[REMOVE ADS]




Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 74 of 74
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,675
    Rep Power
    308
    how many Supremes? ..... too many

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,646
    Rep Power
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogiedown View Post
    how many Supremes? ..... too many
    I think I will open up a whole new can of worms and say that there were ten. I am using the same way we count Presidents. Biden is the 46th President, even though only 45 men held the office. Grover Cleveland served two non consecutive terms and he is counted twice, as the 22d and the 24th President.

    Using the same formula for Supremes, Cindy would be counted twice, as the 5th and 8th.

    1.2.3.4. Barbara. Flo, Diana, Mary
    5 Cindy
    6 Jean
    7 Lynda
    8 Cindy
    9 Sherrie
    10 Susaye

    Of course, I say this in jest and with tongue in cheek.

    Name:  sarc emog.jpg
Views: 207
Size:  4.6 KB

    But still, these are things that make you say "Hmmm"


    Name:  hmm.jpg
Views: 208
Size:  64.5 KB

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    1,215
    Rep Power
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by milven View Post
    I think I will open up a whole new can of worms and say that there were ten. I am using the same way we count Presidents. Biden is the 46th President, even though only 45 men held the office. Grover Cleveland served two non consecutive terms and he is counted twice, as the 22d and the 24th President.

    Using the same formula for Supremes, Cindy would be counted twice, as the 5th and 8th.

    1.2.3.4. Barbara. Flo, Diana, Mary
    5 Cindy
    6 Jean
    7 Lynda
    8 Cindy
    9 Sherrie
    10 Susaye

    Of course, I say this in jest and with tongue in cheek.

    Name:  sarc emog.jpg
Views: 207
Size:  4.6 KB

    But still, these are things that make you say "Hmmm"


    Name:  hmm.jpg
Views: 208
Size:  64.5 KB
    Why did you make Diana #3? She ought to be #1. You must be jealous of her.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,312
    Rep Power
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by milven View Post
    I think I will open up a whole new can of worms and say that there were ten. I am using the same way we count Presidents. Biden is the 46th President, even though only 45 men held the office. Grover Cleveland served two non consecutive terms and he is counted twice, as the 22d and the 24th President.

    Using the same formula for Supremes, Cindy would be counted twice, as the 5th and 8th.

    1.2.3.4. Barbara. Flo, Diana, Mary
    5 Cindy
    6 Jean
    7 Lynda
    8 Cindy
    9 Sherrie
    10 Susaye

    Of course, I say this in jest and with tongue in cheek.

    Name:  sarc emog.jpg
Views: 207
Size:  4.6 KB

    But still, these are things that make you say "Hmmm"


    Name:  hmm.jpg
Views: 208
Size:  64.5 KB
    Hey milven...do you really really want to go there? Watch this...

    1. Barbara
    2. Mary
    3. Diana
    4. Florence
    5. Cindy
    6. Florence
    7. Jean
    8. Lynda
    9. Cindy
    10. Scherrie
    11. Susaye

    Sorry I just had to!Lol

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,675
    Rep Power
    308
    hee haw! [if Florence is twice, should Cindy also be #7?]

    It does help me to see the names visually listed in an order like this.

    Next : A list of the various ladies in their respective threesomes? and initial foursome ...
    Last edited by Boogiedown; 06-25-2022 at 01:56 PM.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,386
    Rep Power
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by milven View Post
    i think i will open up a whole new can of worms and say that there were ten. I am using the same way we count presidents. Biden is the 46th president, even though only 45 men held the office. Grover cleveland served two non consecutive terms and he is counted twice, as the 22d and the 24th president.

    Using the same formula for supremes, cindy would be counted twice, as the 5th and 8th.

    1.2.3.4. Barbara. Flo, diana, mary
    5 cindy
    6 jean
    7 lynda
    8 cindy
    9 sherrie
    10 susaye

    of course, i say this in jest and with tongue in cheek.

    Name:  sarc emog.jpg
Views: 207
Size:  4.6 KB

    but still, these are things that make you say "hmmm"


    Name:  hmm.jpg
Views: 208
Size:  64.5 KB
    You forgot the Divinely Supreme Mrs. Dr. Her Honorable Queen of Motown & First Lady of Motown Shantal Baker, MD. DDT, PHD.

