Martha Reeves: Did she ever sound like she did on 'Heatwave' after 1970?

[dzMusica]

She has definitely lost that voice but it seems to have been quite early on. Sometimes I hear her 'hit sound' on different songs and I say to myself , Was that her singing?

dzMusica

[smark21]

There have been instances where Shantal Baker seems to have influenced Martha's post Motown singing style.

[motown_david]

In a word - no.

[marybrewster]

I am shocked to find there isn't a "What records did Martha Reeves instead of the Andantes sing on" thread yet. Because it's well known that the voice of Martha Reeves is really the voice of Marlene Barrow.

[RossHolloway]

She has definitely lost that voice but it seems to have been quite early on. Sometimes I hear her 'hit sound' on different songs and I say to myself , Was that her singing?

dzMusica

I think it could be a combination of factors with Martha Reeves. I also think that certain singers are better at singing certain types of songs. I love the way that Martha handled songs like Heatwave and Nowhere to Run more so than some of her later recordings or even slow songs. And isn't it also natural for a lot of singers voice [[but not all) to change over time because of things like age, how often they perform or if they are a smoker. And I think Martha was/is a smoker. I also think that it's important to keep in mind that most of her most popular material is now approaching 50 years old.

[luke]

Yes Mary the floodgates have opened and we must brace ourselves now for the truths that will be revealed!! I saw Martha and Lois and Delphine in 2007 and Martha did not yodel at all--she was great!

[dzMusica]

Yes Mary the floodgates have opened and we must brace ourselves now for the truths that will be revealed!! I saw Martha and Lois and Delphine in 2007 and Martha did not yodel at all--she was great!

Oh Please! Stop being nice.

[dzMusica]

I am shocked to find there isn't a "What records did Martha Reeves instead of the Andantes sing on" thread yet. Because it's well known that the voice of Martha Reeves is really the voice of Marlene Barrow.

What evidence you got? What song and what part in the song?

[dzMusica]

I think it could be a combination of factors with Martha Reeves. I also think that certain singers are better at singing certain types of songs. I love the way that Martha handled songs like Heatwave and Nowhere to Run more so than some of her later recordings or even slow songs. And isn't it also natural for a lot of singers voice [[but not all) to change over time because of things like age, how often they perform or if they are a smoker. And I think Martha was/is a smoker. I also think that it's important to keep in mind that most of her most popular material is now approaching 50 years old.

Yeah, but Gladys Knight still a fantastic singer. Martha lost hers and wasn't even 30.

[dzMusica]

What's ironic is that in '66 a friend told her she'd lose her voice in 10 years if she kept singing the way she did in live performances. She should have listened because by 1976 that voice was gone. It was no longer a powerhouse voice.

[skooldem1]

I have seen Martha in concert [[great performer) but her voice is bad. I don't believe anyone who says that they have seen her recently and she sounded wonderful. In her youth her songs sounded great because of the youthful energy, writers, producers, musicans. It was the "songs" and not her so much. She is someone who excels at only singing certain types of music/songs. She was probally one of those singers that sound great on record, or in the studio, but live, not so much. She was never really a great singer, but sang on some great songs.

[motony]

in the 60's Martha Reeves was one of the GREATEST singers.It was NOT the songs ect.Saw her in person several times and next to Mary Wells no one comes close except Dee Dee Sharp.

[skooldem1]

Its the writers, producers, and the funks.

[dzMusica]

I have seen Martha in concert [[great performer) but her voice is bad. I don't believe anyone who says that they have seen her recently and she sounded wonderful. In her youth her songs sounded great because of the youthful energy, writers, producers, musicans. It was the "songs" and not her so much. She is someone who excels at only singing certain types of music/songs. She was probally one of those singers that sound great on record, or in the studio, but live, not so much. She was never really a great singer, but sang on some great songs.

That's something to chew on. I thought the same thing until listened to her songs again. They are all sung differently showing the versatility in her voice. But Love makes me do foolish things is her best track. Can't nobody say 'Funny' like she did. She cuts it with a knife. Sometimes they had her singing higher than she actually could like on 'Quicksand'. Poor thing just makes it on that song, you can hear her voice strain quite a bit.

