| Author | Message | ||
  Jimmy Mack (luke) 3-Pundit Username: luke Post Number: 66 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.198.48.201 |
God help me for starting this one so be nice. Sometimes I wander y David got reacted on so stongly when u consider Gordy often highliting one group member ie--Diana, Martha, Smokey,Wanda--and his big thing of "two big names" like Diana AND Supremes-even tho Flo had great voice...People still talk about David's voice-to me he was best male singer at Motown. Why such a different standard per him and Tempts and not the other groups? | ||
Kevin Goins - KevGo (kevgo) 3-Pundit Username: kevgo Post Number: 57 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.115.136.66 |
Jimmy: On of the reasons why the group was not renamed "David Ruffin and..." is because the group had more than one lead singer (David, Eddie & Paul). Also it was understood from the git-go that not one member would stand out above the rest. Kevin Goins - KevGo | ||
Tony.C. (tonyc) 2-Debutant Username: tonyc Post Number: 14 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 195.93.33.10 |
Good Post,Jimmy Ruffin always said without David there would have been no Temps,and although David at one time wanted the name changed to David Ruffin and The Temptations this was always ve-toed by Berry and the Motown hierachy,also got to agree with Kevin(above)the Temps have always had so many lead singers-even to this day. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 5-Doyen Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 236 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
I think that it goes even deeper than that. I think that Berry understood David very well. I have heard it said that David had one hell of an ego, as most singers do. I think that the group would have totally fallen apart, had the name change gone through. I think that his ego would have run amuck & from everything that I've read, EACH of The Temptations were strong-willed. I can't imagine any of them settling for being a peon to Davids King. The group would have imploded. That would have made The Temptations the equivalent of David Ruffin & His Back-up Singers. The Temptations had too much individual talent for that to have been allowed. Can you imagine a 45 label, or a chart placement if Eddie sang lead? Can you imagine David Ruffin & The Temptations Featuring Eddie Kendricks on a 45??? I can't, it's unthinkable. (Message edited by Juicefree20 on April 24, 2004) | ||
Jimmy Mack (luke) 3-Pundit Username: luke Post Number: 69 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.198.48.201 |
Agreed but Flo was orignial co-lead with Diana and Eddie Holland wanted Mary to do lead on Where Did Our Love Go. Many critics and fans say the Supremes really had 3 lead singers. The Marvettes had 2;Claudette took lead sometimes. So I still dont see the big difference with the Tempts. | ||
Tony.C. (tonyc) 2-Debutant Username: tonyc Post Number: 16 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 195.93.33.10 |
Juice this is what i intented to get across ,obviously Jimmy R.was biased and i think it,s well known how big David,s ego was.Regards. | ||
Jimmy Mack (luke) 4-Laureate Username: luke Post Number: 71 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.198.48.201 |
How is David's and group dynamics different from Diana and the Supremes? David was taking more and more leads and as much as I love Eddies voice overall his high tenor wasnt as adaptable. Paul was having problems and his solos were fairly infrequent and Otis almost never sang lead. Im not trying to argue just processing all of this. | ||
Jimmy Mack (luke) 4-Laureate Username: luke Post Number: 72 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.198.48.201 |
PS--Im not saying the name SHOULD have been changed--wondering about Motown dynamics and politics--I have heard it suggested the the women at Motown were more pliable(because of the corporate clulture). | ||
Arcadia (arcadia) 2-Debutant Username: arcadia Post Number: 15 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 4.237.17.205 |
Thanks Jimmy Mack for a very thought provoking question. Let me take you to The Apollo for a moment. We have just heard Eddie Kendricks perform "The Way You Do The Things You Do" and "Get Ready". Now David Ruffin is up next and he performs "My Girl" and "Ain't To Proud To Beg". Who would you clap (and stomp) the hardest for? A- | ||
tsaneladi (tsaneladi) 3-Pundit Username: tsaneladi Post Number: 59 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.32.91.222 |
This is surely just one of those things that is harder to understand in retrospect. One could argue that the groups where a soloist was highlighted in the billing didn't do much to increase the longevity of their run. Then again, not doing it didn't seem to help that with the Temps either | ||
Arcadia (arcadia) 2-Debutant Username: arcadia Post Number: 17 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 4.237.17.205 |
tsaneladi, I so agree! Well said. A- | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 5-Doyen Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 242 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Jimmy, tsane & Arcadia, good points all. What I've noticed is that I can only recall 3 Motown groups, where the lead singer was put out front in such a way: The Miracles, The Supremes & The Vandellas. In two of these cases, there were extenuating cirmcumstances involved. As we know, Smokey was like Berrys musical son & encouraged him to start Motown. We also learned of Berrys' "special" relationship with Diana. As for Martha Reeves, I'm not sure why she was given that honor. As far as group dynamics, there is a difference. First of all, where The Temptations are concerned, you're talking about totally different temperments. It's well known that all of the fellas had tempers & didn't go for BS. You're talking about 5 six foot brothers there, it might give one pause to think. The strife that would have been created would have been untenable. There was only one subservient (so to speak) mindset & that would have been Otis, as he was not a true lead singer. Melvin was a basso profundo, so singing lead was not an issue where he was concerned. Where Otis didn't seek to be out front, the other fellas were used to being out there. Remember, Paul was the primary lead singer in the