    How could you Milven? How.could.you??????
    Last edited by thanxal; 06-25-2022 at 01:56 PM. Reason: apparently ALL CAPS posts are a no no on SDF

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,312
    Rep Power
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogiedown View Post
    hee haw! [if Florence is twice, should Cindy also be #7?]

    It does help me to see the names visually listed in an order like this.

    Next : A list of the various ladies in their respective threesomes? and initial foursome ...
    Oh lord how did I miss that? I think I need a nap

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,827
    Rep Power
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    see i think Diana broke away from the Supremes sound quite quickly. DR 70 IMO is radically different from anything she had recorded with the Sups. Frankly i always thought the Bones Howes tracks were too supremes in sound and maybe that's why they remained in the can. there's a much heavier r&b influence in her A&S stuff and her vocals are much more aggressive and assertive

    now maybe on stage her show was reminiscent of the supremes. she was often still doing Lady Is A Tramp, she used the Leading Lady medley for a while. Don't rain on my parade.

    true she often used female backing singers. not to sound sexist but i believe that's for the best. male voices tend to be heavier than female and that makes the Ooooo and Ahhhs sometimes too thick and weighty. so not only do you miss the upper soaring soprano range by not having female backups, the sound is drastically different. listen to her backup on the Caesar album for a perfect example of this. the male voices just weigh down the Sups medley and other songs.

    of course it does depend on the singers themselves. she's used other mixed vocal combos and it's been more successful.
    Interesting take. I still think "Ain't No Mountain" could have been a DRATS tune, and is often mistaken for one. Then you have "These Things" which has the same background singers as "Someday". And add to it "Keep an Eye" which was a rerecording of a track from "Love Child". So I think the formula was to debut Diana as a solo, but make things pretty comfortable and familiar.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,629
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by marybrewster View Post
    It's funny though how both Diana and Mary used the Supremes as a "crutch" when they first went solo; Diana in sound, and Mary on stage.

    All of Diana's recordings through 1972 rely heavily on "background singers", in some cases, the same background singers that were on 1968 and 1969 DRATS recordings. So while the label may say DIANA ROSS, it was still the same product she'd been releasing for 3 or 4 years.

    Mary of course grabbed two gals and threw then in TCB swirl gowns and called them her backup singers.....but were often promoted as Supremes.
    Agreed. Diana's first three albums can easily be used as an example of what Diana Ross and the Supremes would have sounded like and/or recorded had she continued with the group into the early 70s. Lady Sings and then TMITM are where she is clearly her own artist.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,629
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by bradsupremes View Post
    But if Motown owned the name Supremes and Kaaaren was not signed to Motown then that throws a curveball in her argument that she was legally a Supreme especially if Motown objected to it.

    Universal/Motown made a statement in the back of the Final Sessions acknowledging 9 women. That's the final word on the matter. Court ruling or not, the Supremes were 9 women - nothing more or less, court ruling or not.
    Apparently legally Ragland can claim to be a Supreme, hence why she won her suit. And if Bayou's info is correct, that's on Mary. With the court ruling, I think it has to stand for what it is, legality.

    That is a totally different issue than who Motown deems official Supremes, as everyone involved probably can agree on one thing: Ragland never worked for Motown Records. There would never be a reason to acknowledge Ragland in official Motown products. Marlene Barrow recorded as a third voice on some Supremes recordings and performed on stage as a Supreme during two different occasions, and even she doesn't get acknowledged by Motown as a member of the Supremes.

    Rags never recorded or performed as a Supreme during the time the Supremes were officially an act [[1961-1977). My guess, having never seen the documents associated with the suit, is that Ragland zeroed in on the terminology in her contract with Mary, that allowed her to claim Supreme status, and capitalize off of it. I think it's disgusting because Rags knows that she was never a real, legit Supreme, regardless of the contract wording. But this is why Mary should've been extra careful in using the name Supremes. In truth, she should have only used the name as Mary Wilson OF the Supremes, and anyone singing behind her were no named background singers like all the people who sang behind Diana Ross, Patti Labelle, Aretha Franklin, etc, over the years.

