[REMOVE ADS]




Results 1 to 42 of 42
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,966
    Rep Power
    132

    J. Randy Taraborrelli Talks Diana Ross, Michael Jackson, Beyoncé, Kennedys On The Jim

    mentions of Mary at the beginning of Randy’s interview


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,966
    Rep Power
    132

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,966
    Rep Power
    132
    https://youtu.be/mtUkdSVez9E

    here’s the link since I can’t post it on here

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6,661
    Rep Power
    189
    Great recollection of Mary. Persistent is a great description of her, going all the way back to the Primettes days. It served her well in the long run. Glad to see JRT acknowledge that.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,710
    Rep Power
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Great recollection of Mary. Persistent is a great description of her, going all the way back to the Primettes days. It served her well in the long run. Glad to see JRT acknowledge that.
    I hope Mary is remembered for her persistence, tenacity and belief in herself. She knew she was beautiful, she knew she was talented and never let ego get in her way or gave up working towards her goals. This is why it’s hard for me to realize that she’s gone. I still don’t think of her as gone when she comes to mind initially. She was so vibrant enthusiastic and full of life, I still have to remind myself she’s not with us. I think that’s a good thing because I don’t think of her as aged or diminished in any way.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20,801
    Rep Power
    372
    Very interesting and long - says he was too hard on Diana in Call Her Miss Ross and that book doesn’t really reflect who he is

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,226
    Rep Power
    78
    Call Her Miss Ross was as low and dirty as one could get. That is why it was a best seller. He admitted he is ashamed of it in the interview.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20,801
    Rep Power
    372
    Well every soul who ever wrote a book about Motown or a Motown group had to say something controversial or semi salacious about Diana or the book wouldn’t sell. They had to look in the mirror every day and face themselves. From memory, particularly Janie Bradford stands out as someone that stood up for Diana - but Claudette Robinson and Suzanne dePasse also did as well as Berry Smokey and Stevie

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6,661
    Rep Power
    189
    I agree with JRT that the negative of CHMR was that it wasn't balanced. There are certainly passages in it where Diana's humanity is on display, but the book relies on "all" the instances where this isn't the case as the selling point. IMO it's still an excellent book, even if it doesn't show how well rounded as a human being Diana Ross really is. I'd still prefer a book like CHMR over some scrubbed biography that paints Diana Ross as an innocent. She hurt a lot of feelings over the years. Those people deserve to be able to tell their story...when asked. I really love JRT's last Diana book. That one was much more balanced. The warts were on display, but so was the big heart, and seems to me that she's like the rest of us, a little bit of wart and a little bit of heart.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20,801
    Rep Power
    372
    At some point in this interview, they say CHMR is still the book that people remember and that is talked about.

    I always wondered why all the sales information that was contained is CHMR was deleted for the follow up book that cleaned things up - to me it indicated that the sales information was probably wrong. I wish someone could ask Randy about it.

    I couldn't sit through the whole interview but I think I heard Randy say he not proud of CHMR in addition to it not being a reflection of the kind of person he is.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6,661
    Rep Power
    189
    I don't know how right or wrong the sales info would be. I always wondered how it was he'd have those figures, considering how secretive Motown was with that information for so long. Maybe those figures were the RIAA official tallies after the point when Motown began submitting that information? I don't know. I do know that it wouldn't have made sense for JRT to recycle information from the first book for the second, or it would've just been the same book.