beginning & Eddie sang lead as well. You have to consider that David wasn't an original Motown artist. He had already recorded solo on Anna & Check Mate. He was absorbed into Motown & as such, there was the prevailing attitude amongst the fellas, that David was only going to use them as a springboard for his solo career. Contrast that with The Supremes. Diana had a obviously strong personality. Mary didn't seem to have much confidence, she just wanted to keep the group together. I believe that Berry figred that Flo would come around & eventually accept her role in the group. As time went on, I just don't think that he cared how Flo felt. He had bigger plans for Diana Ross & The Supremes was his vehicle. He admitted that he had created a monster in Ms Ross. However the die was cast. The difference between the two groups is that The Tempts had success with THREE different lead singers. Motown publicized then as "The Group With Five Lead Singers", that was his hook. The Supremes, on the other hand, had no hits with anyone other than Diana on lead. Unfortunately, as far as vocals are concerned, all that most of the world ever heard from Mary & Flo was "Ooh baby baby". Consider this, they didn't even sing on some Supremes hits & NO ONE EVEN NOTICED THE DIFFERENCE!!!! Whether you love her or not, whether it was fair or not, for most of the world, Diana was The Supremes. How often did anyone get to hear Flo or Mary on lead. As for Buttered Popcorn, I didn't hear anything special about the lead vocal on that one. Those are the differences in the dynamics that I see. Juice | ||
Arcadia (arcadia) 2-Debutant Username: arcadia Post Number: 18 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 4.237.17.205 |
Wow Juice! I loved everything you said! In fact I read it twice. Thanks for that excellent perspective. A- | ||
Jimmy Mack (luke) 4-Laureate Username: luke Post Number: 75 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.198.48.201 |
Some good points Juice tho if u just heard Diana on I Want A Guy u wouldnt hear anything special either. I did hear potential in Butter Popcorn with Flo, certainly more than I heard in Diana on most songs pre-Where Did Our Love Go. You do make good point per Diana doing all all leads except Buttered Popcorn tho part of my question still goes unanswered and I DO think it has to do with women being manipulated at Motown. (eg per your point per Temps' tempers---can u imagine if they tried to put Smokey's or a sound a like voice in a Tempts record ala Syreeta's in Martha's????--and Martha had a temper too, yet her temper was ignored and the record was released!!!)--we are talking sexism to some degree-as common as it may have been in those days at Motown and elsewhere. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 5-Doyen Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 250 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
I don't really think that it was sexism. I think that it was basically marketing & Berry had his eye on the prize. I adored Flo, but you have to give the devil her due. In terms of sheer marketability, Diana had the sound that screamed crossover. For one thing, just as Nat Cole, Sam Cooke & most crossover artists, her enunciation & diction was excellent! You understood her clearly & that was most important when trying to gain acceptance in Vegas & The Copa. That's where Berry's eyes were. The other thing is that Diana had a unique sound, I can't think of anyone who sounded like her. At a time where you couldn't tell where The Crystals ended & The Ronettes began, much less where The Cookies crumbled & The Toys broke, you KNEW Diana's voice, as it was distinctive. I hate to say it, but in those days, I don't think that either Flo or Mary could have pulled it off. In those days, it was that very lack of Soulful sound that helped The Supremes blow up. Let's be honest, if you closed you eyes & listened to the lead vocals on their first hits, would you have thought that they were a Black group??? I don't think so & that was all part of Berry's plan. Flo would have been too soulful for them to really get over at that time. You have to realize that they were competing with The Beatles, the British Invasion, The Beach Boys, Phil Spector & his Wall Of Sound. Add to that mix, The Shirelles, Dionne Warwick, The Shangri-Las & the other cookie cutter girl groups...I think that you get my point. Lastly, your next-to-last sentence helps to drive home one final point, that is perhaps the second most important factor in this whole thing. It is true that Martha had a temper, however, Berry was involved with Diana...DEEPLY involved. Involved to the extent that they had a child together, a point that was not made public unti his ex-wife Raynoma wrote her book, Berry & Me in what, 1990? What was he going to say to his money maker & lover? How many of us would have done differently? There would have been no peace. He probably figured that she was the main focal point, America couldn't get enough of her, why not do the change if it kept her happy? Berry was a smart businessman & he needed Diana, plain & simple. If he didn't, someone else would have filled her space. If there was any manipulation going on, Berry didn't manipulate Diana. Diana played him like a violin because he needed her to get where he was trying to go. Sometimes we men give ourselves too much credit. Show me a man who thinks that he's in control of a woman & nine times out of ten, there's a woman pulling all of his strings. You know what the funny part is? He's actually convinced that he's running the show & a smart woman allows him to believe just that! "Ok Big Daddy", "Alright papa", "Sure Baby"....sound familiar??? Think about it! Juice | ||
Jimmy Mack (luke) 4-Laureate Username: luke Post Number: 77 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.198.48.201 |
Juice-I dont disagree at all --Diana had the most unique voice and she and Berry were involved --absoultely-I was repsonding to points about the Temps anger and early Supremes records and the voices of Tempts and Supremes. I dont think u can ignore sexism when he had Suzanne on floor crawling,"dragged" Gladys Horton to Diana so the latter could gloat(per book),and berated Diana. I think they played each other. Diana's talent and charisma no queston helped the Surpemes to the top. But with the quality of HDH I think Mary could have led Where Did Our Love GO to #1 or FLo leading You Keep Me Hangin On to #1. I think Berry respected the Tempts wishes as he respected the Tops wishes to not put Levi in front.(And the Tempts walked away with their name as did the Miracles and the Contours). But when it came to women...and the women had a different dynamic with him and to some degree wanted his approval in a different way perahps. | ||