    Of all the non Supremes who had more of a claim to be an actual Supreme, Marlene Barrow seems to have always taken the high road when it came to her contributions to the group. She has more of a legit claim to a Supreme than Rags ever could.
    Last edited by RanRan79; 06-25-2022 at 07:00 PM.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,753
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by marybrewster View Post
    Interesting take. I still think "Ain't No Mountain" could have been a DRATS tune, and is often mistaken for one. Then you have "These Things" which has the same background singers as "Someday". And add to it "Keep an Eye" which was a rerecording of a track from "Love Child". So I think the formula was to debut Diana as a solo, but make things pretty comfortable and familiar.
    True on These Things. But I don’t hear Mountain as a Surpremes song. Yes I know people assume it just like they assume it’s Diana singing Ladder. Story is that Berry had These Things added because it was a copy of Someday

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,646
    Rep Power
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    ....Ragland zeroed in on the terminology in her contract with Mary, that allowed her to claim Supreme status, and capitalize off of it....This is why Mary should've been extra careful in using the name Supremes. In truth, she should have only used the name as Mary Wilson OF the Supremes, and anyone singing behind her were no named background singers....
    Mary was careless in having her billing include Supremes in the wrong way. I wonder if she would have been booked without including the name. I remember seeing her at B B KINGS in NYC and the marquee read MARY WILSON AND THE SUPREMES. Hopefully, she had them change that marquee during the run because that was totally deceptive and by that time she was being billed as The Supremes' Mary Wilson. That billing is okay, and so is Mary Wilson of the Supremes.

    If the two Karens needed proof that they were being used by Mary as Supremes, there is plenty of stuff out there to prove it. This poster will prove it. But how nasty Kaaren was in that lawsuit. The two Karens were "Karens" before the term was invented.

    Mary left the Supremes and then used the name in all her billings.

    Name:  fake supremes.jpg
Views: 201
Size:  43.0 KB

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,827
    Rep Power
    388
    The only thing I've surmised over the years is, Mary didn't have complete control on how she was billed, hence why there were so many variations: Mary Wilson and the Supremes, Mary Wilson of the Supremes, Mary Wilson Formally of the Supremes, The Supremes' Mary Wilson, Mary Wilson with the Supremes. Promoters knew there was value in the Supremes name, at least recognition, and Rag ran with it. She clearly knew she wasn't a Supreme, but on paper, the story was otherwise.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,629
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by milven View Post
    Mary was careless in having her billing include Supremes in the wrong way. I wonder if she would have been booked without including the name. I remember seeing her at B B KINGS in NYC and the marquee read MARY WILSON AND THE SUPREMES. Hopefully, she had them change that marquee during the run because that was totally deceptive and by that time she was being billed as The Supremes' Mary Wilson. That billing is okay, and so is Mary Wilson of the Supremes.

    If the two Karens needed proof that they were being used by Mary as Supremes, there is plenty of stuff out there to prove it. This poster will prove it. But how nasty Kaaren was in that lawsuit. The two Karens were "Karens" before the term was invented.

    Mary left the Supremes and then used the name in all her billings.
    At first glance it's easy to conclude that this is Mary promoting them as the Supremes. But I think most reasonable people would conclude that it says "The Supremes' Mary Wilson", without the possessive apostrophe, with Jackson and Rags. But then Mary has them in matching outfits. The fact that she even has them in the promotion at all...this was Mary trying to put herself in the best position to get a gig without fully thinking about what she was doing and the potential ramifications.

    I don't think a judge would see this promo and conclude that Rags really had a case. I'm betting money that Rags had a contract whose wording could be interpreted as Rags being a Supreme.

    I just really don't understand Mary during this time. This lady was so popular, so many friends in the industry. And not just "little" friends, but big time folks. She didn't go to any of them and say "Hey, I need some help. I'm out here on my own now. What should I do?" And none of them saw what she was going through and pull her aside and say "Mary, you gotta do better than this. Drop the rocker act, you aint Tina. Stop with the Supremes all the time. You left, the group is done, move on. Find a top notch manager, an A+ publicist, record some demos, shop them. Find your lane, stick with it. You're talented. Believe you can make it."

