By Isaiah (64.12.96.238) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 08:27 pm:

Peops, pardon my ignorance, but I am interested to know why Otis Williams, the man who has kept the mighty Temptin' Tempts a polished prodigious record-making machine all of these years, is such a hated man? All he did was be a leader, who kept this outfit together for the past 42 years, when it's great stars were trying to pull at the seams of the organization... It is true that none of us ever went to see the Temptations live, or bought their records because of Otis Williams, but if David Ruffin and Eddie Kendricks were charged with leading this group, and keeping it organized, would this prodigiously wonderful group have lasted this long, and gone down in history as the greatest R&B quintet in history??? Help me, SDF, to understand in a balanced and objective way, why I'm not hip to the trick(s)of Public Enemy #1, Otis Williams... Tell me why it is he who should've been kicked out of the Tempts instead of David...or Eddie...

Peace!
Isaiah

By NYC Diva (67.31.76.217) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 08:32 pm:

This ought to be REALLY good. LOL

*gettin the hot wings and Kool Aid*

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:00 pm:

Otis was ok. Nothing special. We always thought he would trip over his feel whenever the group did the Temptation walk, or any of their routines. After everyone passed on, Otis was still just ok. During the time when I was interested in the Classic Temptations, he never said anything. We always called him gumpy. He was still ok. Since everyone passed, he is obiviously the only one left to talk.

I stopped liking Otis when he started pretending that he had always talked for the group. I started disliking Otis during the movie, when he DRuffin was thrown out of the limo into the street, and it was said DRuffin was in the morgue for a week as JohnDoe, which was totally inaccurate. I haven't liked him since the movie.

By Vandelron (68.198.48.201) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:00 pm:

lol NYC Diva. Next we can talk about Diana!!

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.82) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:14 pm:

From books like Tony Turners' & assorted comments gleaned from various reading, the consensus seems to be: he was the least talented, yet acted as the main attraction. I can see how that could lead to some resentment. It reminds me of the days when people thought that Teddy Pendergrass was Harold Melvin. Most group leaders are the lead singer. I'm sure that many of The Temptations lead singers might have felt that Otis had a lot of nerve playing boss, when he never sang lead on a hit song. Some felt that he kinda kissed up to Berry so that he'd have some power.

I don't know if that's true & don't much care. I'm not particularily pro-Otis or anti-Otis. I honestly have ambivalent feelings toward him. What I do know is that he's kept The Temptations a viable & quality group through countless personnel changes & many years after the average group has disappeared. That's a very difficult trick to pull off & just for accomplishing that, the man deserves major props.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 09:37 pm:

It was not so difficult to keep the Temptations alive. Think of the great recordings they did, and this alone was reason to have a Temptations group. Because of those great recordings by the Classic Six, anyone could have carried the name Temptations and drew the crowds. It did not have to be Otis. In fact, the name is all that Otis has to offer. That is why he continued to be a Temptation. Where else could he go? What group or company has tried to recruit Otis from the Temptations?

There are other groups still together. It's not like Otis's Temptations is the only 60's or 70's group that's still touring or still active. The Temptations is just one of the groups that's still active.

By b.soul (64.12.96.238) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:22 pm:

Don't forget the Dells are still together with the SAME LINE-UP THEY HAVE HAD SINCE 1959!!!!!

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.82) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:27 pm:

You're talking to me b.soul. I've written about The Dells, The Isleys, The Four Tops & The Whispers several times here acknowledging their longevity & quality. I love Marvin Junior & The Dells. Sis, I get the feeling that you don't care much for Mr Williams. Could you elaborate further? Here in N.Y., there is an ambivalence toward him, you you give me some insight how the folks who were there regard him???

Also, Sis, if you've read Tony Turners' books, how accurate were they? Was he on point with his writings???

By Isaiah (64.12.96.238) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:44 pm:

BigSis, just playing devil's advocate here, pun intended, it is true those groups longevity is even longer than the Tempts, no doubt, but did those groups have personalities on the par with a David Ruffin or Eddie Kendricks??? In other words, did they have disruptive forces within their groups on a par with David...

Now, I've heard David gets a bad rap in that area, but I have to believe there was a reason Berry Gordy saw fit to remove David Ruffin from the group... I don't believe for a second Otis removed David, because he did not call the shots at Motown... If that were possible, for the founders of a group to remove whom they chose, then Florence Ballard could've removed Dianna from the Supremes...

Once again, I am just asking for a fair appraisal of Otis Williams... I am clear that he was not as talented as the rest of the cats, but as we know, in any organization there may be exceedingly gifted and talented folk, but their must be a supervisory presence around none-the-less, and some folks talent is in the area of leadership... Could it be that THIS was Otis Williams great contribution to the Temptations..?

