her self absorbing was at an all time high, she probably didn't care what it meant for Flo and Mary whenever Gordy promised her the moon and the stars. It's easy for Mary and Flo to see that as Diana conspiring with an "enemy".
    i think that's right. Diana had goals and she WORKED for those goals. I don't believe she plotted to destroy M or F in any way. but she also wasn't going to sacrifice herself for them or anyone else either. We all know that Diana was a workhorse. that she pushed herself further and further. M and F didn't - not saying they were lazy or unmotivated. just saying they were normal while Diana's drive and ambition were different and unusual. Berry also shared this blind ambition so they aligned well in that sense.

    there are stories about how she did push and encourage M and F's contribution for the group. Randy's story of Diana suggesting Mary sing the duet on Falling In Love. there have been stories on here of how Diana was eager for Flo's Xmas leads and Manhattan be included. But Diana didn't personally sit down with the execs as they were building an lp and involve herself with track lineup. She might have tried to coax Berry to do more but he might have had differing opinions.

    After a while, i guess it became more of an "ok i can only do so much to personally guide M and F's careers, this is something they need to take charge of." Diana's goals and ambitions dictated that she continue to grow and grow. if she was constantly saying "no give this to mary" that sort of defeats her goals.

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.