[REMOVE ADS]




Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 232
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    I don’t think Mary was quite ready for a solo career in 1970. It was further down the line that she started to gain real confidence in her abilities to lead.
    I think the departure of Jean and Lynda in 73 should have been the catalyst that spurred her on to make the transition. She was still relatively young, and had already shared the lead on two hit singles.
    The group was also more high profile in 73 then in 77 providing the perfect launch pad.
    That's my point Ollie, she wasn't ready, but she should have been if Gordy had seen the bigger picture. Even with Mary's confidence issues, it's amazing that she never seemed to turn down the opportunity to sing lead, be it in the studio, on stage or on television. Imagine what she would have been like if she had been nurtured as a vocalist. By the time it was time for the group to go their separate ways, Mary should have been ready. Instead, she wasn't even prepared to take over the lead spot in her own group. That should never have been the case.

    While I don't think Diana was equipped for solo stardom until 1969, had she been given the opportunity to leave in 67, I think she would have jumped at the chance because she believed in herself. When Flo left the group, she had the opportunity to retire to a normal life, but instead she went after a solo career. Was she ready? Probably not. Did she think she was ready? You betcha. It took Mary almost another decade longer than Flo and Diana to get the confidence to do the same thing. That's kind of sad, but at the same time it did offer the Supremes the opportunity to continue on and it's hard to really feel bad about having gotten a chance to experience the greats that were Jean, Lynda, Scherrie and Susaye and what they eventually contributed to the Supremes legacy.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    That's my point Ollie, she wasn't ready, but she should have been if Gordy had seen the bigger picture. Even with Mary's confidence issues, it's amazing that she never seemed to turn down the opportunity to sing lead, be it in the studio, on stage or on television. Imagine what she would have been like if she had been nurtured as a vocalist. By the time it was time for the group to go their separate ways, Mary should have been ready. Instead, she wasn't even prepared to take over the lead spot in her own group. That should never have been the case.

    While I don't think Diana was equipped for solo stardom until 1969, had she been given the opportunity to leave in 67, I think she would have jumped at the chance because she believed in herself. When Flo left the group, she had the opportunity to retire to a normal life, but instead she went after a solo career. Was she ready? Probably not. Did she think she was ready? You betcha. It took Mary almost another decade longer than Flo and Diana to get the confidence to do the same thing. That's kind of sad, but at the same time it did offer the Supremes the opportunity to continue on and it's hard to really feel bad about having gotten a chance to experience the greats that were Jean, Lynda, Scherrie and Susaye and what they eventually contributed to the Supremes legacy.
    What do you think could have been done to ensure Mary was ready in 70?. Diana was the voice on all those hits with charisma oozing from every pore. Was there really time in their crazy schedule to groom all three women for potential solo careers.?.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    That's my point Ollie, she wasn't ready, but she should have been if Gordy had seen the bigger picture. Even with Mary's confidence issues, it's amazing that she never seemed to turn down the opportunity to sing lead, be it in the studio, on stage or on television. Imagine what she would have been like if she had been nurtured as a vocalist. By the time it was time for the group to go their separate ways, Mary should have been ready. Instead, she wasn't even prepared to take over the lead spot in her own group. That should never have been the case.

    While I don't think Diana was equipped for solo stardom until 1969, had she been given the opportunity to leave in 67, I think she would have jumped at the chance because she believed in herself. When Flo left the group, she had the opportunity to retire to a normal life, but instead she went after a solo career. Was she ready? Probably not. Did she think she was ready? You betcha. It took Mary almost another decade longer than Flo and Diana to get the confidence to do the same thing. That's kind of sad, but at the same time it did offer the Supremes the opportunity to continue on and it's hard to really feel bad about having gotten a chance to experience the greats that were Jean, Lynda, Scherrie and Susaye and what they eventually contributed to the Supremes legacy.
    but mary also didn't take advantage of the opportunities afforded her. especially in the early 70s. she flatly refused to sing anything other than Can't Take My Eyes in the shows and therefore greatly limited herself in branching out and trying new things. Gil and others tried to get her to do other tunes but she stuck with this one. that doesn't instill much confidence in others that she's wanting to or willing to push herself. it's possible certainly that there was a lack of confidence but it could also be another C word - complacency. mary had been performing live in front of audiences for over a decade. the group's insane schedule meant she was always performing and therefore endless opportunities to test and experiment with her part of the act. see what works. she'd also had a lead in the show for many years. how much more opportunity did she need to simply do a different tune? no one was forcing her to shoulder all of the burden of the act - just sing something OTHER than Can't Take My Eyes and grow as a performer and an artist.

    if you can't even do that, why would anyone invest $0.01 in you?

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    Mary Wilson’s world that she embraced was being yanked from under her. This is the underlying resentment causing the division between her and Diana. Diana was easily ready by the late sixties but Berry wisely thought to milk the cow dry first. Diana wasn’t doing anything to purposely harm Mary by going solo, but for Mary it seemed like it.
    A strong person like Jean Terrell was Mary’s salvation. She came in and accomplished the impossible , convincingly replacing Diana Ross [something I think Syreetas milder persona could have never done]. Mary was satisfied with this, she got to continue the joy she got as a secondary , but important, stage presence. I think that’s really all she ever wanted and even as it became more implausible to be maintained, she battled for it every which way to the end.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogiedown View Post
    Mary Wilson’s world that she embraced was being yanked from under her. This is the underlying resentment causing the division between her and Diana. Diana was easily ready by the late sixties but Berry wisely thought to milk the cow dry first. Diana wasn’t doing anything to purposely harm Mary by going solo, but for Mary it seemed like it.
    A strong person like Jean Terrell was Mary’s salvation. She came in and accomplished the impossible , convincingly replacing Diana Ross [something I think Syreetas milder persona could have never done]. Mary was satisfied with this, she got to continue the joy she got as a secondary , but important, stage presence. I think that’s really all she ever wanted and even as it became more implausible to be maintained, she battled for it every which way to the end.
    Up to the point where she was ready to leave you may well be right Boogie.
    Mary was aware of her limitations, and realised her style of voice was not the right sound to lead the Supremes.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    Up to the point where she was ready to leave you may well be right Boogie.
    Mary was aware of her limitations, and realised her style of voice was not the right sound to lead the Supremes.
    agreed and i respect her POV on that. she stated [[and is absolutely correct) that singing lead on a song is different from being the lead singer of a group.