Peace!
Isaiah

By Frankie B. (65.35.203.15) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 10:57 pm:

RIGHT ON b.soul!!!!!!!! The dells were THEN and they are NOW!!!! The tempts are Otis Williams and four of a whole lot of replacements. At least, however, there are not several different groups touring under the same name, and you have to give Otis credit for that. After, "Lady Soul", I just couldnt keep up with all the ins and outs in that group. It's like the Ink Spots. It's hard to get excited by a guy singing "My Girl" who could be your own sons age. I did think his black horn-rimmed glasses (a-la David Ruffin) were a nice touch, though..

By janebse (68.63.6.8) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:01 pm:

Motown experts say that it is Otis' voice around which the unique Temptation harmonies are created, that he is the source of what makes the Temptations so great. There are many soloists but the person who does not seek to stand out in front but contributes from behind is often the one who makes something a success.

When you say "hated," Otis is not hated by the public. I suspect people are jealous that he is alive, and the others have passed on. And, to tell the truth, anyone who gets to be a big success in this country gets a lot of hate from all who are jealous of his/her success. And it's not only people, it's teams, companies, anything. Jealousy and envy are prevalent.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:02 pm:

Juicyfree20 - Yes, I read Tony's book. I laughed through out. I have no idea whether Tony was telling the truth. I wasn't there to witness those episodes. I don't dislike Tony for his story. He did not write as if he was stretching the truth. It was a very humerous story.

Otis purports to have continued to say "No one man is bigger than the group." So, why then does everyone think Otis called the shots?

Plus, Otis allegedly told DRuffin he would kick his as-. David would have loved for Otis to even look like he wanted to do that. (LOL)

I believe it was Gordy and Shelly who called the shot. I also believe Gordy wanted DRuffin to go solo.

Think about the co-workers on your job. Isn't it so that the less talented employee is the one to run to the boss and cause problems for those that knew their jobs, and for those who earned the right to get a raise? Why then, did the less qualified, the one who produced less, always got the raise? Why would the boss call in the non-productive and convince that employee that he was a good boy, and if he continued to be a good boy, he wouldn't have to worry about the future?

By janebse (68.63.6.8) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:03 pm:

I really do not like threads like this. They are so negative. There's enough hate, jealousy, envy in the world already. It should not be continued. Start a thread of "Why is someone so loved or so wonderful or so kind?" There's no need to concentrate on hate.

By ~medusa~ (68.250.8.157) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:04 pm:

I can't say I hate or dislike Otis Williams, I don't know him personally, but just being a fan on the outside looking in, I liked all of the Temps...now that the rest of the group is no longer here, Otis feel it's his job to keep everything in order regarding the Group as a whole...I think he makes certain changes for whatever reason, to better and maintain the Group,as long as possible. I bet it was very hard for him to get used to performing with new lineups, after being with David, Paul, Eddie, and Melvin for so long. We'll never know what he goes through doing recording sessions and stage performances without his long time members(friends)...so many memories probably come to him on certain songs.
It's hard to imagine starting all over again and again with different Group members, without finding himself comparing them to his old Group buddies, that have made their transitions.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:08 pm:

I am being nice to Otis under this thread. You really don't want to read what I can say about the man. I've always maintained my silence on that on this Forum.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:11 pm:

I believe 100% that: "Motown experts say that it is Otis' voice around which the unique Temptation harmonies are created."

It they did not do that, then would there be harmony?

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:28 pm:

As a matter of fact, I don't normally talk negative about any of our artist on this Forum. I think it is distasteful, so I don't. There is plenty to be told, but I believe their private lives should remain private as well as possible.

By NYC Diva (207.69.137.22) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:32 pm:

Janebse: Oh, please. No one is jealous of the fact that Otis is alive. Maybe you are jealous of the fact that Eddie, David, Paul and Melvin were so revered in life and now, in death, and you don't want to give them credit for anything!

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.82) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:47 pm:

Sis, I think that you are on point. I bet that there are a lot of people who would buy your book. I can understand how janebse feels about the negativity. With due respect, let me say the following: We, the fan do not create the ficticious biographical information about celebrities. Unfortunately, press agents & sometimes, artists themselves like to perpetuate a squeaky clean image that never existed. These are merely men & women, prone to the same foibles, excesses & faults that us "mere" mortals possess.