    He doesn't say he isn't proud of the book. He said he's not crazy about it and I love his reasoning for it. At the time, as an author, he thought as long as he printed "the truth" that's all that mattered. As a seasoned veteran writer, he knows now that there's more to it than just printing "truth". It's how it's presented. He doesn't seem to question the validity of anything he wrote. I'm sure not everything in the book was true. People lie. People misremember. But I think there's way too much smoke there to not be a legit fire. Miss Ross was something else, professionally and personally. Gotta love her.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    5,197
    Rep Power
    187
    Taraborelli has been a work-in-progress sort of author. He made his name with slash-and-burn gossip bios decades ago and has, I believe, wanted to better both himself and the opinion of his talent as a biographer. Though CHMR was a seller in its day it seems to me that outside of our 'communities' and specifically the sub-communities of those who spend their lives denigrating one ex-member of the Supremes [[or another) the book is little remembered today.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,226
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceNHarmony View Post
    Taraborelli has been a work-in-progress sort of author. He made his name with slash-and-burn gossip bios decades ago and has, I believe, wanted to better both himself and the opinion of his talent as a biographer. Though CHMR was a seller in its day it seems to me that outside of our 'communities' and specifically the sub-communities of those who spend their lives denigrating one ex-member of the Supremes [[or another) the book is little remembered today.
    they may not remember the book now, but it played a large role in turning off the public of the day from Diana Ross.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,144
    Rep Power
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Circa 1824 View Post
    they may not remember the book now, but it played a large role in turning off the public of the day from Diana Ross.
    Didnt it just Circa. I can still remember everyone talking about it.
    Following on from her diva antics on Motown 25, kicking sound monitors off stage, Mary Wilsons less then flattering recollections and the high profile sacking of innocent members of her workforce, the public, were more then prepared to believe every word of it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,226
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    Didnt it just Circa. I can still remember everyone talking about it.
    Following on from her diva antics on Motown 25, kicking sound monitors off stage, Mary Wilsons less then flattering recollections and the high profile sacking of innocent members of her workforce, the public, were more then prepared to believe every word of it.
    And Ollie, the low down and dirty Vanity Fair cover story piled on the anti-Ross for many. She didn’t have Berry and the Motown machine to protect her and give her much needed awesome hit recordings. She was alone in the dark.

    Also, would Mary have dared to write her hit piece if Diana was still at Motown? I say no.
    Last edited by Circa 1824; 01-16-2022 at 12:16 AM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,144
    Rep Power
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Circa 1824 View Post
    And Ollie, the low down and dirty Vanity Fair cover story piled on the anti-Ross for many. She didn’t have Berry and the Motown machine to protect her and give her much needed awesome hit recordings. She was alone in the dark.

    Also, would Mary have dared to write her hit piece if Diana was still at Motown? I say no.
    Add to that anyone who ever worked for her during the early 80’s had little/nothing nice to say of the experience.
    Sadly, the image of her as an imperious diva would persist far into the 90’s and beyond.
    I remember most people i knew being less then sympathetic regarding the histrionics of the Heathrow Airport incident. ‘Just Diana Ross acting up yet again’ being the general public consensus of the time. Then of course we had RTL of which the less said the better.
    I think she’s a calmer, far more thoughtful person these days as one really ought to be when heading for 80.
    I know there are some who would rather such things were not mentioned, but you can’t airbrush history. These behaviours aside, her music has always been a source of inspiration being equally part of her incredible legacy.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6,661
    Rep Power
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    Didnt it just Circa. I can still remember everyone talking about it.
    Following on from her diva antics on Motown 25, kicking sound monitors off stage, Mary Wilsons less then flattering recollections and the high profile sacking of innocent members of her workforce, the public, were more then prepared to believe every word of it.
    Interestingly, CHMR is the book JRT says most people mention to him.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6,661
    Rep Power
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    Add to that anyone who ever worked for her during the early 80’s had little/nothing nice to say of the experience.
    Sadly, the image of her as an imperious diva would persist far into the 90’s and beyond.
    I remember most people i knew being less then sympathetic regarding the histrionics of the Heathrow Airport incident. ‘Just Diana Ross acting up yet again’ being the general public consensus of the time. Then of course we had RTL of which the less said the better.
    I think she’s a calmer, far more thoughtful person these days as one really ought to be when heading for 80.
    I know there are some who would rather such things were not mentioned, but you can’t airbrush history. These behaviours aside, her music has always been a source of inspiration being equally part of her incredible legacy.
    I don't know that we can say "anyone who ever worked for her" during that time fell into that category.