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,629
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by marybrewster View Post
    The only thing I've surmised over the years is, Mary didn't have complete control on how she was billed, hence why there were so many variations: Mary Wilson and the Supremes, Mary Wilson of the Supremes, Mary Wilson Formally of the Supremes, The Supremes' Mary Wilson, Mary Wilson with the Supremes. Promoters knew there was value in the Supremes name, at least recognition, and Rag ran with it. She clearly knew she wasn't a Supreme, but on paper, the story was otherwise.
    I don't think she had any control in how she was billed and promoted via outsiders. That promo that Milven posted is clearly from Mary's "camp" though. What soloist ever poses with background singers for promotional materials? And in matching gowns? I hate that Rags was able to get over on this, but at the same time I feel like it served Mary right for being so clueless at that point in the game. She should have known better. And as a result she had to give up a sliver of the Supremes' legacy to a woman who didn't put in an ounce of work into that legacy, a legacy each of the nine official Supremes can claim.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    4,281
    Rep Power
    349
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Apparently legally Ragland can claim to be a Supreme, hence why she won her suit. And if Bayou's info is correct, that's on Mary. With the court ruling, I think it has to stand for what it is, legality.

    That is a totally different issue than who Motown deems official Supremes, as everyone involved probably can agree on one thing: Ragland never worked for Motown Records. There would never be a reason to acknowledge Ragland in official Motown products. Marlene Barrow recorded as a third voice on some Supremes recordings and performed on stage as a Supreme during two different occasions, and even she doesn't get acknowledged by Motown as a member of the Supremes.

    Rags never recorded or performed as a Supreme during the time the Supremes were officially an act [[1961-1977). My guess, having never seen the documents associated with the suit, is that Ragland zeroed in on the terminology in her contract with Mary, that allowed her to claim Supreme status, and capitalize off of it. I think it's disgusting because Rags knows that she was never a real, legit Supreme, regardless of the contract wording. But this is why Mary should've been extra careful in using the name Supremes. In truth, she should have only used the name as Mary Wilson OF the Supremes, and anyone singing behind her were no named background singers like all the people who sang behind Diana Ross, Patti Labelle, Aretha Franklin, etc, over the years.

    Of all the non Supremes who had more of a claim to be an actual Supreme, Marlene Barrow seems to have always taken the high road when it came to her contributions to the group. She has more of a legit claim to a Supreme than Rags ever could.
    Correct, but if Motown owns the name and has clear evidence Raaagland never was signed to the label nor recorded as a member of the Supremes then she has no case in court to call herself a legitimate Supreme especially if the name ownership is with Universal/Motown.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,753
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    I don't think she had any control in how she was billed and promoted via outsiders. That promo that Milven posted is clearly from Mary's "camp" though. What soloist ever poses with background singers for promotional materials? And in matching gowns? I hate that Rags was able to get over on this, but at the same time I feel like it served Mary right for being so clueless at that point in the game. She should have known better. And as a result she had to give up a sliver of the Supremes' legacy to a woman who didn't put in an ounce of work into that legacy, a legacy each of the nine official Supremes can claim.
    Technically Mary did have control because it should have been specified in her performance contract. Either with a promotional group or w the performance venue itself. If there are posters or marquee signs they should correspond w that contract.

    The problem is Mary was desperately needing gigs to stay afloat. So if it took saying The Supremes’ Mary Wilson or Mary Wilson and the Supremes or whatever she was going to do it. Also she didn’t really have the clout to hold promoters accountable for doing whatever they wanted w the name. They were mostly interested in selling tickets and MW’s name had little economic value. You needed The Supremes in some way or form. And doing something like “MARY WILSON [[and then in smaller letters) formerly of the supremes” just wouldn’t sell tickets

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,753
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    At first glance it's easy to conclude that this is Mary promoting them as the Supremes. But I think most reasonable people would conclude that it says "The Supremes' Mary Wilson", without the possessive apostrophe, with Jackson and Rags. But then Mary has them in matching outfits. The fact that she even has them in the promotion at all...this was Mary trying to put herself in the best position to get a gig without fully thinking about what she was doing and the potential ramifications.