    but to Boogie's point, was it really being yanked from under her? that implies that there was some degree of surprise or being unexpected. that is definitely not the case as the path for the Supremes was pretty clearly laid out from 65 or so. so everyone internal knew the situation, especially post-67 - diana was being groomed and would eventually be lifted from the act as a solo artist. Mary brings up the point that no one told them about diana leaving or when, that they read it in the paper. clearly that shows from motown a lack of involvement and transparency in the future of M and C. there is the flipside to that though which is how much were M and C pushing for involvement in the strategic planning of their careers? did they repeatedly try to meet with Shelly and Berry [[i think shelly was managing the group in the DRATS era??) and say "ok lets start outlining plans..." or work with Shelly and Suzanne to say "let's start to incorporate these ideas in the act..."

    otis did that with the Temps. he was highly instrumental in their evolution in the late 60s with Norman. so it isn't that a singer or group member couldn't lay out ideas. And of course Diana was heavily involved in the planning, even if lots of the ideas she had to be pushed into.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    I’m trying to think of a better word than yanked , but when youre perfectly happy with continuing with the status quo but forces beyond your control change everything regardless, I think it’s right to say it was yanked from under you.

    I suspect had the Supremes still been Diana Ross and the Supremes continuously into 2020 Mary Wilson still would’ve been right there , happy as a clam.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    Up to the point where she was ready to leave you may well be right Boogie.
    Mary was aware of her limitations, and realised her style of voice was not the right sound to lead the Supremes.
    I guess she could've started by taking over the lead for MY WORLD IS EMPTY WITHOUT YOU ....

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    1,215
    Rep Power
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogiedown View Post
    I’m trying to think of a better word than yanked , but when youre perfectly happy with continuing with the status quo but forces beyond your control change everything regardless, I think it’s right to say it was yanked from under you.

    I suspect had the Supremes still been Diana Ross and the Supremes continuously into 2020 Mary Wilson still would’ve been right there , happy as a clam.
    Ha ha, you're probably right. And who knows by 2020 Mary would have exchanged Can't Take My Eyes off of You and Falling in Love with Love for Way We Were/How Lucky Can You Get!

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    agreed and i respect her POV on that. she stated [[and is absolutely correct) that singing lead on a song is different from being the lead singer of a group.

    but to Boogie's point, was it really being yanked from under her? that implies that there was some degree of surprise or being unexpected. that is definitely not the case as the path for the Supremes was pretty clearly laid out from 65 or so. so everyone internal knew the situation, especially post-67 - diana was being groomed and would eventually be lifted from the act as a solo artist. Mary brings up the point that no one told them about diana leaving or when, that they read it in the paper. clearly that shows from motown a lack of involvement and transparency in the future of M and C. there is the flipside to that though which is how much were M and C pushing for involvement in the strategic planning of their careers? did they repeatedly try to meet with Shelly and Berry [[i think shelly was managing the group in the DRATS era??) and say "ok lets start outlining plans..." or work with Shelly and Suzanne to say "let's start to incorporate these ideas in the act..."

    otis did that with the Temps. he was highly instrumental in their evolution in the late 60s with Norman. so it isn't that a singer or group member couldn't lay out ideas. And of course Diana was heavily involved in the planning, even if lots of the ideas she had to be pushed into.
    During the late 60’s the priority was Diana Ross with everything centred around her. That speaks for itself. I’m sure once it was confirmed Diana was leaving, Mary in particular would have spoken with execs regarding plans and concepts for the new grouping.
    Unlike Diana, Mary had a group mentality and was happy to acquiesce if the song was best suited to another member. She never pushed herself forward just for the sake of it. Perhaps to some degree this did impede her growth as a vocalist and part reason it took her rather longer to finally have the confidence to go it alone.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    What do you think could have been done to ensure Mary was ready in 70?. Diana was the voice on all those hits with charisma oozing from every pore. Was there really time in their crazy schedule to groom all three women for potential solo careers.?.
    Of course there was. The stage was where Diana was groomed, so it should have been the same for Flo and Mary too. Diana's voice was spectacular on the hits. I think with the right song Flo or Mary could have sung on a hit single for the group also, but I'm fine with Diana having all the singles. There's just something about her voice that jumps out at people and makes them take notice when it was paired with HDH lyrics and productions. She was key to those hits. IMO she was not key to the stage show. Mind you there isn't nearly enough footage of the original trio's live act to really know what that experience was like. All we have is the audio, and truth be told, sometimes Diana impresses me, sometimes she doesn't. I think the live act would have been even better with the ladies spreading the lead load around. Had that happened, Mary in particular might have been able to better hone her ability as a singer and have the confidence to run her own show when the time came, preferably sooner rather than later.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    but mary also didn't take advantage of the opportunities afforded her. especially in the early 70s. she flatly refused to sing anything other than Can't Take My Eyes in the shows and therefore greatly limited herself in branching out and trying new things. Gil and others tried to get her to do other tunes but she stuck with this one. that doesn't instill much confidence in others that she's wanting to or willing to push herself. it's possible certainly that there was a lack of confidence but it could also be another C word - complacency. mary had been performing live in front of audiences for over a decade. the group's insane schedule meant she was always performing and therefore endless opportunities to test and experiment with her part of the act. see what works. she'd also had a lead in the show for many years. how much more opportunity did she need to simply do a different tune? no one was forcing her to shoulder all of the burden of the act - just sing something OTHER than Can't Take My Eyes and grow as a performer and an artist.

    if you can't even do that, why would anyone invest $0.01 in you?
    Absolutely agree, but by then the farewell ship had sailed. In the 60s Mary did, at least in part, a couple of different live songs. She had not gotten loaded down with "Eyes" yet. Mary certainly ended up playing a part in her own messes. It wasn't always someone else's fault. There was no reason for her to continue to do "Eyes" so long unless it was as you say, she had become complacent, which is not a good move for an artist.