    Like it or not, Diana's image as a glamour queen and songstress is equally intertwined with her image as a raging diva. I find it interesting that Florence, for example, is often dogged for her behavior in a two year span of time as a Supreme, but Diana is given a pass for decades worth of spotty public perception. Flo's off the rails behavior shouldn't be airbrushed, and likewise, neither should Diana's. They were both human beings whom, IMO, weren't equipped with the necessary tools that it took to handle their crossover from "nobodies" to "somebodies". Their positives outweigh their negatives. But in the case of Diana, I think that being "mean" to others allowed a revolving door of people willing to talk about the time Diana said/did something "mean" to them to jump at the chance to talk about it. Diana's mega success amplifies this. For sure her Supremes and Motown counterparts have enemies and people who would paint less than flattering encounters and relationships, but when you're as successful as Diana is, as legendary, there's more incentive for people to recall you when you weren't at your best.

    It's a good life lesson for young people to study: be careful how you treat people. Folks might remember the good things you've done for them, but they'll most certainly remember the bad things you've done to them.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    128
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    He doesn't say he isn't proud of the book. He said he's not crazy about it and I love his reasoning for it. At the time, as an author, he thought as long as he printed "the truth" that's all that mattered. As a seasoned veteran writer, he knows now that there's more to it than just printing "truth". It's how it's presented. He doesn't seem to question the validity of anything he wrote. I'm sure not everything in the book was true. People lie. People misremember. But I think there's way too much smoke there to not be a legit fire. Miss Ross was something else, professionally and personally. Gotta love her.
    Well, is it enough to claim to only write the truth or relate true events to be believed? As nice as J.Randy Taraborrelli seems to be, my answer is : certainly not !

    A simple example can that be verified by everyone : in Call Her Miss Ross, p.361-364 in the US edition, p.319-322 in the UK edition, he recreates a scene in the Bonaventure Hotel, right before the Academy Awards ceremony in 1979, between Diana Ross, Ryan O’Neil and Jeffrey Wilson [[and other Ross’s employee). Needless to say the scene is used to tarnish Diana’s image and relates the story of Diana making a fuss about a white tulle wrap that didn’t arrived soon enough to her liking and that was supposed to accompany the white silk James Galanos gown she would wear the same evening at the Academy Awards ceremony. The white tulle wrap finally arrived on time and Taraborrelli concludes, p.364 :
    “Ryan watched the television ceremony with Diana’s staff. When Diana walked out onto the stage, he burst out laughing. “Jesus! Look at that.”
    Jeffrey Wilson sank deep into the couch.
    Diana didn’t have the wrap on.”

    Well, now everyone can see the video of a gorgeous Diana at the ceremony on youtube and check the inaccuracy of the conclusion of this little story :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxNlG_C-6m8

    So, did Taraborrelli only tell the truth? Obviously not, no matter what he says now or what he wants us to believe in this interview. For whatever reason, probably money, CHMR contains a lot of gossips. There are lots of interviews of people whose interests are to tarnish her image. Was he manipulated by those he interviewed and too young to realize it ? Or did he use those interviews on purpose ? Whatever the answers are, CHMR is a biased biography for which you constantly have to check the Note And Sources part of the book to see who’s interviewed and guess on whose side he/she is [[but who does that?). Unfortunately this Note And Sources part is absent from the third book, and that’s too bad even if the book is more favorable to Diana Ross, and probably more accurate.

    CHMR did a lot to tarnish Diana Ross reputation, but, I have to admit, as I wrote on the first website I made in the early 2000s, it also made me love her more at that time. I never believed everything described in it and always read it with a critical eye: she’s a human being after all, not a Goddess.

    This story has been wisely removed from his third biography Diana Ross An Unauthorized Biography.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20,801
    Rep Power
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by Laurent View Post
    Well, is it enough to claim to only write the truth or relate true events to be believed? As nice as J.Randy Taraborrelli seems to be, my answer is : certainly not !