I, for one, do not expect my favorite artist to be a God. I can accept the fact that they are human & not perfect. I buy their music on the strength of whether I like it or not. I love James Browns' music, his personal lifestyle doesn't affect my love for his music. The problem is that many get caught up with an image that is too close to perfection. Too many people put these stars on a pedestal, then become disappointed when they discover their blemishes & faults. You can best believe that if someone is being promoted as though they're too good to be true, there'll be someone waiting to expose the skeletons in the closet. One thing that I have discovered is that few people are interested in truth. Most of us want to think the way that we want to think, believe the things that we want to believe. Where entertainers are concerned, we think that we know them, we want to believe all of the wonderful press. If the truth dares to raise it's ugly head, we get mad & defensive. If you're going to tell a story, tell the whole story. The point is this, if the truth were told from day one, there'd be no scandals to uncover years later.

Here's one example: When I was about 14 years old, I read a book by Hank Aaron. It was an instructional book & he denounced drinking & smoking. In fact, he stated that he'd never smoked. I thought: Wow, that's cool, Hank Aaron says don't smoke. Flash forward 2 years later & Hank's now playing with the Brewers. They were at Yankee Stadium playing The Yankees. What do you think was on the back page of the Sports section??? Hank Aaron, smoking a cigarette in the dugout! I still have the copy of the back page. Now, tell me, what do you think I thought about Hank Aaron, who was only one of my favorite Baseball players? I'll tell you, I thought that he was a hypocrite & a liar, that's what I felt. I would have respected it more if he'd said nothing about cigarettes at all. That's straight out of the "Do as I say do, not as I do" school & I disagree with that. I felt the same way when I learned the truth about Ms Ross' "discovery" of The Jackson Five. Hell, I know of a few rappers back in the early 80s who were doing anti-drug spots. I had to laugh, because I had personally witnessed these guys snorting coke on the regular. Hell, a lot of us had a good laugh at that.

The point is, be real & don't create unrealistic images. If you're going to tell the good, you'd better balance it out with the not so good. As I said, there'll always be someone who knows the truth, waiting to expose you. As they say, don't get mad at the messenger!

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 11:59 pm:

Juicefree20 - Great stories.

I agree that "if the truth were told from day one, there'd be no scandals to uncover years later."

As far as people hating Otis. I admit I dislike him, but I cannot recall reading or hearing anyone say that they hate Otis.

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.82) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:15 am:

Hey Sis, that pendulum swings both ways. How about the press releases that revel in how so & so is a real bad boy from the hood, keeping it "real". I remember the Vanilla Ice hype from the late 80s, how he was such a "bad boy". Them the covers were pulled, exposing his 'ghetto" mexperience to be a sham. This was also perpetuated with many rappers in the late 80s-early 90s. Many were promoted as being dirt-po' boys from the hood, living the thug-life. Many of them were exposed as being false. This bad boy image resulted in the death of one of Hip-hops most intelligent & talented artist: Tupac. This was a brother who willingly embraced this thug image, however, he wasn't quite that at the start. However, he got caught up in the hype with fatal results. That's the other side of the publicity coin.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:23 am:

It broke my heart when Tupac was killed. It was almost unbelieveable. You know how some people don't want to believe Elvis is dead? Well, it is still hard to imagine that Tubac is no longer with us.

By vince (63.196.243.35) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:34 am:

I am about as old as the first group of Temptations and has always been a fan of theirs as far back as I remember wearing diapers and now that I am in my early 40's and just met Otis Williams in the last Ten years while in LA, I would have to say that he was a very nice gentleman and he was very respectful and I have heard the rumors, considering the fact that in my last 13 years I met a man who wrote and produced most of the Temptation hits and I also personally worked for this man in my music career and I have asked the question on several occasion to none other than Mr. Norman Whitfield himself, someone they say (in the movie) had a problem with Otis. Well, coming from the horses mouth, I was told that there was nothing against Otis Williams and people respected him, he did in most instances keep the Tempts on their game and helped shape the Tempts when there were new members and of course egos and personalities always clashed but there was still something unique about Otis and what he brought to the group, he dealt with alot of stuff. The other question was, and I know this may open up a can worms but I would like to know myself, and that is, Why was Norman Whitfield Hated so much? He has only spoken kind words about everyone and everything at Motown in those days and he has taught me such a great deal about the music business just from his experience alone and he has always told me never to make the mistakes he had made and if everyone at Motown had known what was in store for them in the future, they all would have probably took their talent elsewhere, but that wasn't the case, the case was there was an opportunity right there at Motown with Berry Gordy and the rest of the crew and everything was based on competition so everybody was too busy grinding it out in the studio trying to come up with the big hit instead worrys about the business side, they let Barry do what he did best with everything and they trusted him. Norman has said to me that most problems with him or Otis or anybody else's was self inflicted and personal stuff but never business. He has said that some people made it and some didn't and has often said that at first He was not one of Berry's favorite's, but he still loved him like a father. I am sorry forum, but I have gotten into Norman and Berry and this is about Otis. I have heard that Otis is no different than anybody else's, he is a man with a ego and has the right to have a ego cause he is part of history no matter what his role was in the Temptations, everybody knows that he was there in the beginning and he is definitely the last original Temptation standing. By the way, I do count Dennis Edwards as an original member cause in my day, I knew nothing different when I heard Cloud Nine and Runaway Child, Running Wild, I didn't know if it was David or Dennis, but I do know it was the Temptations sound with Otis Williams. Peace out and let's leave those people alone cause we can go on and on and on and on....
So next Question please?