    I don't think a judge would see this promo and conclude that Rags really had a case. I'm betting money that Rags had a contract whose wording could be interpreted as Rags being a Supreme.

    I just really don't understand Mary during this time. This lady was so popular, so many friends in the industry. And not just "little" friends, but big time folks. She didn't go to any of them and say "Hey, I need some help. I'm out here on my own now. What should I do?" And none of them saw what she was going through and pull her aside and say "Mary, you gotta do better than this. Drop the rocker act, you aint Tina. Stop with the Supremes all the time. You left, the group is done, move on. Find a top notch manager, an A+ publicist, record some demos, shop them. Find your lane, stick with it. You're talented. Believe you can make it."
    My guess is if a label thought they could legitimately make money from signing Mary she would have. But friends or not, they weren’t just going to sign her as a charity effort. She definitely tried to ply those Dungeon tracks to labels and no interest. That was in 80 or 81. A year or two later those tracks were dated. And by the time you got to 84 she’s now 40 and 0 track record isn’t the pop industry of any substance since 70 or maybe 71. It was too late. Meanwhile she had been working had on oldies circuit which paid the bills but further pigeonholed her as a oldies act.

    She thought writing Dreamgirl in 86 would spark label interest but now she’s 42 and it’s been even more years since she did anything musically.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,629
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by bradsupremes View Post
    Correct, but if Motown owns the name and has clear evidence Raaagland never was signed to the label nor recorded as a member of the Supremes then she has no case in court to call herself a legitimate Supreme especially if the name ownership is with Universal/Motown.
    Brad the problem with your scenario is that she did have a case, and she won. Even in my scenario- the contract wording- leaves one scratching the head. If Mary didn't own the name Supremes or have rights to it, seems like to me it wouldn't matter if Mary signed Rags up as a Supreme in any fashion and Rags be able to bill herself as one. The only clue I can gather at this point might be what Bayou mentioned, that Rags was signed to Supremes Inc, which, since it was set up when Mary was a Supreme, Mary had the right to continue to use it as a business name, and somehow signing someone under the umbrella created a loophole for that person- Rags- to claim to have been a Supreme.

    I'd be interested to read the actual case history and see exactly what the judge ruled and why, because we can guess until the cows come home and it'll never make any sense without the details.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,629
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    Technically Mary did have control because it should have been specified in her performance contract. Either with a promotional group or w the performance venue itself. If there are posters or marquee signs they should correspond w that contract.

    The problem is Mary was desperately needing gigs to stay afloat. So if it took saying The Supremes’ Mary Wilson or Mary Wilson and the Supremes or whatever she was going to do it. Also she didn’t really have the clout to hold promoters accountable for doing whatever they wanted w the name. They were mostly interested in selling tickets and MW’s name had little economic value. You needed The Supremes in some way or form. And doing something like “MARY WILSON [[and then in smaller letters) formerly of the supremes” just wouldn’t sell tickets
    Mary didn't have control over the billing or promotion, the latter only if she was doing the promoting. She could complain after the fact, but murky billing is part of the industry. A lot of entertainers have billing and promo horror stories.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,629
    Rep Power
    516
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    My guess is if a label thought they could legitimately make money from signing Mary she would have. But friends or not, they weren’t just going to sign her as a charity effort. She definitely tried to ply those Dungeon tracks to labels and no interest. That was in 80 or 81. A year or two later those tracks were dated. And by the time you got to 84 she’s now 40 and 0 track record isn’t the pop industry of any substance since 70 or maybe 71. It was too late. Meanwhile she had been working had on oldies circuit which paid the bills but further pigeonholed her as a oldies act.