Jimmy Mack (luke) 4-Laureate Username: luke Post Number: 78 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.198.48.201 |
PS Suzanne De Passe's comments on the rampant sexism at Motown in the Ponner book on Motown. If any kind of "ism" exists on one level in an organization, it exists on all levels-nature of the beast. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 5-Doyen Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 258 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Jimmy, there has been lengthy discussion on Mr Posners book. If you check the recent archives, perhaps earlier this month or last month, the inaccuracies of his book are discussed. As regards Ms DePasse, as regards credibility, among most knowledgable Motown fans, she has few fans. When it comes to series like The Temptations & The Jacksons Series, she has produced some of the most unbelievably whitewashed stories imaginable. Her version of facts hold no water with me. This is the same woman who shaved 2 years off of Michaels age & told the world how Diana discovered The Jackson Five. As far as sexism & Berry, there have been several accounts, where Berry tossed Marvin a bit. Once while he was going through performance angst, Berry slapped him backstage. Another time when he demanded a meeting the day that either RFK or MLK was murdered. When Marvin started tripping on Berry, Berry almost broke him up. Make of that what you will, I think that Berry was an equal opportunity sort of guy. When Eddie Kendricks defied Berry regarding his He's A Friend LP cover, he fell out of Berry's good graces. The same for David Ruffin. Moral of the story, don't make the boss angry because, he won't forget. | ||
Lady Mystique (ladymystique) 5-Doyen Username: ladymystique Post Number: 215 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 66.33.227.122 |
Also, y'all gotta consider that most of the songs (especially Smokey's production on them) were written with a particular lead in mind, ie. MY GIRL was IMO tailor made for David to sing lead. Juice...according to Smokey's autobio, the rest of the group didn't mind the name change, in fact they welcomed it. And the Four Tops came into the fold with a "group" mentality. Also, I often wondered how different it would have been if the Supremes were marketed like the Tempations (3 leads in the group).  IMHO, for me to hear any other lead than what was released on the Temptations...I can't think of it. That means changing the song. | ||
zebop (zebop) 1-Arriviste Username: zebop Post Number: 9 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 205.188.116.138 |
I think there are a few problems with the group calling themselves, David Ruffin and the Temptations. Ruffin wasn't a founding member of the group and he was getting more flaky by the time he made the demand. I'm probably an equal David Ruffin and Temptations fan and the very idea of the name change is still very silly to me, don't know who talked Ruffin into that one... (Message edited by zebop on April 25, 2004) | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 5-Doyen Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 274 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
It's funny but I'm watching The Temptations DVD as I type this. Sad, sad thing when ego runs out of control & is unchecked. As a great poet wrote: "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til It's Gone." The problem was that David wasn't a original member of the group. He also was the one with the ego that craved center stage. As such, he was a potential problem, as they soon learned. LadyM, regarding The Miracles, that's true as Smokey was most deserving. As the co-architect of Motown & the everything man of The Miracles, he deserved the acknowledgement. I neglected to add Junior Walker & The All-Stars to this list. Naturally, Jr Walker was the All-Stars & they were billed that way before their arrival to Motown. Juice | ||
SisDetroit (sis) 3-Pundit Username: sis Post Number: 35 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.42.211.240 |
JuiceFree - My friend, when you saw the (untrue) movie, and decided that " Sad, sad thing when ego runs out of control & is unchecked." Were you referring to DRuffin or were you referring to Otis Williams? Could you explain.? Thanks. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 5-Doyen Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 275 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Hey Sis. I was speaking about the David Ruffin aspect of the thing. You already know how I feel about Otis & his ego. I wrote a lonnnnng thread on that one. Sis, all that I can speak of is the accounts that spoke of David & his problems with the hangers-on & drugs. Regarding Otis, I still think that the movie over dramatized his importance & made him appear to be sweeter than any of The Brady Bunch. Sister D, regarding David, are the accounts of his ego, etc overstated? I've read Tony Turners & other Motown books regarding him. Tony's books are the closest to anything written that paints a flattering picture of David. I must admit that while on one hand, Mr Turner praised David, he sure slapped him around a bit with the other. Even as he made excuses for David, he painted a most unflattering picture of his "godfather". (Message edited by Juicefree20 on April 25, 2004) (Message edited by Juicefree20 on April 25, 2004) | ||
Shawn1 (shawn1b) 3-Pundit Username: shawn1b Post Number: 54 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 65.26.97.112 |
Well I guess it's time for me to put my two cents in !First I don't understand what Martha's temper has to do with her being singled out of the Group as it's lead singer and her name be in front ?Second I thought that maybe David had a right to get the recognition that Ross and and Smokey and Martha got,I also that what David wanted as a name change reflected the Group because David was the main lead singer with some leads done by Eddie who I thought was just as good a singer as Ruffin !He seemed to beam when he sang .I understood why Otis wouldn't want the name change but I also see why Ruffin wanted what he did .I think in the Supremes Diana and Mary had it and to some degree Flo too all three Supremes seemed to draw you in from my opinion but in most people minds Diana as The Supremes .Shawn | ||