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    agreed and i respect her POV on that. she stated [[and is absolutely correct) that singing lead on a song is different from being the lead singer of a group.

    but to Boogie's point, was it really being yanked from under her? that implies that there was some degree of surprise or being unexpected. that is definitely not the case as the path for the Supremes was pretty clearly laid out from 65 or so. so everyone internal knew the situation, especially post-67 - diana was being groomed and would eventually be lifted from the act as a solo artist. Mary brings up the point that no one told them about diana leaving or when, that they read it in the paper. clearly that shows from motown a lack of involvement and transparency in the future of M and C. there is the flipside to that though which is how much were M and C pushing for involvement in the strategic planning of their careers? did they repeatedly try to meet with Shelly and Berry [[i think shelly was managing the group in the DRATS era??) and say "ok lets start outlining plans..." or work with Shelly and Suzanne to say "let's start to incorporate these ideas in the act..."

    otis did that with the Temps. he was highly instrumental in their evolution in the late 60s with Norman. so it isn't that a singer or group member couldn't lay out ideas. And of course Diana was heavily involved in the planning, even if lots of the ideas she had to be pushed into.
    Mary, and Cindy too, apparently, were ready for Diana to bounce. By that point they were sick of each other and it was time to move on for everybody. Would Mary have preferred the original trio stay together forever? Probably. Of the three originals, Mary was the one with the most group mentality. Now that could be because of her confidence issues. Flo and Diana were convinced of their talents, especially Flo, and there was no shortage of confidence issues there. I imagine they both entertained the thought of what it might be like to be on stage Supremes-less.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Mary, and Cindy too, apparently, were ready for Diana to bounce. By that point they were sick of each other and it was time to move on for everybody. Would Mary have preferred the original trio stay together forever? Probably. Of the three originals, Mary was the one with the most group mentality. Now that could be because of her confidence issues. Flo and Diana were convinced of their talents, especially Flo, and there was no shortage of confidence issues there. I imagine they both entertained the thought of what it might be like to be on stage Supremes-less.
    mary started out as a soloist. her first "gig" was a talent show in front of her peers singing I'm Not A Juvenile Delinquent. she also did lead on the B side of their very first record. she covered most of the ballads in their early years, although ballads would naturally only make up a % of the songs. and then of course as we've listed, she had some spotlights and leads during the years. in particular on the specialty albums.

    my goal isn't to totally refute her claim of losing her confidence. not trying to minimize what was necessarily going on. if someone point blank told her "you can't sing well" or maybe she could see the growth Diana, Martha, Gladys and Wanda, etc had because they were recording a lot. they were experimenting and learning. perfecting their craft. so i could understand having self doubt.

    one thing that always stuck out as odd in my mind is Flo and her desire or interest in singing leads. the whole Enjoy Yourself segment on the Copa EE is truly bizarre IMO. Diana does her verse and Mary does hers. but flo backs out on stage?!?! or was this planned as part of the act as "the quiet" one or the shy one? yet she then pops the one liner in You're Nobody? so if she was upset [[as various books claim) about Diana's spotlight growing, why oh why would she give up a tiny opportunity for herself?

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,313
    Rep Power
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    mary started out as a soloist. her first "gig" was a talent show in front of her peers singing I'm Not A Juvenile Delinquent. she also did lead on the B side of their very first record. she covered most of the ballads in their early years, although ballads would naturally only make up a % of the songs. and then of course as we've listed, she had some spotlights and leads during the years. in particular on the specialty albums.

    my goal isn't to totally refute her claim of losing her confidence. not trying to minimize what was necessarily going on. if someone point blank told her "you can't sing well" or maybe she could see the growth Diana, Martha, Gladys and Wanda, etc had because they were recording a lot. they were experimenting and learning. perfecting their craft. so i could understand having self doubt.

    one thing that always stuck out as odd in my mind is Flo and her desire or interest in singing leads. the whole Enjoy Yourself segment on the Copa EE is truly bizarre IMO. Diana does her verse and Mary does hers. but flo backs out on stage?!?! or was this planned as part of the act as "the quiet" one or the shy one? yet she then pops the one liner in You're Nobody? so if she was upset [[as various books claim) about Diana's spotlight growing, why oh why would she give up a tiny opportunity for herself?
    I've wondered that too about Enjoy Yourself. One theory I have is with Flo having the flu during a good chunk of the Copa rehearsals maybe she wasn't as prepared for the song as the other two were.

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,270
    Rep Power
    203
    If I’m correct enjoy yourself was removed from the show after a few performances

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    mary started out as a soloist. her first "gig" was a talent show in front of her peers singing I'm Not A Juvenile Delinquent. she also did lead on the B side of their very first record. she covered most of the ballads in their early years, although ballads would naturally only make up a % of the songs. and then of course as we've listed, she had some spotlights and leads during the years. in particular on the specialty albums.

    my goal isn't to totally refute her claim of losing her confidence. not trying to minimize what was necessarily going on. if someone point blank told her "you can't sing well" or maybe she could see the growth Diana, Martha, Gladys and Wanda, etc had because they were recording a lot. they were experimenting and learning. perfecting their craft. so i could understand having self doubt.

    one thing that always stuck out as odd in my mind is Flo and her desire or interest in singing leads. the whole Enjoy Yourself segment on the Copa EE is truly bizarre IMO. Diana does her verse and Mary does hers. but flo backs out on stage?!?! or was this planned as part of the act as "the quiet" one or the shy one? yet she then pops the one liner in You're Nobody? so if she was upset [[as various books claim) about Diana's spotlight growing, why oh why would she give up a tiny opportunity for herself?
    That talent show was Mary lip syncing to a record. She didn't get in front of all them folks and sing a lick, unlike Florence. If memory serves me, Mary's first foray into singing publicly was attempting to join Carolyn Franklin's group, which culminated in Mary being told that she can't sing from a girl Mary claims didn't like her. It's possible that Mary's confidence would have been shot from then on had Flo not invited her to join the Primettes.

    Diana was also turned down from a singing opportunity in a class musical, I believe. With Diana, perseverance was always the name of the game. I wonder what she would have done without the Primettes.

    Nobody was going to tell Florence she wasn't any good and make her believe it. There's no anecdote on record that I'm aware of where anyone accused Florence of lacking confidence where her singing is concerned. So the bit in "Enjoy Yourself" might be one of the least known of the great mysteries in the Supremes' story. Sure, it may have been scripted, but then George [[I think it was George, might have been Andy) mentions that the studio audio sounds like something is going on prior to the bit about Flo being scared to do her part. Could that all be the bit? Could be. Would Flo be so unprofessional as to decide in the middle of a song not to do her part? I don't think so, especially not in mid 1965. Flo not taking an opportunity to sing doesn't jive with the descriptions of those who knew her. My money is the whole "Enjoy Yourself" thing was all part of the act. And if "People" was usually in the act but was removed during the Copa gig because of the after effects of her illness, chances are "Enjoy Yourself" was a Diana/Mary duet anyway, to give Mary a song to sing. "Enjoy" didn't last long. "People" went on for another year or more.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    1,215
    Rep Power
    153
    If indeed Flo "declining" to sing her part on Enjoy Yourself was part of the act, it's rather telling that Motown/whoever directed their show, would want to present Flo as either at best, too "quiet" and "shy" to sing her part, or at worst, that she was unprofessional and unprepared to do her part.