    She thought writing Dreamgirl in 86 would spark label interest but now she’s 42 and it’s been even more years since she did anything musically.
    I wasn't suggesting that anybody take pity on Mary and sign her to a business contract. I wanted to know who in the business was willing to help her in any way, whether that be advice or whatever. Marla Gibbs gave Mary a great opportunity with her appearance on 227. That was nice of her. I wonder if Mary asked or if Marla had an idea one day and thought "hmmm".

    Mary was a talented vocalist. She could have gotten signed by someone had she focused on it. She says she shopped those GD demos for a time, but when? Because they definitely sound dated in a short period of time. She should have been cutting new demos. This is where Mary's connections in the industry are supposed to come into play. Demos cost money and Mary was sometimes in short supply, especially when she has three kids at home who need every penny. This is when you go to friends and ask for favors. I read all kinds of music biographies and they're often filled with singers grabbing an opportunity by being given a helping hand.

    I have a feeling that Mary got stuck in a "I can do it on my own"- like her old pal Diana- mentality when she wasn't equipped for it. The book should have at least gotten her something, musically speaking.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,753
    Rep Power
    391
    Mary is a good singer. excellent backing singer with a great ear for harmony. but she isn't an especially versatile singer. people have suggested an "anita baker" album might have worked. but anita is 14 years younger. Others have said Roberta Flack but she was both a singer and a gifted pianist. her songs fit a specific style that could have worked for Mary perhaps but frankly IMO Roberta is a much stronger singer plus she could accompany herself on a piano which made her a more self-contained artist. And even at that she was highly successful as a pop artist for a limited time

    mary's leads a motown were inconsistent. some were stunning - like Teardrops. some other really good leads are Touch and You're What's Missing. others were simply ok IMO - I Keep It Hid is one that is lackluster, the hideous Where Is It I Belong. She was spotlighted quite nicely on side 2 of HE but the real standout on that album is the symphonic production. But half an album isn't really convincing in terms of creating a solid resume.

    but more importantly, what does she bring to a label? she wasn't radically new or outrageous like a Cyndi Lauper or Madonna. she wasn't tried and true R&B. She just isn't a Tina Turner in any way or form so to "restart" a career - why?

    MAYBE if she had quit motown much much earlier, you could have garnered some interest. Maybe if after the Touch single and lp didn't chart well, the group could have folded. Back to the Roberta idea, maybe a competing label could have thought they could make their own RF by signing Mary the Former Supreme.

    I just think by the 80s it was far too late. she wasn't new or crazy like 80s era pop acts, she wasn't this totally massive singer like Patti or Tina or Diana which could justify a major new signing and label. she was about 40 and no real solo resume

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,753
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Mary didn't have control over the billing or promotion, the latter only if she was doing the promoting. She could complain after the fact, but murky billing is part of the industry. A lot of entertainers have billing and promo horror stories.
    that's sort of my point. yes she could state in her contract a specific billing. but she didn't have the power to do much when it was misstated. like the story of Diana marching out to her Vegas marquee and having them remove the MISS and promoting an upcoming future artist.

    Diana had created a brand that was "DIANA ROSS" and she even mentions that in her interviews about leaving motown and only having about 100K or money. she had her name - ie her brand. so she had specific instructions on the usage of the brand name. just like United Airlines isn't Unites Air Ways. or Coca Cola and their brand treatment.

    Mary unfortunately didn't have a brand around her name. not enough people knew it. the need to lead with "The Supremes" or heavy inclusion of that basically lead to this way of labeling herself. Diana basically did the same thing too with the change of the group's name to DRATS. most interviews and all had already been singling her out in articles and all "Diana Ross, the group's lead singer" "Diana Ross, lead singer of The Supremes" etc. I would assume that was also part of Motown's PR efforts. they most likely actively encouraged reporters to focus their write ups on her, even before they were holding M and F back in the dressing room while Diana met with the reporters first and on her own.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,523
    Rep Power
    120
    It was her mass appeal, or lack thereof, that prevented Mary from any real success. The general public was simply not interested in her. She tried hard not to be blah, but she ultimately was. However, through hard work and tenacity, she managed to do okay for herself.
    Last edited by Circa 1824; 06-26-2022 at 06:25 PM.

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.