SisDetroit (sis) 3-Pundit Username: sis Post Number: 37 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.42.211.240 |
JuiceFree - I believe that anybody who has ladies chasing them all over the States has a big ego. I would have an ego if I had men lined up at my hotel door, waiting their turn just to get in bed with me. (Sorry kids, don't mean to get x-rated) Most entertainers are in that state of mind. Also, anybody who is addicted to drug has an attitude of destress and self disdain. David was not unique. I saw him on numerous occasions in his right mind. He was a wonderful individual. | ||
Weldon A. Mc Dougal III (weldon) 2-Debutant Username: weldon Post Number: 30 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.80.162.3 |
here's my good friend David Ruffin, he was a great singer.  | ||
SisDetroit (sis) 3-Pundit Username: sis Post Number: 38 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.42.211.240 |
Yes, that is the man. Thanks Weldon! The reason everybody is telling what they think and believe about DRuffin is because his own beloved family, his three daughters and their mother, have not come out and told you about the real Druffin. There have been several one on one interviews with Marvin Gaye, with him expressing himself about himself, his beliefs, hang ups, troubles, and other personal things. Documentaries have been made on Marvin. Because of this, we understand him more. We give him "more" respect for being who he was. We love him. None of those were done with DRuffin. We cannot get into his mind. Therefore, others, who have their own personal agenda, does it for us. And we, not having anything else to go on, accept what is said by those who are outside of his family, the ones who really love him for the individual who he was. Not saying that DRuffin wasn't his own worst enemy. But, Marvin Gaye was not far behind in being his own worst enemy as well. I love them both. God bless them. (Message edited by sis on April 26, 2004) (Message edited by sis on April 26, 2004) | ||
Morgan (leeway) 2-Debutant Username: leeway Post Number: 21 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 152.163.252.166 |
In reading all the posts, I find myself in total agreement with SisDetroit. I have loved the Temptations for all of my 38 yrs on this planet but my main man has always been and will always be David. To see the reaction whenever his name is brought up by people, someone always has to mention his ego and his drug problem and how he died, it's just a shame. Sure he played a vital role in how his life turned out, he made a lot of wrong choices and he paid a terrible price. Show me a "star" of any magnitude and I'll show you someone who has had/have trouble dealing with that type of adualation. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, so it goes without saying that some people can handle fame. However, most humans cannot deal with fame, it's not a "normal" human condition that most/all humans experience(i.e. puberty, menstral cycle etc..) that's why it's so difficult to handle. Are there self-help books on "How To Handle Fame" (and the hanger-ons that come with it)? No, because 98% of us aren't famous! No, most of them don't end up like David, but a lot of them have issues with trust and paranoia (sp?), drugs, drinking and other addictive behaviors. Fame is not all it's cracked up to be. If you TRULY, do not have God(whatever/whomever you believe in) in your life, an unshakable sense of self worth and esteem, a heart that is capable of receiving and giving love, then fame can hurt you in more ways than one. I can't imagine what his family feels, to always see or hear after his name has been mentioned, all the dirt and the ugly way in how he lived/died, to have that constantly brought up has to be painful. Keep in mind, that man left behind a legacy of music that puts me in a good mood when I'm feeling down, when I want to cleanse my eyeballs, his vocals on "I Wish It Would Rain" never fails!! I don't forsee in the future where I'm going to leave behind anything for the public at large, to remember me by and think of me fondly and say "Man, that Morgan sure could.....NAG!! (Sike?) Nope, nothing. He should be remembered in that way. | ||
tsaneladi (tsaneladi) 3-Pundit Username: tsaneladi Post Number: 61 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.32.91.222 |
I think we all agree here that The Temptations were great, and with a variey of leads to focus on. The who's and why's make it all a bit blurry. The bigger question that baffles and saddens me to this day is why they are not considered at the same level as say, the Rolling Stones, The Who or other premier pop artists. I want to think its not a race thing, but its hard to look past that when you think it through | ||
SisDetroit (sis) 3-Pundit Username: sis Post Number: 40 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.42.211.240 |
As you all know, DRuffin was recording solo before he joined the Tempts. I really like those solo recordings. Perhaps that is why he wanted his name in front of the Temptations. To show that there was a difference in the two units. When he joined the Tempts, I enjoyed his performances. All lead singers love having great background vocals. It's just like the rhythm section of a band. The pieces fitting in properly. It's like a dance. The guy leads the girl, and the girl, not knowing the next step, follows that guy in perfect harmony. Perhaps the group had good reason to think DRuffin would leave them eventually. They had good reason, as he had already proven he was a soloist. I'm glad he left the Tempts and continued with his career. Just think, if he had not, I wouldn't have all these albums with just his name on it. :o) Thank you David. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 5-Doyen Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 289 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Morgan, let me respond. As for myself, I didn't know Mr Ruffin. I don't think that anyone is saying that Davids problems are unique & that his ego is any worse than anyone elses. We're only responding to the question that was posed. We're also responding based on the information that we've received over the last 35 years or so. When someone asks a question such as was asked in this thread, how can we not touch base on the things that went into his departure from the group? There's no way to avoid it, as unpleasant as it may be. Remember, we didn't print these articles & books. Unfortnately, some of this negative info has been perpetuated by many who are supposed to be among his biggest supporters. These people praise him & at the same time throw dirt on him. As most of us didn't know him, what else would we use as basis to understand him & what really went on? There were rumors about him, a famous star & a hammer. I didn't believe that then & I've never stated ugly things like that when I discuss David. If these things are untrue, then someone needs to stand up for David & show where this 30 year-old info is wrong. If I had info that would help, I certainly would do that. If someone printed untrue & libelous statement about a loved one of mine, I would sue the hell out of the writer, the publisher & anyone else that I could. Sis, I agree with you. Most of us really didn't know David & as such, we are beholden to those "who know" to inform us of such things. I also believe that from reading Marvin's own words, if his books are to be believed, that he was far more self-destructive than David was. I will also state that I would want no part of fame. Fame is not an easy thing to deal with. I wouldn't want that kind of microscope on my life. Today, the media fly helicopters over entertainers property, follow them everywhere, root through their garbage for a "scoop". Worst of all is the unrealistic expectations of the adoring public. You're not allowed to have a bad day, a bad performance & are not allowed to be what we all are....human. There's an unfair standard, where entertainers can't screw up, can't make the same mistakes as so-called "normal" people do & are not allowed to have any chinks in their armor. I would want no part of being famous because I know what comes with it. When I first started DJing at 17, I experienced it on a very small scale. Women wanted to sit behind the turntables, so that their friends could see that they were with the DJ. In some warped way, for reasons that I never understood, it meant something to them to be sitting with the DJ. In those wonderful pre-aids days, I can't begin to tell you how many women were more than happy to be "friendly" with a DJ. As a 17 year old, I appreciated them all immensely, it was nice to have "friends". As I got older, they would want to come & sit in my booth which was isolated. They would stand up & wave to all of their friends. I mean, I wasn't Frankie Crocker or Flash. However, I never took everything that came my way & never believed that I was so wonderful. I learned early to look at most things with a jaundiced eye, I'm suspicious by nature. I understood that some of these women weren't being around me because they loved me. Sure they liked me & not to be arrogant, I was a pretty nice looking guy in those days. However, I realized that most had their agenda firmly in place, so I didn't get into that ego-tripping crap. As a result, I didn't fall into the drinking & drugs that took so many down just a few short years later. Now, I was no world renown DJ, just a young guy starting out & learning the ropes. I also found that you can't trust many people. Either someone's trying to be friendly with you so they can get a foot in the door. After getting a foot in the door, they tried to slit your throat & get your job. I was always a pretty perceptive person & I always downplayed my ego, as I didn't believe that I walked on water. Sadly, too many others believed the hype & fell in love with the man in the mirror. The aftermath usually wasn't very pretty. Now, that was my miniscule brush with fame, which wouldn't equate to a gnat dropping on an mountain. If my experiences had been multiplied 10,000 times like what entertainers experience, I'd have exploded. It's simply too much...too much attention, too much "love", too much adulation, too much of everything. I don't know how any of them handle it. How do you know who likes you for you, rather than the image that they have of you? How do you know who wants to use you for their own purposes? How can you know which woman "loves" you so much that she wants to have your baby, so that you can upgrade her lifestyle? How do you know what friend is going to sell you out, when you can't give them everything that they ask you for because they just happen to need "a few dollars"? The point is, no one is trying to put David down. We didn't say that he is a murderer, or a thief. In my opinion, from what I've read it seems as though David only hurt David. We're not knocking him, we're just trying to understand & make sense of things that we truly don't understand. You have to realize that most people dream of being a star. Most of us don't understand just how difficult that is. They don't understand the group dynamics & ndon't understand why so many stars have problems. Most of us figure that we'd be happy to live that type of life & that stars should be happy & have everything that they could possibly want. They honestly don't understand how stars can have problems, don't these stars have the perfect life? However, fame, fortune & adolation aside, these stars have one thing in common with the rest of us........THEY'RE HUMAN! With that comes all of the human frailties, mental anguish, self-doubt, sickness & problems, usally mulitiplied ten-fold. Fame.......................YOU CAN HAVE IT!!! Juice (Message edited by Juicefree20 on April 26, 2004) | ||
Tony Russi (tony_russi) 3-Pundit Username: tony_russi Post Number: 35 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.18.233.118 |
SisDetroit that was well said.I met David Ruffin through Martha Reeves and found him to be a wonderful, decent, nice person.You are correct now that I think about, I never read an indepth interview with David Ruffin(or Eddie Kendricks for that matter)it was always more like a publicity story.One thing is for sure, David Ruffin is one of the greatest vocalist to ever grace our planet. | ||
Ritchie (ritchie) 4-Laureate Username: ritchie Post Number: 89 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 62.254.0.32 |