    A simple example can that be verified by everyone : in Call Her Miss Ross, p.361-364 in the US edition, p.319-322 in the UK edition, he recreates a scene in the Bonaventure Hotel, right before the Academy Awards ceremony in 1979, between Diana Ross, Ryan O’Neil and Jeffrey Wilson [[and other Ross’s employee). Needless to say the scene is used to tarnish Diana’s image and relates the story of Diana making a fuss about a white tulle wrap that didn’t arrived soon enough to her liking and that was supposed to accompany the white silk James Galanos gown she would wear the same evening at the Academy Awards ceremony. The white tulle wrap finally arrived on time and Taraborrelli concludes, p.364 :
    “Ryan watched the television ceremony with Diana’s staff. When Diana walked out onto the stage, he burst out laughing. “Jesus! Look at that.”
    Jeffrey Wilson sank deep into the couch.
    Diana didn’t have the wrap on.”

    Well, now everyone can see the video of a gorgeous Diana at the ceremony on youtube and check the inaccuracy of the conclusion of this little story :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxNlG_C-6m8

    So, did Taraborrelli only tell the truth? Obviously not, no matter what he says now or what he wants us to believe in this interview. For whatever reason, probably money, CHMR contains a lot of gossips. There are lots of interviews of people whose interests are to tarnish her image. Was he manipulated by those he interviewed and too young to realize it ? Or did he use those interviews on purpose ? Whatever the answers are, CHMR is a biased biography for which you constantly have to check the Note And Sources part of the book to see who’s interviewed and guess on whose side he/she is [[but who does that?). Unfortunately this Note And Sources part is absent from the third book, and that’s too bad even if the book is more favorable to Diana Ross, and probably more accurate.

    CHMR did a lot to tarnish Diana Ross reputation, but, I have to admit, as I wrote on the first website I made in the early 2000s, it also made me love her more at that time. I never believed everything described in it and always read it with a critical eye: she’s a human being after all, not a Goddess.

    This story has been wisely removed from his third biography Diana Ross An Unauthorized Biography.
    The Unuthorized biography is a “cleaned up” rewritten version of CHMR

    Randy was able to make a career out of writing and he began the career with CHMR

    Ultimately we all have to look in the mirror and see if we like what we see

    Randy seems ok but I think he acknowledges he could have done a better job and he’s not completely comfortable with CHMR

    On the other hand, Diana Ross had the world at her feet and I think she accepts there would be criticisms, founded and unfounded, levelled because of who she was

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    805
    Rep Power
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Circa 1824 View Post
    Call Her Miss Ross was as low and dirty as one could get. That is why it was a best seller. He admitted he is ashamed of it in the interview.

    I read that book in 3 days in or about 1990. I was even more enthralled with her after CHMR. I don't remember it being especially unflattering.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6,661
    Rep Power
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Laurent View Post
    Well, is it enough to claim to only write the truth or relate true events to be believed? As nice as J.Randy Taraborrelli seems to be, my answer is : certainly not !

    A simple example can that be verified by everyone : in Call Her Miss Ross, p.361-364 in the US edition, p.319-322 in the UK edition, he recreates a scene in the Bonaventure Hotel, right before the Academy Awards ceremony in 1979, between Diana Ross, Ryan O’Neil and Jeffrey Wilson [[and other Ross’s employee). Needless to say the scene is used to tarnish Diana’s image and relates the story of Diana making a fuss about a white tulle wrap that didn’t arrived soon enough to her liking and that was supposed to accompany the white silk James Galanos gown she would wear the same evening at the Academy Awards ceremony. The white tulle wrap finally arrived on time and Taraborrelli concludes, p.364 :
    “Ryan watched the television ceremony with Diana’s staff. When Diana walked out onto the stage, he burst out laughing. “Jesus! Look at that.”
    Jeffrey Wilson sank deep into the couch.
    Diana didn’t have the wrap on.”