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Spreadinglove21 View Post
    If indeed Flo "declining" to sing her part on Enjoy Yourself was part of the act, it's rather telling that Motown/whoever directed their show, would want to present Flo as either at best, too "quiet" and "shy" to sing her part, or at worst, that she was unprofessional and unprepared to do her part.
    If so, it would have been another slap in the face for Flo. In all honestly, i can’t really imagine this was scripted. Can you imagine them instructing Flo she was to decline when it was turn for her verse. For what reason would it be, comic effect?.
    The fact she declines to sing makes her not wanting to perform “People”, if only temporarily all the more believable. .

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    If so, it would have been another slap in the face for Flo. In all honestly, i can’t really imagine this was scripted. Can you imagine them instructing Flo she was to decline when it was turn for her verse. For what reason would it be, comic effect?.
    The fact she declines to sing makes her not wanting to perform “People”, if only temporarily all the more believable. .
    It may have been a comedy bit which didn't translate to audio. Might explain why the song was a one and done [[I think).

    But why go through the trouble of removing "People" because Flo was recovering, but keep her part in "Enjoy Yourself"? If she was good enough to sing "Enjoy", she had to be good enough to sing "People".

    When it comes to onstage professionalism, what are the criticisms of Florence? The infamous "stomach bulge" from her last night as a Supreme. The time she was too drunk to go onstage, forcing Diana and Mary to go on as a duo. Both of those events take place in 1967 when the group was imploding. In mid 1965 none of this was the case. The girls were riding high and still having a ball. Not saying everything was perfect or they were happy all the time, but who is? So to me the suggestion that Flo would suddenly, in the middle of a song, during a oh so important milestone and achievement in their career, decide "Nah, I'm not feeling 'Enjoy Yourself' tonight. Move on please" seems like a reach.

    I'm not buying it.

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    Kind of wondering if Flo's remarkable singing skills are being overstated....

    no schlep for sure, but seems like what I have heard most is that she was loud ....

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogiedown View Post
    Kind of wondering if Flo's remarkable singing skills are being overstated....

    no schlep for sure, but seems like what I have heard most is that she was loud ....
    I think flos voice worked in certain settings. Good News is probably her finest lead vocal and it is really great. I’m listening to Sing HDH expanded and I wonder if she might have been able to do Can I Get A Witness or maybe I’ll Turn To Stone. Both require a full big sound. And while ITTS is a pop song her could have infused some soul into it.

    But I don’t agree w peoples statement that she was another Aretha.

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    814
    Rep Power
    261
    I would have to say of the originals-for me,personally, I enjoy both Diana and Mary's singing more than Flo's. Diana has a unique voice and was very pliable in a number of genres. Mary's warm tones always captured my ears and I feel she was somewhat unique in her voice, as well. Flo is touted as being the best vocalist by so many but I think her voice was less pliable than Diana's , nowhere near as warm as Mary's and not as unique sounding as Diana, and to a lesser extent, Mary were. Flo had a strong and powerful voice that reminds the ear of Etta James. The original trio certainly each had tremendous talent. I know many people seem dismissive of Scherrie but she had a powerful voice like Flo and she had a similar tone to Mary along with more control and her singing really was amazing that I sometimes wonder why people on this forum dismiss her yet place Flo on a pedestal. Don't get me wrong, Flo was great and had she had the backing of the label could easily had hits as a lead.

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Flo's voice, like anyone else's, is a matter of taste, so no one should be surprised one way or the other when any one person doesn't dig her voice, or that of any other Supreme. I've seen opinions vary wildly on Mary's and Diana's voices probably more than any other Supremes. Some folks love Mary's voice and Diana's voice, and some folks hate them. It is what it is.

    But I can't say that I've ever noticed anyone in the forum dismissing the talent of Scherrie Payne. She may not wow every single person, but again, that's always a matter of taste. But I don't think anyone goes out of their way to downplay her talent. I prefer Flo to Scherrie but I don't have to tear Scherrie down to do it. I happen to love Scherrie's voice also. It doesn't have to be an either or.

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    814
    Rep Power
    261
    I personally happen to love all of the individual Supremes voices, some more than others , but I love them all and have supported and bought their music with the Supremes and in other projects. Naturally, everyone has their personal preferences. Taste is subjective. I have read that many on this platform felt that once Jean left that the Supremes no longer were relevant for them since it no longer featured a high voice in the lead like Diana and Jean. That is not dismissing Scherrie's talent but the same people would write about Flo and how she should have led the Supremes. In my opinion, and it is my opinion only, Scherrie as a lead singer represented more of a singer like Flo who had a strong voice rather than a Diana/Jean type voice. So, isn't that what some people actually wanted? I actually was quite excited when Scherrie joined. After 1972-3, when the Supremes felt somewhat stagnant, Scherrie provided me with hope that the group would be able to recapture the mass public as she was an excellent singer who was quite beautiful, glamourous and had quite a bit of talent. It seemed the group was finally going in a new, positive direction with her and Mary at the helm as lead singers but it seemed that the same fans who wanted something new and exciting didn't appreciate it and wanted the same old same old sound at the same time. I hope no one read that I was saying anything negative towards any of the group members. I do feel Scherrie is not celebrated as much as she should be. Her voice, charisma and glamour are quite underrated in my opinion. Anyone I have played music from that era of Supremes are quite impressed with Scherrie's voice among other things [[Mary's voice, Susaye's voice and ad libs and the harmony of Mary, Scherrie and Cindy). I certainly celebrate all of them and wish that they each had more individual success. Scherrie, in particular, is impressive as a singer, entertainer and songwriter who is also a playwright.

  26. #126
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    I think flos voice worked in certain settings. Good News is probably her finest lead vocal and it is really great. I’m listening to Sing HDH expanded and I wonder if she might have been able to do Can I Get A Witness or maybe I’ll Turn To Stone. Both require a full big sound. And while ITTS is a pop song her could have infused some soul into it.

    But I don’t agree w peoples statement that she was another Aretha.

    this is a delight!!



    I am really drawn to Flo's voice! Very natural.

  27. #127
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Scherrie undoubtedly possess a fine voice, but it is a sound i can tire of. That being what made those final two Supremes albums so great. A different style and sound of voice at every turn.