Why are the Temptations not considered as highly as the likes of the Stones or the Who? Well - that of course depends on who you ask! I'd say it's all down to plain and simple snobbery. Music fans (and that also includes critics) can be a snooty bunch, and particularly among "Rock Music" fans, maximum respect is accorded to those artists who write their own songs and play their own instruments. "Soul groups" like the Temps and the Tops do neither, so they're looked down upon by those who view such performers as less "creative" artists. (Don't blast me - this is their opinion, not mine!) Pausing to consider the colour aspect for a moment, let's consider a few Black artists who are acceptable to the Rock Fraternity... Jimi Hendrix - guitarist and songwriter. Marvin Gaye - singer-songwriter, multi-instrumentalist and took control of his music. Stevie Wonder - ditto. Bob Marley - guitar-toting spiritual Third World 'rebel' with a message... and so on. Bobby Womack etc. etc. But, when the Rock Snobs look at the Temptations they see a bunch of guys with no instruments, singing and dancing to other people's songs - they just can't connect. Ignoring the colour question, "Rock artists" are always preferred by the nose-in-the-air crew to "pop singers" - (suggesting that Rockers produce "art" but popsters are only "singers"!) So - Bruce Springsteen: yes, Bobby Sherman: no. Curtis Mayfield: yes, Johnny Mathis: no. The whole argument is pretty unrealistic, though. Looking at a different field of entertainment, are actors criticised for not writing their own scripts? | ||
Kevin Goins - KevGo (kevgo) 3-Pundit Username: kevgo Post Number: 66 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.115.136.66 |
Ritchie: And folks wonder why I have an issue with the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame...they are run by the same bunch of snobs that hold rock music on high..(inducting Smokey Robinson WITHOUT the Miracles...and they FINALLY inducted the Dells....don't get me started). Kevin Goins - KevGo | ||
Ritchie (ritchie) 4-Laureate Username: ritchie Post Number: 90 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 62.254.0.32 |
Amen, Kevin | ||
Eva (bigswede2002) 2-Debutant Username: bigswede2002 Post Number: 26 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 130.237.171.253 |
Hi Ritchie, re: rock attitudes towards "pop" music...that was so well put! I have detected a bit of a change in attitude lately, though. I don't read mags like "Mojo" regularly, but when I do pick up an issue, I get the impression that some of that rock snobbery is starting to wear off. For example, they will review (and even praise!) re-issues by stand up vocal groups like the Chi-Lites. I can imagine that back in the seventies the Chi-Lites' brand of sweet soul would probably have been considered "commercial", "sacharine" and God knows what, compared to those allegedly more "creative" and "artful" progressive rock groups, who are by now almost forgotten (thank God!) And this despite the fact that Eugene Record fits pretty well into the rock ideal of songwriter/singer/producer...I guess he was just working in the wrong style of music. I could go on forever on this topic, but I have to sign off. Thanks again for expressing my thoughts better than I could have done myself! Eva | ||
Shawn1 (shawn1b) 3-Pundit Username: shawn1b Post Number: 56 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 65.26.97.112 |
The Temptations may not be considered as high as the Rolling Stones by some but by some The Rolling Stones aren't that aren't considered at all !Shawn | ||
Morgan (leeway) 2-Debutant Username: leeway Post Number: 23 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.12.116.138 |
Juicefree: I never stated that David's problems were unique, nor did I imply that anyone was putting him in the same league as a murderer or thief, I could go on and on responding to your post, but I won't. The gist of what I was trying to say (I really thought my post was quite clear) was how it must hurt his family to always see his name associated with the ugly facts/rumours/innuendo etc...circling around his life. I wrote that "David hurt David" (not in those exact words, but I wrote he caused his own misery by the choices he made.) Gee wiz, what'd I say??? Someone else brought up his family, I just took it a step further. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 5-Doyen Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 312 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
Morgan, I don't understand your reply. The first two paragraphs were addressed to you. I understand that it was a long post. If you re-read the first two paragraphs, you'll see that those were the only two addressed to you. Nowhere in those two paragraphs did I mention that you said anything about his family. Neither did I state that you said that Davids' problems were unique. I was merely acknowledging that his problems were not unique, due to your accurate statement that, and I quote: "Show me a "star" of any magnitude and I'll show you someone who has had/have trouble dealing with that type of adualation." In actuality, I'm agreeing with you, was I wrong to agree with your truthful statement? I understood your point exactly. If you read my post again, you'll find that I first addressed you, responded to Sister Detroits' statement, then gave an example of how difficult fame must be to handle. I gave some personal experiences as an illustration. I thought that it was understood that once I addressed Sis, my focus was no longer on you. After responding to Sis, I was speaking in general. In summation, I don't quite understand why you feel so offended by a post that basically, is in agreement with your statements. As I thought that we were somewhat in agreement, so I took it a little further. Silly me, my bad for agreeing with you. My intent was not to offend you, but, merely try to give a reasoned response to your post. I didn't see anything in my post that was rude or disrespectful to you in any way. I find it a bit distasteful, that I feel compelled to apologize for no apparent reason. I thought that this was a forum where we share different & similar points of view. I didn't think that we had to walk on egg shells here. If you re-read the post in question & still believe that I was coming down on you, then I humbly apologize in advance! However, to make sure that this sort of misunderstanding will not re-occur, I will make certain to never address you by name in this forum in the future. Peace! Juice | ||