    Well, now everyone can see the video of a gorgeous Diana at the ceremony on youtube and check the inaccuracy of the conclusion of this little story :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxNlG_C-6m8

    So, did Taraborrelli only tell the truth? Obviously not, no matter what he says now or what he wants us to believe in this interview. For whatever reason, probably money, CHMR contains a lot of gossips. There are lots of interviews of people whose interests are to tarnish her image. Was he manipulated by those he interviewed and too young to realize it ? Or did he use those interviews on purpose ? Whatever the answers are, CHMR is a biased biography for which you constantly have to check the Note And Sources part of the book to see who’s interviewed and guess on whose side he/she is [[but who does that?). Unfortunately this Note And Sources part is absent from the third book, and that’s too bad even if the book is more favorable to Diana Ross, and probably more accurate.

    CHMR did a lot to tarnish Diana Ross reputation, but, I have to admit, as I wrote on the first website I made in the early 2000s, it also made me love her more at that time. I never believed everything described in it and always read it with a critical eye: she’s a human being after all, not a Goddess.

    This story has been wisely removed from his third biography Diana Ross An Unauthorized Biography.
    Is it the same wrap she was pitching a fit about? Seems like such an obviously easily debunked thing to lie about. I think JRT sat through interview after interview and printed what the people told him. Whether it was real truth or a person's perception, or even a lie, is what I think he means about how he approached that book. JRT posts here sometimes, so maybe he'll pop in and explain what he meant. I'm only making an assumption.

    I think it's easy to jump to the conclusion that people were interested in tarnishing her image. I personally believe a lot of those who told stories of the dark side of Diana Ross were simply telling it how it was, or how they experienced it, the latter of which doesn't always allow for "intent". I don't know any of these people personally so I can't judge who might lie and who wouldn't. But again, too much smoke. Love Diana like I do, but it's obvious she made some major missteps in how she's treated people over the years. She is, after all, human, like the rest of us. The difference is that she's a superstar and people love talking about the stars they know, good or bad, while the people we've wronged...nobody cares to write about their recollections.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,118
    Rep Power
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Circa 1824 View Post
    Call Her Miss Ross was as low and dirty as one could get. That is why it was a best seller. He admitted he is ashamed of it in the interview.
    I completely agree with this ^ and this v :

    they may not remember the book now, but it played a large role in turning off the public of the day from Diana Ross.


    I don't think we realize from today's hazy perspective just how influential this book was in smearing Ross, whether or not the stories were mostly true or mostly false. He was a significant contributor to the turn against Ross. Regretting it now is too little, too late.
    Last edited by thanxal; 01-17-2022 at 04:05 AM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,144
    Rep Power
    161
    It appears in certain camps that anything positive ever written about Diana is the gospel truth while anything even remotely unflattering is viewed as a smear campaign. There’s no middle ground.
    I have been told stories of Diana’s aggressively rude behaviour from folks in the biz i have no reason not to believe. I just accept its part of who she is.
    The fact remains that despite the many inaccuracies recorded in the book, throughout the 80’s Diana’s erratic behaviour gave the public more then good reason to believe every word written in ‘CMMR’. She really was her own worst enemy and left herself open for such a book to be written.
    I’m sure there remains a nicer side to her character, this being one of the reasons i remain a fan.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,118
    Rep Power
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    It appears in certain camps that anything positive ever written about Diana is the gospel truth while anything even remotely unflattering is viewed as a smear campaign. There’s no middle ground.
    I have been told stories of Diana’s aggressively rude behaviour from folks in the biz i have no reason not to believe. I just accept its part of who she is.
    The fact remains that despite the many inaccuracies recorded in the book, throughout the 80’s Diana’s erratic behaviour gave the public more then good reason to believe every word written in ‘CMMR’. She really was her own worst enemy and left herself open for such a book to be written.
    I’m sure there remains a nicer side to her character, this being one of the reasons i remain a fan.
    I completely agree with you, but I don't think CHMR was in any way a fair assessment of her. I try to count myself in the "middle ground" camp on this but even I shook my head when I read that book.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    500
    Rep Power
    37
    Diana Ross' actions towards some people and the blowback she eventually received in books like Dreamgirl and Call Her Miss Ross, as well as the media, is the perfect example of this famous quote by Maya Angelou at work:
    “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6,661
    Rep Power
    189
    If at the very least half of the negativity that is in CHMR is true, then Diana should have looked in the mirror, and fans who pointed the finger at the book should have looked at her album covers [[minus LSTB, since she isn't on it), as to who is to blame for that. That's not on the author unless he made things up, and I don't believe he did that. It's not like he wrote a book specifically to kill this woman's image. CHMR is written based on the recollections of other people. It's not like he sat down and came up with all of this stuff himself, like a certain person whose name rhymes with Rony Rurner. I don't think JRT has anything to be ashamed of or apologize for. I would rather hear Diana address some of the stuff publicly.