[bankhousedave]

Yep. Martha was a great singer, with a unique style and delivery. Like Luke, I have seen her live in recent years when she didn't do that yodelling thing - once in Cheltenham and once at Wembley. She also didn't do it to excess in Berlin. Don't take this as gospel, as it's just something I picked up here and there, but I heard Martha was not happy about not being able to reach a top range, and really believed her singing was extended by being able to hit those high notes later in her career. Sources close to the diva told me 'she doesn't have to sing like that', and I have seen signs that this is true.

I loved her voice better than any of the other group members back in the day, not only on belters like Nowhere to run, but that great old-fahiomned way she had with ballads. Listen to Girl, You've Been In Love Too Long, I'm Ready For Love, Third Finger, Left Hand, No More Tearstained Make-up. She was one great singer and Mickey recognised her as such, which is why he invited her to Motown.

[skooldem1]

I can't imagine that Martha, or anyone in their right mind would convince themselves that the way she sings sounds good. Love her as an entertainer, but I have seen her live and I know how she sounds.

[marybrewster]

Yes Mary the floodgates have opened and we must brace ourselves now for the truths that will be revealed!! I saw Martha and Lois and Delphine in 2007 and Martha did not yodel at all--she was great!

Can I get an "amen" for some truth up in here?

I saw Martha, Lois and Delphine in 2008 or 2009 [[along with Dennis Edwards and his Temptations) and I thought Martha was outstanding. It's true, so does not sound the same as she did on her "records", but honey, those 45's were mastered and remastered. Does Cher's voice REALLY sound like it does on "Believe"? LOL.

There isn't ONE performer from Martha's era that sounds the same today as they did 50 years ago.

Next.

[motony]

what great songs or great selling records did those writers & producers have outside of Motown?What great records did the funk bros. as a group play on?HDH had sporadic success with Invictus Hot Wax. Mickey Stevenson & Clarence Paul didn't find success at MGM. William Witherspoon sporatic at Hot Wax. The artists at Motown SOLD those records to radio & to the public, they also did a lot of adlibbing on the last 20-30 seconds of the released hits which was a big part of the hit-making process.In the 60's to mid 70's, it would be a combo of the right artists, producer, writer but in the end it was the artists that sold it to the public.

[144man]

I can't imagine that Martha, or anyone in their right mind would convince themselves that the way she sings sounds good. Love her as an entertainer, but I have seen her live and I know how she sounds.

Blame Richard Perry. Martha is on record as saying that she loved the new voice he had given her [Try "My Man [[You Changed My Tune)" where she hits notes she'd never attempted before]; whereas I much preferred her old voice.

[marv2]

She has definitely lost that voice but it seems to have been quite early on. Sometimes I hear her 'hit sound' on different songs and I say to myself , Was that her singing?

dzMusica

I don't know, but I think Martha sounded her absolute best during the mid to late 70's.

[marv2]

Blame Richard Perry. Martha is on record as saying that she loved the new voice he had given her [Try "My Man [[You Changed My Tune)" where she hits notes she'd never attempted before]; whereas I much preferred her old voice.

I liked how she sang most during that period also.

[dzMusica]

Can I get an "amen" for some truth up in here?

I saw Martha, Lois and Delphine in 2008 or 2009 [[along with Dennis Edwards and his Temptations) and I thought Martha was outstanding. It's true, so does not sound the same as she did on her "records", but honey, those 45's were mastered and remastered. Does Cher's voice REALLY sound like it does on "Believe"? LOL.

There isn't ONE performer from Martha's era that sounds the same today as they did 50 years ago.

Next.

Amen is not for secular singers. Anyways, at least now Diana Ross can sing just as good if not better than Martha. LOL

[dzMusica]

what great songs or great selling records did those writers & producers have outside of Motown?What great records did the funk bros. as a group play on?HDH had sporadic success with Invictus Hot Wax. Mickey Stevenson & Clarence Paul didn't find success at MGM. William Witherspoon sporatic at Hot Wax. The artists at Motown SOLD those records to radio & to the public, they also did a lot of adlibbing on the last 20-30 seconds of the released hits which was a big part of the hit-making process.In the 60's to mid 70's, it would be a combo of the right artists, producer, writer but in the end it was the artists that sold it to the public.