  28. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by jim aka jtigre99 View Post
    I personally happen to love all of the individual Supremes voices, some more than others , but I love them all and have supported and bought their music with the Supremes and in other projects. Naturally, everyone has their personal preferences. Taste is subjective. I have read that many on this platform felt that once Jean left that the Supremes no longer were relevant for them since it no longer featured a high voice in the lead like Diana and Jean. That is not dismissing Scherrie's talent but the same people would write about Flo and how she should have led the Supremes. In my opinion, and it is my opinion only, Scherrie as a lead singer represented more of a singer like Flo who had a strong voice rather than a Diana/Jean type voice. So, isn't that what some people actually wanted? I actually was quite excited when Scherrie joined. After 1972-3, when the Supremes felt somewhat stagnant, Scherrie provided me with hope that the group would be able to recapture the mass public as she was an excellent singer who was quite beautiful, glamourous and had quite a bit of talent. It seemed the group was finally going in a new, positive direction with her and Mary at the helm as lead singers but it seemed that the same fans who wanted something new and exciting didn't appreciate it and wanted the same old same old sound at the same time. I hope no one read that I was saying anything negative towards any of the group members. I do feel Scherrie is not celebrated as much as she should be. Her voice, charisma and glamour are quite underrated in my opinion. Anyone I have played music from that era of Supremes are quite impressed with Scherrie's voice among other things [[Mary's voice, Susaye's voice and ad libs and the harmony of Mary, Scherrie and Cindy). I certainly celebrate all of them and wish that they each had more individual success. Scherrie, in particular, is impressive as a singer, entertainer and songwriter who is also a playwright.
    Have you read a lot of people saying that?

    I have opined in the forum that Scherrie's voice, being so drastically different from that of Diana and Jean, with their high pitch, may have left the Supremes sounding less like what the public had become comfortable with. I think the prospect of either Flo or Mary, or both sharing the lead duties after Diana left would have been easier for the public to swallow because the public knew who they were. They were the Supremes. Suggesting Scherrie was the "wrong" call isn't meant to dismiss her talent. I recently made a similar argument about Gladys Knight, surely considered one of the greatest voices of all time. Had she taken over Diana's spot in the Supremes [[suspend reality that there was ever a Gladys Knight and the Pips), as fantastic as she is, the change in sound might have been too drastic for the public. They would no longer sound like the Supremes.

    In the end, I'm glad Scherrie became a Supreme. I love her voice and what she brought to the table. I prefer Scherrie's voice to Mary's, and that's no dig at Mary, it just is what it is. But with hindsight being 20/20, I suspect that Scherrie may have been the wrong choice to bring the public back to the Supremes. Now mind you, a lot of that hinges on the fact that the group never released a single with Scherrie that blew up. Perhaps had the Scherrie Supremes gotten their hands on a "Lady Marmalade" or "Love Will Keep Us Together", it wouldn't have mattered to the public if the lead voice sounded like what the public was used to in the Supremes. The song would be enough to make the difference. Unfortunately they just didn't have that kind of luck.

  29. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    814
    Rep Power
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Have you read a lot of people saying that?

    I have opined in the forum that Scherrie's voice, being so drastically different from that of Diana and Jean, with their high pitch, may have left the Supremes sounding less like what the public had become comfortable with. I think the prospect of either Flo or Mary, or both sharing the lead duties after Diana left would have been easier for the public to swallow because the public knew who they were. They were the Supremes. Suggesting Scherrie was the "wrong" call isn't meant to dismiss her talent. I recently made a similar argument about Gladys Knight, surely considered one of the greatest voices of all time. Had she taken over Diana's spot in the Supremes [[suspend reality that there was ever a Gladys Knight and the Pips), as fantastic as she is, the change in sound might have been too drastic for the public. They would no longer sound like the Supremes.

    In the end, I'm glad Scherrie became a Supreme. I love her voice and what she brought to the table. I prefer Scherrie's voice to Mary's, and that's no dig at Mary, it just is what it is. But with hindsight being 20/20, I suspect that Scherrie may have been the wrong choice to bring the public back to the Supremes. Now mind you, a lot of that hinges on the fact that the group never released a single with Scherrie that blew up. Perhaps had the Scherrie Supremes gotten their hands on a "Lady Marmalade" or "Love Will Keep Us Together", it wouldn't have mattered to the public if the lead voice sounded like what the public was used to in the Supremes. The song would be enough to make the difference. Unfortunately they just didn't have that kind of luck.
    If that is the case, would you have preferred Susaye Greene with her high voice over Scherrie. Scherrie certainly projected the style and glamour aspect of being a Supreme. Jean then may also have been the wrong choice. Yes, she was amazingly talented and had a high pitched voice but I don't think the public swallowed her for very long because she didn't seem to have the factor that Diana had and to a lesser extent what Mary, Cindy and Flo brought to the table. No swipe at Jean's talent but she didn't have it to sustain them for long past Up The Ladder and Stoned Love. Maybe if they had gotten their hands on better material then....

  30. #130
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by jim aka jtigre99 View Post
    If that is the case, would you have preferred Susaye Greene with her high voice over Scherrie. Scherrie certainly projected the style and glamour aspect of being a Supreme. Jean then may also have been the wrong choice. Yes, she was amazingly talented and had a high pitched voice but I don't think the public swallowed her for very long because she didn't seem to have the factor that Diana had and to a lesser extent what Mary, Cindy and Flo brought to the table. No swipe at Jean's talent but she didn't have it to sustain them for long past Up The Ladder and Stoned Love. Maybe if they had gotten their hands on better material then....
    No, I would not have preferred, as I'm not a fan of Susaye's voice, although I acknowledge her talent and respect her place as a Supreme. The public, on the other hand, might have, especially with the right song.

    All of the Supremes that I've seen in action [[via video), from Flo to Susaye have all epitomized the meaning of the group name. The issue isn't Scherrie didn't look the part. The issue is the sound on the record. Remember, the average person would never see the Supremes in person, they would hear their songs on the radio.

    There's no contest between Jean and Scherrie. Jean sang lead on a handful of hit records, including a couple of million sellers. Scherrie, not so much. The public took to the Jean Supremes as long as the material was worth it. With continued better material there's no doubt in my mind that the post Diana Supremes would have continued their success, to varying degrees. Jean's lack of whatever a few people may have thought was missing from her persona didn't stop anybody from buying "Up the Ladder" or "Stoned Love".

  31. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    No, I would not have preferred, as I'm not a fan of Susaye's voice, although I acknowledge her talent and respect her place as a Supreme. The public, on the other hand, might have, especially with the right song.

    All of the Supremes that I've seen in action [[via video), from Flo to Susaye have all epitomized the meaning of the group name. The issue isn't Scherrie didn't look the part. The issue is the sound on the record. Remember, the average person would never see the Supremes in person, they would hear their songs on the radio.