    I think her image could've redirected itself if she had simply explained herself. The stuff that took place during the Supremes years was a young girl being immature, and a young lady trying to find herself amid an extraordinary situation she wasn't quite equipped to handle. The 1970s was a topsy turvy period of successful highs and lows, and the same can be said for her personal life. We know when people are highly stressed they don't always walk through life with a "smell the roses" attitude. The 1980s might be trickier to explain because she was entirely to old not to be self aware, but I imagine she could also argue that with the move to RCA and the complete control of her career that her stress level went through the roof and she took it out on other people.

    Instead she went radio silent or passive aggressively referred to things written as "junk" without saying names or referring to specific allegations leveled against her. Shots were fired with some recollections and Diana chose not to defend herself. If that was some kind of strategy, it didn't work and it only allowed people to run with the stories as told. I do believe in the wisdom of not giving time and attention to every negative story that comes her way, but if CHMR did the damage y'all claim it did [[I was just a kid and never heard anybody talking about the book specifically, although I knew many people who had an unfavorable view of her) she may have done well to address it.

    Gladys Knight tells the story of asking Diana about her behavior back in the day and Diana's response was that they all had to grow up. I love that response. Would've loved it even more had I gotten to hear Diana say it instead of Gladys, who insists on telling some version of a story about Diana kicking her off of a tour.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,118
    Rep Power
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    If at the very least half of the negativity that is in CHMR is true, then Diana should have looked in the mirror
    You don't think it was sensationalized, where anyone's "opinion" or "perspective" that was salacious was amplified without question?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6,661
    Rep Power
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by thanxal View Post
    You don't think it was sensationalized, where anyone's "opinion" or "perspective" that was salacious was amplified without question?
    To sell a book? I'd bet money on it. But the issue would remain the same, wouldn't it? That the point was that Diana Ross was not always the easiest person to deal with. And let's be real: what's the worst thing the book really says about her? Off the top of my head I think of the juxtaposition of the anecdote where she is sick and Flo cares for her in Boston vs Diana's attitude of Flo when she took sick in the same city. There's the stories of her treatment of employees. The Motown 25 section definitely made her look bad. But in the grand scheme of things, to me the book just shows she's a human being with faults and flaws. It's not like the book alleged that she was molesting children or abusing her children, or pushing elderly people down stairs. It certainly relied on the salacious but when you really get to it, how salacious was it? And would those things be as salacious if she weren't Black and a woman?

    CHMR reads to me, at the end of the day, as a portrait of a woman, flaws and all. It's just that the third Diana book did a better job of capturing the "and all" part.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,035
    Rep Power
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    And would those things be as salacious if she weren't Black and a woman?