Yeah but most of the Artists didn't havesucess outside of Motown either. You talk about HDH but once they left everybody went down they produced: the Supremes etc. Martha went down when her man Micky left. He was the sole reason she was there anyways and would keep her career afloat being their at every major turn including it's downfall.

[luke]

Bankhouse is correct. Martha goes for those high notes. In NYC she sang the songs straight and was excellent.

[marybrewster]

First it's 1970, now it's 1976? Do I hear a 1982? Can I get a 1987 up in here?

[marv2]

First it's 1970, now it's 1976? Do I hear a 1982? Can I get a 1987 up in here?

No! It was always "After 1970" at least that is what the author of this thread was asking about,..,...

[jillfoster]

I agree Marv, I loved her in the 70's. It's always Ross fans that dogg her singing, you know this. But who couldn't love this?

[marv2]

Right on Jill! Now that's what I'm talking about! Great clip and Martha sounds excellent. Now check this one out, also from 1976 where she does the 60's hits. She sounds so smooth, bluesy and just superb:

[huntergettingcaptured]

She has definitely lost that voice but it seems to have been quite early on. Sometimes I hear her 'hit sound' on different songs and I say to myself , Was that her singing?

dzMusica

dzMusica

I think I know what you're talking about because I had noticed a difference in Martha's voice starting as early as maybe '67 or so. Listening to the album "Watchout!" and "Ridin' High" there is a subtle difference. It isn't the songs, it isn't the producers. Her voice was a bit more refined, carmel-smooth. On the earlier material like "Heatwave", "Live Wire", "I'm Ready For Love" and "Jimmy Mack", Martha had a bit more grit in the vocals, she was a bit more of a "belter" along the lines of Etta James. On the ballads, though, the vocals were smoother of course, but there was still a kind of a "sweet rawness" in the sound.

That raw sound was still there on "Love Bug Leave My Heart Alone" and "Honey Child". But if you listen to many of the songs on the "Riding High" album, the voice was taking on more of a very refined, deliberate sound. "To Sir With Love" and "Always Something There To Remind Me" are two good examples. The vocals have lost some of the youthful rawness and taken on a more studied, mature sound. Even on the uptempo songs, Martha's delivery isn't as direct as on something like "Quicksand".

I think every singer's voice takes on some differences as they mature and learn more about the craft of singing, but somehow with Martha Reeves, the changes seem a bit more out front. By the time of the album "Natural Resources" I can really hear what I think you're talking about. After that, I don't think the early 60's sound was there at all.

I remember wondering if Martha started doing what many singers will do after some time- they learn to sing more "correctly", from the diaphragm and that sort of thing as opposed to just letting it fly.

[dzMusica]

Right on Jill! Now that's what I'm talking about! Great clip and Martha sounds excellent. Now check this one out, also from 1976 where she does the 60's hits. She sounds so smooth, bluesy and just superb:

High! She looks High and sounds High. She sounds like drag drag drag I wanna go to sleep.

[marv2]

High! She looks High and sounds High. She sounds like drag drag drag I wanna go to sleep.

She looks great, she looks sexy! She sounded great as well and the audience loved it!

[dzMusica]

p

dzMusica

I think I know what you're talking about because I had noticed a difference in Martha's voice starting as early as maybe '67 or so. Listening to the album "Watchout!" and "Ridin' High" there is a subtle difference. It isn't the songs, it isn't the producers. Her voice was a bit more refined, carmel-smooth. On the earlier material like "Heatwave", "Live Wire", "I'm Ready For Love" and "Jimmy Mack", Martha had a bit more grit in the vocals, she was a bit more of a "belter" along the lines of Etta James. On the ballads, though, the vocals were smoother of course, but there was still a kind of a "sweet rawness" in the sound.