    There's no contest between Jean and Scherrie. Jean sang lead on a handful of hit records, including a couple of million sellers. Scherrie, not so much. The public took to the Jean Supremes as long as the material was worth it. With continued better material there's no doubt in my mind that the post Diana Supremes would have continued their success, to varying degrees. Jean's lack of whatever a few people may have thought was missing from her persona didn't stop anybody from buying "Up the Ladder" or "Stoned Love".
    I agree, and think Jean the perfect voice to have lead the Supremes. Had the material been stronger after Floy, i see no reason why their run of hits couldn't have continued.
    Its interesting that after the minor success of “Heart Do The Walking”, and with MS&S being such a strong, commercial sounding album the public went cold. Some might say this was due to Mary’s imminent departure, but just as likely it was the wrong sound the public expected from the Supremes. Perhaps Susaye’s higher voice might have been the key to success on those 76/77 single releases.

  32. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    I agree, and think Jean the perfect voice to have lead the Supremes. Had the material been stronger after Floy, i see no reason why their run of hits couldn't have continued.
    Its interesting that after the minor success of “Heart Do The Walking”, and with MS&S being such a strong, commercial sounding album the public went cold. Some might say this was due to Mary’s imminent departure, but just as likely it was the wrong sound the public expected from the Supremes. Perhaps Susaye’s higher voice might have been the key to success on those 76/77 single releases.
    It's like arguing if Flo or Mary should have been the lead singer over Diana. Everyone certainly has their favorite, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. There is no shortage of opinions about Diana's voice not being everyone's cup of tea. But the proof is in the pudding. The lady's voice helped sell 12 number one hits for the group, and an additional number of top 10 hits, proving that there was nothing "wrong" with the choice to use her as lead. I feel the same way about Jean, and not just because she is one of my all time favorite singers. She has the proof that her voice worked as lead singer of the Supremes.

    Susaye might have returned the group to form, but I must note that the one single she led didn't do squat. I think the sound of the group- as in the actual songs- once Scherrie joined were just the wrong direction. While I agree with Sup that a couple of the cuts from Supremes 75 that had more of a pop feel vs a disco feel might have positioned the group to compete better, I still think the overall feel of the last three albums moved the group outside of what the public was used to with them.

    Music was certainly evolving, so I'm not suggesting that the group should have reverted back to "Baby Love" type songs. I think they needed stuff like Hot's "Angel In Your Arms". That would have fit the Jean led Supremes, or even a Susaye led Supremes, so well. I think the public would have run back to the group if they were cutting singles like that. "Heart Walking" is a great record, and it did nicely. I do think with maybe some extra promotional push that it could have gone top 20, maybe top 10. But then there isn't a clear pathway to figuring out why the song stalled where it did.

  33. #133
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Rep Power
    391
    i think it was unfortunate that Scherrie's lead were mostly limited to the dance tracks. while she does an amazing job on Driving Wheel, Let Yourself Go and others, it would have been wonderful to hear her tackle some of the ballads and other tunes too. just to hear her versatility. her tone and approach on Sweet Dream Machine is remarkably different from Wheel. to hear those two back to back is amazing. now imagine her on a lush ballad like You Are The Heart of Me. and then the heavily jazz influenced vocals on Old Wagon and My World, although unfortunately both we only have in aged bootleg form

    A song like Color My World would have been a great addition to the act and the tv spots. would have been very interesting to hear how Scherrie might have adjusted things in a live setting

    i do think Susaye was best for HE and Come into My Life. her unusual and unique tone really made these tracks work, especially CIML. that song is so odd and experimental. she's able to sound pouty and kittenish yet still convey the mature and sexy lyrics. much of that has to do with the tone of her voice itself. plus the amazing high notes. I think scherrie certainly could have sung it but it probably wouldn't have been as successful.

  34. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    i think it was unfortunate that Scherrie's lead were mostly limited to the dance tracks. while she does an amazing job on Driving Wheel, Let Yourself Go and others, it would have been wonderful to hear her tackle some of the ballads and other tunes too. just to hear her versatility. her tone and approach on Sweet Dream Machine is remarkably different from Wheel. to hear those two back to back is amazing. now imagine her on a lush ballad like You Are The Heart of Me. and then the heavily jazz influenced vocals on Old Wagon and My World, although unfortunately both we only have in aged bootleg form

    A song like Color My World would have been a great addition to the act and the tv spots. would have been very interesting to hear how Scherrie might have adjusted things in a live setting

    i do think Susaye was best for HE and Come into My Life. her unusual and unique tone really made these tracks work, especially CIML. that song is so odd and experimental. she's able to sound pouty and kittenish yet still convey the mature and sexy lyrics. much of that has to do with the tone of her voice itself. plus the amazing high notes. I think scherrie certainly could have sung it but it probably wouldn't have been as successful.
    Although i personally love the diversity of hearing all three voices, perhaps the big mistake was in not focusing entirely on one voice. As you mention, Scherrie was rarely featured on ballads which may have been a huge mistake. Featuring one lead voice on all recordings, if not in concert might have provided the latter day lineup with a more instantly recognisable sound.

  35. #135
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    Although i personally love the diversity of hearing all three voices, perhaps the big mistake was in not focusing entirely on one voice. As you mention, Scherrie was rarely featured on ballads which may have been a huge mistake. Featuring one lead voice on all recordings, if not in concert might have provided the latter day lineup with a more instantly recognisable sound.
    So what opinion do fans have regarding Scherrie being the only featured lead singer, recording wise at least?. Would it have lent the 74-77 grouping a stronger identity with the general public as opposed to shared leads???.

  36. #136
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    So what opinion do fans have regarding Scherrie being the only featured lead singer, recording wise at least?. Would it have lent the 74-77 grouping a stronger identity with the general public as opposed to shared leads???.
    i don't know that it should have been as exclusive as DR was on leads, especially in the DRATS era. I think having M, C and S join in with lead lines and parts and even some full leads added interest to the group. especially since a singer like Susaye brought such a unique voice.

    Take Sweet Dream Machine. Scherrie still does the majority of the lead here. but M and S both get short verses and there are a few spots which each member doing a call out. plus there are some strong 3-part harmonies. So Scherrie leads it and really gets to display her talents. but it's still perfectly evident that this is a group. not Scherrie and a few sessions singers.

    I do find it odd that Scherrie is totally missing from We Should Be Closer.

    in addition to your question on the lead recordings, it's also important the scherrie have strong presence in the live material. IMO the shows and tv appearances were too focused on spotlighting Mary. From Sup 75, they basically only did her lead songs. but Scherrie was also too in the background with the discussions and interactions with the hosts.