    .
    If only she were transgender,
    You could play it to the hilt.
    Last edited by Boogiedown; 01-17-2022 at 01:40 PM.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20,801
    Rep Power
    372
    I think in the last 10 years Diana Ross has become very spiritual - you hear her constant references to her blessed life and wonderful, successful children. As part of this, I don’t think she hears anything negative and sees nothing negative - all is wonderful.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    6,661
    Rep Power
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by jobeterob View Post
    I think in the last 10 years Diana Ross has become very spiritual - you hear her constant references to her blessed life and wonderful, successful children. As part of this, I don’t think she hears anything negative and sees nothing negative - all is wonderful.
    If only that were true. The only people who don't hear or see negativity are dead, and Miss Ross is very much in the land of the living and subject to all the crap that comes with being a human being. That said, I do believe her default setting is being positive, which is great.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,144
    Rep Power
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Spreadinglove21 View Post
    Diana Ross' actions towards some people and the blowback she eventually received in books like Dreamgirl and Call Her Miss Ross, as well as the media, is the perfect example of this famous quote by Maya Angelou at work:
    “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
    That’s one of my favourite quotes that rings so true.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,021
    Rep Power
    157
    I doubt all these people collectively got together and schemed to make up stories about Diana. I love her but come on the woman was a bitch back in the day. She mellowed out over the years but she was not some angel years prior. She was the epitome of a spoiled brat. This forum has been overrun with Diana fanatics lately so no one is going to agree. I'm one of Flo's biggest fans but even I can sit back and be like yeah Flo was her own worst enemy.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,144
    Rep Power
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by floyjoy678 View Post
    I doubt all these people collectively got together and schemed to make up stories about Diana. I love her but come on the woman was a bitch back in the day. She mellowed out over the years but she was not some angel years prior. She was the epitome of a spoiled brat. This forum has been overrun with Diana fanatics lately so no one is going to agree. I'm one of Flo's biggest fans but even I can sit back and be like yeah Flo was her own worst enemy.
    A factual, plain and honest post Floy. Celebrity Worship Syndrome is a recognised condition that i was surprised to learn is linked to low self esteem. Sufferers are unable to see their chosen celeb as anything but perfect as admitting a fault effects their own sense of self worth. It’s interesting stuff.
    Most of us here are massive Diana fans who accept she is less then perfect. The main difference being we are comfortable in discussing all aspects of her career and persona be they good or not so.
    It certainly doesn’t stop us being any less of a fan.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    196
    Rep Power
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    It certainly doesn’t stop us being any less of a fan.
    Some things make me less of a fan. Not even going to pretend. I do not think any human being is perfect, but we can all treat our fellow human beings with respect. That is not too much to ask for. We all do have our moments, though

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20,801
    Rep Power
    372
    I remember Randy writing in CHMR that “in the process, Mary Wilson lost Diana Ross forever” - i suppose Dreamgirl and M25

    That kind of sensationalist talk of course was just that - idle silly chatter - because 10 years later Diana Ross was still engaging Mary about going on tour

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,144
    Rep Power
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by jobeterob View Post
    I remember Randy writing in CHMR that “in the process, Mary Wilson lost Diana Ross forever” - i suppose Dreamgirl and M25

    That kind of sensationalist talk of course was just that - idle silly chatter - because 10 years later Diana Ross was still engaging Mary about going on tour
    When there’s big money to be made, personal animosity tends to take a back seat.

  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Circa 1824 View Post
    Call Her Miss Ross was as low and dirty as one could get. That is why it was a best seller. He admitted he is ashamed of it in the interview.
    He made me scream "Call her Miss Ross" when we were having sex.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    196
    Rep Power
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by REYnoldo Chavez View Post
    He made me scream "Call her Miss Ross" when we were having sex.
    Wait, what?

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    20,801
    Rep Power
    372
    Quote Originally Posted by REYnoldo Chavez View Post
    He made me scream "Call her Miss Ross" when we were having sex.
    oh, he must have held back on you until you called out.............!

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    708
    Rep Power
    36
    I love Randy's books. As a person who has spent lots of time with celebrities, most of them earn the reputations they have. Do you hear people running around saying Dolly Parton is "difficult?" No, you don't, because she isn't difficult.You almost never hear a bad thing about Patti Labelle, Sarah Dash, Cindy Birdsong, Stevie Wonder etc. I love Diana Ross but she could be ruthless in her need to get attention--she wasn't doing it to hurt Mary, Berry or anybody else. She was more like a live wire and she knew what she wanted and worked herself half to death to get it. Would any of us still be talking about the Supremes if not for Diana's "artistic temperament" as Berry called it? I doubt it.

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.