That raw sound was still there on "Love Bug Leave My Heart Alone" and "Honey Child". But if you listen to many of the songs on the "Riding High" album, the voice was taking on more of a very refined, deliberate sound. "To Sir With Love" and "Always Something There To Remind Me" are two good examples. The vocals have lost some of the youthful rawness and taken on a more studied, mature sound. Even on the uptempo songs, Martha's delivery isn't as direct as on something like "Quicksand".

I think every singer's voice takes on some differences as they mature and learn more about the craft of singing, but somehow with Martha Reeves, the changes seem a bit more out front. By the time of the album "Natural Resources" I can really hear what I think you're talking about. After that, I don't think the early 60's sound was there at all.

I remember wondering if Martha started doing what many singers will do after some time- they learn to sing more "correctly", from the diaphragm and that sort of thing as opposed to just letting it fly.

Pretty much, that's what I'm saying in a nutshell. I'm not saying she didn't have a voice after 1970 just that it went from being soulful and unique to being a basic r&b voice.

[dzMusica]

Jillfoster

I'm not a Diana Ross fan. In fact, I think Martha was the best singer Motown had and think her group was the best of all of them. But drugs will change a persons voice.

[motony]

heavy ciggarette smoking does not help a voice & then working in those smokey bars night after night when you HAVE to work to pay the bills doesn't help.

[Sotosound]

There is a lot of edge in the vocals on Martha’s 60s recordings, but I suspect that a lot of it was added during mixing and mastering so that her vocals would stand out on AM radio. To my ears, her real voice is buried under piles of EQ.

That effect is audible on “Bless You”, from 1971, especially where she sings “I’ve got you and baby you’ve got me.” That line sounds classic mid-60s Martha.

[bankhousedave]

Martha was singing Bach when Mickey found her, so I'm guessing she could do smooth when it was called for. When people talk about the efects that were added to songs like that hideous Cher thing, they are talking about another time and place. They mixed things up and down at Motown, and they added some echo here and there, but the voice yhou heard was the voice they got back then. That's why they used people who could deliver. Now they photoshop the face, modify the voice, force the whole thing into tune and wind up with mush. Martha could sing forreal. Listen to the Motortown Revue in Paris, or the Dusty special. Martha - and the original Vandellas are standouts, even in that great company.

[dzMusica]

She looks great, she looks sexy! She sounded great as well and the audience loved it!

You can still sleep with her if that's what you'd like.

[Sotosound]

I have a fondness for "No-one There". This is Martha in a more soulful but mellow mood. When she sings an octave higher at the end it doesn't work quite as well but, overall, it's a great track, with Martha just singing her heart out and nothing added nor taken away from her vocals.

[bankhousedave]

Yeah, she sounds more like Tina Turner on that, Soto. Real attitude and edge.

[smark21]

Amen is not for secular singers. Anyways, at least now Diana Ross can sing just as good if not better than Martha. LOL

I'm glad you're standing up for the Lord and God's music.

[mysterysinger]

dz is absolutely right to say that Martha's voice changed. To my thinking it became more of a gospel warble - emphasised by her use of a tambourine when you see her live. Whatever it was that changed it, it wasn't for the better but that's not to say she hasn't had some great moments since. God bless Martha.

[motony]

Martha Reeves is an Icon.One of the BEST entertainers from the Golden Age of Rock & Soul.

[BigAl]

Martha once told me that the change in her voice came about concurrently with a spiritual rebirth. She had hit a very low point in her life, then experienced an epiphany, and became born-again. When that happened she said she suddenly discovered an extra octave at her voice's top end and felt it must have been a gift coming along with that rebirth, with the letting-go. She said the high notes suddenly began being "pulled" from her rather than her having to "push" them out. Listening critically to her early '70s "before and after" recordings, you can hear quite plainly what she was referring to — that she no longer was "straining" at the high notes. It sounds as though she must have started singing from her diaphragm rather than simply tightening her vocal cords to push out the top notes, or something like that. Whatever the cause, she was very happy, suddenly being able to slide up and down the scales, and liked to show off that ability. Although a great many of her fans weren't too pleased with the "new" voice, Martha is, and always has been, her own woman and is going to do things her way. I actually like both of these singing styles of hers, different though they might be. When she's not busy trilling up and down she still sounds like the "old" Martha to me, but apparently it's difficult for her to rein in that multi-octave warbling once she gets started. One of her more severe critics once said, rather uncharitably, that it sounds more like a child's slide whistle!