  37. #137
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    I think the problem would still be the same. Let's face it, the last bit of time Jean was in the group, damage was being done to the Supremes' reputation with the public. They dropped an album that nobody wanted and the last two singles went nowhere, despite both being very good, but perhaps problematic in their own ways. Jean was that voice that had become a fixture for the group, with Mary slowly coming in. By the time Scherrie arrives I really think the damage was too much to be undone unless the group was able to luck up on a "no lose" single that becomes a major hit. Maybe at that point- and considering if Scherrie is the lead on the song- focusing on her as singles lead might have been a good idea. But honestly I'm not convinced that the public would ever jump on board the "Scherrie lead singer of the Supremes" boat, for reasons I stated in another comment. I think her voice too bombastic- and IMO that was her greatest strength- to keep with the Supremes brand.

    Believe it or not, though Mary's voice is as different from Diana and Jean's as night and day, I think Mary's sound was better suited to the brand than Scherrie's. Now none of this is meant to suggest that Scherrie didn't have range and couldn't sing "lighter". I love her lead on "Seed of Love" and she doesn't cut loose on that until the fade. [[I would love an extended fade of "Seed Of Love" if the Vault Gang is reading this.) But judging off her work as a Supreme and a member of Glass House, as well as her live performances, Scherrie love to belt and I think if she were being told to tone it down, she'd feel stifled and then that would have led to more discontent in the group. With hindsight, it may have been wise for Mary to view Jean and Lynda's leaving as her opportunity to take over the lead spot. While the 70s is fondly regarded for it's uptempo dance music, it also was full of light, mellow tunes and ballads, which was definitely Mary's strength. Pair the group with the right producer, play up Mary's original Supreme status, welcome back Cindy, get a third lady willing to primarily sing backup but also more than capable of sharing some lead duties and the story of the group might have ended a little better, IMO.

  38. #138
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    Why is it never mentioned to bring Flo back

  39. #139
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,313
    Rep Power
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogiedown View Post
    Why is it never mentioned to bring Flo back
    That was never going to happen unless they went to another label. I also recall a quote from Flo saying she wouldn't join a group again, she'd prefer to be a soloist.

  40. #140
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,097
    Rep Power
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogiedown View Post
    Why is it never mentioned to bring Flo back

    i was just wondering the same thing. with all the changes in the 70s, was Florence ever considered

  41. #141
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,679
    Rep Power
    308
    Interesting.
    so in desperate times Mary never imagined a solution where two of the originals reunite ?

  42. #142
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    I think the problem would still be the same. Let's face it, the last bit of time Jean was in the group, damage was being done to the Supremes' reputation with the public. They dropped an album that nobody wanted and the last two singles went nowhere, despite both being very good, but perhaps problematic in their own ways. Jean was that voice that had become a fixture for the group, with Mary slowly coming in. By the time Scherrie arrives I really think the damage was too much to be undone unless the group was able to luck up on a "no lose" single that becomes a major hit. Maybe at that point- and considering if Scherrie is the lead on the song- focusing on her as singles lead might have been a good idea. But honestly I'm not convinced that the public would ever jump on board the "Scherrie lead singer of the Supremes" boat, for reasons I stated in another comment. I think her voice too bombastic- and IMO that was her greatest strength- to keep with the Supremes brand.

    Believe it or not, though Mary's voice is as different from Diana and Jean's as night and day, I think Mary's sound was better suited to the brand than Scherrie's. Now none of this is meant to suggest that Scherrie didn't have range and couldn't sing "lighter". I love her lead on "Seed of Love" and she doesn't cut loose on that until the fade. [[I would love an extended fade of "Seed Of Love" if the Vault Gang is reading this.) But judging off her work as a Supreme and a member of Glass House, as well as her live performances, Scherrie love to belt and I think if she were being told to tone it down, she'd feel stifled and then that would have led to more discontent in the group. With hindsight, it may have been wise for Mary to view Jean and Lynda's leaving as her opportunity to take over the lead spot. While the 70s is fondly regarded for it's uptempo dance music, it also was full of light, mellow tunes and ballads, which was definitely Mary's strength. Pair the group with the right producer, play up Mary's original Supreme status, welcome back Cindy, get a third lady willing to primarily sing backup but also more than capable of sharing some lead duties and the story of the group might have ended a little better, IMO.
    I thought Scherrie was quite contained on all three albums she recorded with the Supremes. It was only when performing live did she have a tendency to over cook the goose as it were.
    Considering she was lead singer, i agree with sup in that during interviews and certain performances it was Mary who often. came across as front woman rather then dear Scherrie. I think this led to the public being less familiar with her persona and more importantly the group sound.

  43. #143
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,965
    Rep Power
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by sup_fan View Post
    i don't know that it should have been as exclusive as DR was on leads, especially in the DRATS era. I think having M, C and S join in with lead lines and parts and even some full leads added interest to the group. especially since a singer like Susaye brought such a unique voice.

    Take Sweet Dream Machine. Scherrie still does the majority of the lead here. but M and S both get short verses and there are a few spots which each member doing a call out. plus there are some strong 3-part harmonies. So Scherrie leads it and really gets to display her talents. but it's still perfectly evident that this is a group. not Scherrie and a few sessions singers.

    I do find it odd that Scherrie is totally missing from We Should Be Closer.

    in addition to your question on the lead recordings, it's also important the scherrie have strong presence in the live material. IMO the shows and tv appearances were too focused on spotlighting Mary. From Sup 75, they basically only did her lead songs. but Scherrie was also too in the background with the discussions and interactions with the hosts.
    I agree that having three featured singers made for a vocally exciting presentation.
    I just think that had the spotlight been a little more on Scherrie and less on the others people would have come to associate the group with a particular voice, style and sound.
    I do wonder had they scored a big hit with Scherrie on lead, whether Mary and Susaye would have continued to be featured as much on albums. I’m guessing with Pedro
    and Mary in charge most probably yes.

  44. #144
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by floyjoy678 View Post
    That was never going to happen unless they went to another label. I also recall a quote from Flo saying she wouldn't join a group again, she'd prefer to be a soloist.
    I don't recall ever reading her say she wouldn't do the group again. I do know she said if she did, it would have to be under the name Supremes, not DRATS.

    At the point we've been discussing, Flo was in no shape to rejoin the Supremes, or even become a replacement Velvelette. Mary, and probably anyone with any power at Motown, was well aware of this and thus Flo wouldn't have been on the radar. Now it is interesting to ponder the what ifs of Mary approaching Florence when she knew that Pedro was going to fire Cindy. By that point Flo was back in the money, she had already done a live performance, she was making inquiries and putting the word out that she was ready to get back into the business. Maybe Flo rejoining could have been the promo spark the group needed to have the public pay more attention, especially after the headlines Florence had made the year before.