roger (roger) 2-Debutant Username: roger Post Number: 26 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 217.35.87.17 |
Hello Everyone. Purely keeping on the subject of this thread I think it would have been grossly unfair on EDDIE KENDRICKS if the group had been renamed "DAVID RUFFIN AND THE TEMPTATION", after all, Eddie sang lead on their "Breakthrough" hit .. "The Way You Do the Things You Do" and its follow ups "I'll be in Trouble" and "Girl, Why You Wanna Make Me Blue" ( Great favourite of mine ) as well as on their Billboard R&B #1 hit "Get Ready" (Which later went on to become their first Top 10 hit in the U.K.) Richie That was a great post of yours on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:26 pm. I particularly liked your comment at the end "are actors criticised for not writing their own scripts?" I shall have to remember that one!! However, I think we also need to look beyond "Rock" fans to see some of the worst excesses of musical snobbery. I have a friend who is convinced that popular musicians should be able to write and perform their own songs .. apparently he considers this to be "True Art" and the 60s Motown artists don't conform to this ideal so he thinks it can't be "art" at all!! The funny thing is he is a great fan of Opera Music!! Now, forgive me if I am wrong, but as far as I'm aware LUCIANO PAVAROTTI ( just to take him as an example ) never wrote any of the songs he sings, and he can't play an instrument, yet if he sings why is it considered "Art" whereas if DAVID RUFFIN sings it isn't (or wasn't). Personally I can't see any conceptual difference between a piece of music being conceived by the likes of MOZART or VERDI, with an orchestra to play the music and vocalists to sing the words, and people such as NORMAN WHITFIELD or VAN McCOY doing the same. But try telling this to the average Opera fan!! Roger | ||
Ritchie (ritchie) 4-Laureate Username: ritchie Post Number: 92 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 62.254.0.32 |
Roger - I'm in full agreement with you, but folks whose interest is solely in classical music rarely have time for Rock, Pop, Soul or anything that's less than 20 minutes long, less than a century old, and not played by a symphony orchestra! I've yet to see a review, favourable or otherwise, of a Temptations album in The Gramophone or any similar "serious music" magazine... Regarding artists who are simply "singers" - there's little criticism of for example, Frank Sinatra or Ella Fitzgerald for "not writing their own songs". On the contrary, they are viewed as interpreters, vocal stylists - they put their unique stamp on another person's composition. That of course is no different to the Temptations, or any other similar artist of quality, who take a song and (forgive the clich�) "make it their own". Nor is it too far removed from the conductor who puts his own interpretation on the notes that Beethoven inked on the musical score, or as you suggested, Pavarotti's take on Verdi's composition. And, continuing the comparison, that again is exactly the function of an actor - to bring to life the black-and-white print of the author's script. None of these arguments will of course sway the opinion of a person whose mind is already closed.... but it's fun trying ;o) | ||
douglasm (douglasm) 3-Pundit Username: douglasm Post Number: 45 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.113.12.67 |
Interesting arguement, but someone define "Rock" for me. From my (white-suburban) perspective, radio began to break apart in the late '60's and early '70's, and I think this may be part of the problem, as the "progressive" stations tended to shy away from anything that hinted as "pop". Except for the Temptations version of "War", I can't think of a "pop" song WABX played after they got over their Peanut Butter Conspiracy phase, and as audiences drifted to this form of music, and music mags catered to them, the riff began to form.... One thing I REALLY appreciate about the folks here is that you all realise that the musical spectrum covers a vast arena, and even though you may not like a perticular form of music, you understand its right to exist. Except maybe for David Gates. | ||
roger (roger) 2-Debutant Username: roger Post Number: 27 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 217.35.87.17 |
Douglasm .. Here is my definition of "Rock" .. "Guitar based popular music, recorded after the mid 60's (1966?) aimed primarily at an audience in their late-teens/early-twenties". Or at least that WOULD have been my definition of "Rock" in the late '70s. I don't think the music has changed that much in the last 25 years, but the audience has grown older. I think that "guitar based" is probably the operative term here .. Soul/R&B is primarily drum/rhythm based, with everything being built up from that. "Rock" is primarily "Guitar based" with the vocals and drums etc. being layered to fit in with the guitars. I think that the temptation to define "Rock" by race .. i.e. if the act is black it is "R&B" and if it is white it is "Rock" .. miss the point as some of the most influential "Rock" acts were black .. CHUCK BERRY virtually invented it and JIMI HENDRIX refined it. Like you I'm white and had a suburban upbringing (albeit in England) and it has been an enduring mystery to me why "Rock" is so popular, especially in The States. Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject. Roger | ||
douglasm (douglasm) 3-Pundit Username: douglasm Post Number: 46 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.113.12.67 |
Agreed, Rodger, but to amplify my point.... ....when I grew up, "rock and roll" covered a wide spectrum of music and was played on only 2 radio stations in Detroit (well, CHYR, also...), and to look at a WKNR music guide from that era you'd find a little bit of everything. When the "progressive" era started, radio began to divide rock into sub-sets, and this trend has continued to this day, what with "Classic", "Soft", "AOR", "AAA", "Up tempo AOR", "Hit", and its many varied forms, all catering to a specific audience with a specific format. I'm a country music jock, and up until the last couple of years, C&W emulated '60's rock radio, being all things to all people. Now it's beginning to divide in the same way, into fragmented formats, George Jones being a tuneout to some formats. Watch the arguements begin here (we've had discussions at my station), and you'll see what happened to "rock" radio. Douglasm Michael Morgan KVLR-FM | ||