[Sugarchilehoneybaby]

I agree Marv, I loved her in the 70's. It's always Ross fans that dogg her singing, you know this. But who couldn't love this?

This is simply not good. Sorry about it.

[dzMusica]

Martha once told me that the change in her voice came about concurrently with a spiritual rebirth. She had hit a very low point in her life, then experienced an epiphany, and became born-again. When that happened she said she suddenly discovered an extra octave at her voice's top end and felt it must have been a gift coming along with that rebirth, with the letting-go. She said the high notes suddenly began being "pulled" from her rather than her having to "push" them out. Listening critically to her early '70s "before and after" recordings, you can hear quite plainly what she was referring to — that she no longer was "straining" at the high notes. It sounds as though she must have started singing from her diaphragm rather than simply tightening her vocal cords to push out the top notes, or something like that. Whatever the cause, she was very happy, suddenly being able to slide up and down the scales, and liked to show off that ability. Although a great many of her fans weren't too pleased with the "new" voice, Martha is, and always has been, her own woman and is going to do things her way. I actually like both of these singing styles of hers, different though they might be. When she's not busy trilling up and down she still sounds like the "old" Martha to me, but apparently it's difficult for her to rein in that multi-octave warbling once she gets started. One of her more severe critics once said, rather uncharitably, that it sounds more like a child's slide whistle!

This is what I can tell you! Jesus said you will know my disciples by the fruit they bear. You will also see a change 'for the Lord' in their life. Martha is still singing 'Dancing in the Street' at 70 and just recorded a track with a band called 'The Crystal Method'. Need I say more.

[jobeterob]

In her heyday, Martha Reeves was awesome. Dancing in the Street has worn on me but Nowhere to Run, Heat Wave, I'm Ready For Love, Love Bug, My Baby Loves Me and many more are part of Motown music history and are great songs.

I don't know what Martha did, if anything, regarding drugs or cigarette smoking but somebody made a huge mistake when she was put on that Motown Superbowl show around 1996 or 1997. By then, she either had lost the kind of voice she once had or she was presented in dreadful surroundings that showed her off very poorly.

That show, to so many people, damaged her and left a wake she hasn't really recovered from. They should not have done that to her or she should not have done that to herself.

[scanspeak]

I'm a big Martha fan but I find her "yodelling" sound off-putting.

Compare these 2 versions of Nowhere to Run.

[dzMusica]

There is more to her 'mentally' than meets the eye. She was known to have mental issues in the past. What do you think about someone who is having trouble singing performing extensively? When people have problems sometimes they are in denial and it's hard to get through to them.

[marv2]

Martha Reeves mental illness is more severe than people know. No one is going to perform extensively like she does and can't sing unless they are mentally unstable. Also, if they tell her not to perform she just gets mad and angry; she's in denial. Most people who know her, including her former colleagues, know that if she were to just stay home she'd just waste away.

That is FOUL! You just wait just a minute! Now I understand why you started this thread. To slander Martha Reeves via this forum. How do you think you're going to get away sitting up here in this public forum and declaring [[DOCTOR) that Martha Reeves is mentally ill and to say such like it is common knowledge or something. You are out of line and Ralph should see this one! Whew! If you don't like her voice, the way she sings etc, say it once and then move on. Don't sit up in here and make up lies about Martha in an attempt to damage her character.

Martha Reeves is not responsible for booking herself and paying her own contract fees to perform! Are those tour promoters and booking agents that continually book her for gigs mentally ill? No, of course not! You disgust me by your comments!

[jillfoster]

Vocal wise... I think both versions sound just fine. The main difference in the seoncd version is that she's singing a tiny bit behind the beat, instead of right on top of it.