    But ultimately I suspect Florence was not interested in joining Mary's Supremes. Not because of any issue with Mary, but by that point it probably wouldn't have felt like the Supremes as Flo knew it. Certainly enough fans have testified that it didn't feel like the Supremes they knew and loved, so I could see it being that way for Florence and Diana. I also suspect that Mary would not have wanted Flo back, mainly because she may not have been able to trust that Flo was really ready, and also at this point Mary was Queen Supreme, a bit different than the dynamic that existed with the original trio. The egos could be a problem and I'm not sure Mary wanted to go there with Florence.

  45. #145
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Boogiedown View Post
    Why is it never mentioned to bring Flo back
    from everything we've heard, Flo was just simply not capable at that time or really just about any time from 1970 onwards. it wasn't a matter of shipping her off to a fat farm to get her figure back.

    Flo had serious mental health issues. everything that had happened continued to brew and fester in her mind. she continued to spiral downwards, to the point where she was pretty much incapable to doing anything. much less returning to the highly stressful and busy world of a major entertainer. none of her personal issuers seemed to have been resolved so the ups and downs, the defiant behaviors, the problems would have all still been there

  46. #146
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    I thought Scherrie was quite contained on all three albums she recorded with the Supremes. It was only when performing live did she have a tendency to over cook the goose as it were.
    Considering she was lead singer, i agree with sup in that during interviews and certain performances it was Mary who often. came across as front woman rather then dear Scherrie. I think this led to the public being less familiar with her persona and more importantly the group sound.
    agreed. i don't think it's slighting mary either. i'm glad she was being much more involved in the leadership, image and "brand" of the group. but Scherrie needed to be more involved overall. her voice was the most commercial and therefore people needed to know who that singer was

    also agree that Scherrie wasn't overkilling things on the albums. the pop tunes on Side 2 of Sup 75 are great. there's just enough vocal tricks to make them interesting and fun. also we do now have mary versions on several of the tracks, either in full or partial. and frankly they're just not the same. while i like each girl having more spotlight, on Sha La i think the Scherrie lead version is clearly the best. mary does an ok job on Give Out but scherrie's version is preferred. it is nice hearing mary on Can We Love and then [[later) on You're What's Missing. again, having her do more than just the ballads is great. but same point with Scherrie - let her do more than just the dance songs

  47. #147
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,760
    Rep Power
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    I agree that having three featured singers made for a vocally exciting presentation.
    I just think that had the spotlight been a little more on Scherrie and less on the others people would have come to associate the group with a particular voice, style and sound.
    I do wonder had they scored a big hit with Scherrie on lead, whether Mary and Susaye would have continued to be featured as much on albums. I’m guessing with Pedro
    and Mary in charge most probably yes.
    maybe if the breakdown was 60% of the leads from Scherrie, 30% from mary and 10% cindy/group sharing of leads. that would give you a solid voice to focus on. mary still gets a lot of spotlight - she's not just getting her 1 token song. and then find ways to share. like on the Floy Joy album. jean does most, M and J share two songs [[although frankly those prob should/could have included Cindy more), mary gets a solo, cindy does the sexy spoken passage.

  48. #148
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,313
    Rep Power
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    I don't recall ever reading her say she wouldn't do the group again. I do know she said if she did, it would have to be under the name Supremes, not DRATS.

    At the point we've been discussing, Flo was in no shape to rejoin the Supremes, or even become a replacement Velvelette. Mary, and probably anyone with any power at Motown, was well aware of this and thus Flo wouldn't have been on the radar. Now it is interesting to ponder the what ifs of Mary approaching Florence when she knew that Pedro was going to fire Cindy. By that point Flo was back in the money, she had already done a live performance, she was making inquiries and putting the word out that she was ready to get back into the business. Maybe Flo rejoining could have been the promo spark the group needed to have the public pay more attention, especially after the headlines Florence had made the year before.

    But ultimately I suspect Florence was not interested in joining Mary's Supremes. Not because of any issue with Mary, but by that point it probably wouldn't have felt like the Supremes as Flo knew it. Certainly enough fans have testified that it didn't feel like the Supremes they knew and loved, so I could see it being that way for Florence and Diana. I also suspect that Mary would not have wanted Flo back, mainly because she may not have been able to trust that Flo was really ready, and also at this point Mary was Queen Supreme, a bit different than the dynamic that existed with the original trio. The egos could be a problem and I'm not sure Mary wanted to go there with Florence.
    She said it in one of the interviews she gave in 1975...may have been the JET magazine one.

    Also can you imagine Flo having to deal with Pedro's shennanigans? I can't see that flying too well lol

  49. #149
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Quote Originally Posted by Ollie9 View Post
    I thought Scherrie was quite contained on all three albums she recorded with the Supremes. It was only when performing live did she have a tendency to over cook the goose as it were.
    Considering she was lead singer, i agree with sup in that during interviews and certain performances it was Mary who often. came across as front woman rather then dear Scherrie. I think this led to the public being less familiar with her persona and more importantly the group sound.
    Scherrie made beautiful music on those Supremes albums. I love so many of her lead vocals. I wasn't saying that her singing was out of control [[although we know she, Mary and Susaye didn't always act like they knew what "control" singing meant when they were onstage). I think she sang the songs as was called for. But her voice is naturally big, tough, assertive. That is not how the public had come to view the Supremes. Scherrie was just too drastic of a change, IMO.

    I don't think the public needed to really know Scherrie's persona. This wasn't bubblegum Supremes anymore. They were grown women, two of them with children and husbands. While their music "needed" to appeal to the youth in someway, these were adult Supremes. I don't think anyone needed to know the Supremes beyond the name and the sound. The public wanted good music. They didn't need to connect with individual members anymore. But a name like SUPREMES carries weight. That's a lot of legacy. It was most certainly a brand. Scherrie just didn't fit.
    Last edited by RanRan79; 09-01-2022 at 04:39 PM.

  50. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    8,644
    Rep Power
    525
    Mary really should have just put on her big girl drawz and went solo when Jean and Lynda left. Let the Supremes die quietly and Mary come out swinging. I think she may have had better luck getting Motown on her side had she made this decision at that point instead of later in the decade after Pedro's damage, the lawsuit, etc. She also may have found it easier to land a deal somewhere else, as she was still no more than 30, she wasn't yet a mother, barely a wife. Things that could be viewed as baggage later on wasn't the case yet. I think Mary stayed too long at the fair.

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.