SisDetroit (sis) 3-Pundit Username: sis Post Number: 48 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.42.211.240 |
Ritchie - You explain things quite logical. When DRuffin was hired to sing with the group, he took with him, a soulful style which took the group, particularly the Company to greater heights. So, if Al wasn't a lead singer on recordings, then we cannot say that DRuffin replaced Al, a mere background singer. Berry was wise to have brought a great solo/lead singer to the group, enhancing the quality. Just as GC Cameron's style, being so different than Barrington's, has put a different edge of soul for the group which is called "The Temptations." I had an interesting experience last night listening to the radio program with Richard Street. They concentrated on his leads. Prior to last night, other than when he was with the Monitors, I had not given R. Street the recognition he truly deserves. I do that now. I enjoyed the program tremendously. | ||
Ritchie (ritchie) 4-Laureate Username: ritchie Post Number: 93 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 62.254.0.32 |
Without wanting to get bogged down in semantics, perhaps I might make the observation that there's a fundamental difference in the way the word "Rock" is generally understood on either side of the Atlantic. "Rock" (UK) usually refers to white, guitar-based music, often self-composed, and with some pretentions to artistic, political, or creative value. In general, "Pop" is music designed for enjoyment and selling the maximum number of records. It usually has no artistic pretensions and usually concentrates on singles rather than albums. (Though many pop albums are promoted on the strength of: "includes the hits xxxx, xxxxx and xxxxx!) But, to complicate matters, "Rock" is accepted as being part of "Pop Music" in general - "Pop" referring to almost anything that isn't so-called "serious" music, such as Classical, Jazz or Opera. You could say that "Rock And Roll" (in its US meaning) roughly equates to what Brits would generally call "Pop Music". Incidentally, Brits only use the term "Rock'n'Roll" when talking about the music of the fifties. The term "Rock And Roll" doesn't have any modern connotations to us. Buddy Holly was Rock'n'Roll, but no-one over here would describe David Bowie as "Rock'n'Roll" even if US fans might consider him a "Rock And Roll" artist. Of course, the US tends to understand "Rock" in a different way, meaning most forms of Pop music that aren't strictly ho-hum MOR. As an example, the Allmusic site classes Motown artists as "Rock", which we Brits actually find very strange, for reasons I hope I've explained! | ||
Arcadia (arcadia) 2-Debutant Username: arcadia Post Number: 21 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 4.237.47.31 |
I hope this works. I'm new at the computer. For my SD friends. http://www.thetemptations.ourf amily.com/images/i-5_B%20supre mes%20&%20tempts%20foto.jpg | ||
douglasm (douglasm) 3-Pundit Username: douglasm Post Number: 47 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.113.12.67 |
Richie.... .....this is an interesting topic, but it's piggybacking on Jimmy Mack's equally interesting thread. Would someone like to start a new thread, maybe summerising the rock/soul discussion that has taken place so far? doug | ||
Ritchie (ritchie) 4-Laureate Username: ritchie Post Number: 94 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 62.254.0.32 |
Doug - that's probably a good idea, but how to do it..? Ideas..? | ||
douglasm (douglasm) 3-Pundit Username: douglasm Post Number: 48 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.113.12.67 |
Richie.... .....there's a number of questions i have. Has radio fractionalized the audience to the point that it may have segregated it, and if so, how did it happen? Do adults not by CD's anymore? Why is the rock press so narrowminded, or are we? BUT, I would like someone with more backround than me to start it off. doug | ||
Ritchie (ritchie) 4-Laureate Username: ritchie Post Number: 98 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 62.254.0.32 |
Well, Doug - I can't comment on US radio - our experience is totally different. Did you know that until 1967 there were (disregarding the short-lived pirate stations) only three radio channels in England? The BBC had a total monopoly until the seventies. Also, there was no local radio till 1970, (again BBC) - and no commercial radio till 1974, so I don't think there's much I could contribute on that subject... | ||
Lady Mystique (ladymystique) 5-Doyen Username: ladymystique Post Number: 246 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 216.222.243.111 |
I think I will add my two cents... BTW, nice pix Weldon! wow that fro was huge! It seems to me that David is remembered more for his "ego" than his talent. Maybe it outweighs it, but I can remember when the ED SULLIVAN show was in syndication, The Tempts were featured and I can't remember what they were singing, but I can't help but remember how David stood out...I mean, he went down in a split and came up like nothing without missing a note or beat! Don't get me wrong...the performance was awesome, harmonies were tight, but just seeing what David did was great! I wish that we could know more about him, but I'd rather remember the music. KevGo-you have my AMEN on your comment! | ||
douglasm (douglasm) 3-Pundit Username: douglasm Post Number: 49 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.113.12.67 |
What makes the Temptations really interesting from a historical perspective is that they COULD lose what was at that time their defining voice (David) and continue their sucuess for many more years. When they were at their height of popularity, how many casual listeners actually took notice of the change? I know I didn't, they were THE TEMPTATIONS. | ||
Don (don) 4-Laureate Username: don Post Number: 73 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.75.59.193 |
My favorite song that David sang lead w/ The Tempts is " I Could Never Love Another After Loving You". |