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.82) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:36 am:

The shame of it all, is that it was so damn unnecessary. This was a brother with exceptional talent. He could've been a great actor, he was capable of creating thoughtful lyrics & he had charisma. This was the type of young man who could have been a leader, a true leader, he was that intelligent. As I said, he got caught up in the hype, the image & couldn't seperate himself from it. It simply devoured him & we'll never know the type of positive impact he could have had. Meanwhile, the hype wheel just keeps on spinning & keepin' it "real. One day they'll understand that the truth really does set you free.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:54 am:

If Otis has the right to have an ego, then Anita Baker has the right to have an ego, as well as Luther, and Aretha.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:55 am:

In fact, they have more rights since they can sing a capella by themselves.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:56 am:

I did not know that Norman Whitfield was disliked.

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.82) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 01:30 am:

Vince, the songs that you were mentioned were not The Temptations sound with Otis Williams. That was the Norman Whitfield sound featuring The Temptations. The fact that he was part of a legendary group does not mean that he has a right to have an ego. If it were me, I'd feel very humbled to have been fortunate enough to have backed up such great singers as: David Ruffin, Eddie Kendricks, Dennis Edwards, Ron Tyson & Ollie Woodson. Yes, The Temptations as a unit had great harmonies. Tell me this, is it easier to replace a David, Eddie, Dennis, Ollie, or Ron, or to replace an Otis??? Think about that & tell me what you think.

I give all due respect to Otis for holding it together after the great voices had gone. However, by keeping The Tempts alive, he also keeps himself alive. Dennis, David & Eddie had some success in their solo careers & Ron had some success with The Ethics. How do you think Otis would do as a solo artist?? I give him credit, however, let's do so from the proper perspective. The Tempts would not & could not have thrived without those great lead voices & their dynamic charisma. If someone else had sung Otis' parts, I believe that somehow, The Tempts would have still been the great group that they were. If anyone thinks that Otis' voice was the salvation of The Tempts, they're drinking something stronger than water. Before you think that I don't like Otis, I liked his lead on I Ain't Got Nothin', I liked that song a lot. There however, is nothing great about his voice. Decent, but not star-quality.

Regarding Norman Whitfield, there are many artists that have written books, as well as many interviews, regarding their experiences with Norman. I'd advise you to read up on that, as I feel that it would be more valid if you were to hear the artists own opinions on that subject. To sum it up, it was said that you had to do it his way, or no way. Many artists said that he felt as though they were interchangable, or expendable. A group such as The Temptations felt as though he didn't give them due respect. If you remember many of his compositions, it was if he was scoring a movie soundtrack. Do you recall the cinematic length & feel of Masterpiece??? It used to be that a Tempts LP had 10 to 12 songs. With Norman, the Lp cuts dwindled to maybe 6-8, & some songs were damn near instrumental. Do you think that went over well with a group that SANG as well as The Tempts did. Listen to some of The Undisputed Truths LPs & later, Rose Royce.

Another thing that annoyed many, was his habit of constantly including versions of the same song (written by him, of course)on other artists LPs. Some of those artist could have contributed songs to their LPs. Norman chose to put his songs, which had been previously released by other artists, on damn near every LP he produced. His eye was on his bottom line & damn the rest. This is not fantasy, this is fact. All you have to do is look at the LP covers & compare the tracks. I don't know about you, but that might have pissed me off as well.

Again, the truth is the truth & in some cases, the truth is "undisputed" (pun most definitely intended ). I don't like it when people try to revise history. What was , was, whether you like it or not. Revisionist history serves no one well & if people were still in denial regarding the truth, we'd still be living in a segregated world, where women have no rights & slavery would still exist. No one said that the truth is always pleasant. Maybe keeping people's private lives & lies secret is what's best for them & for us as fans. It's that kind of thinking that's allowed child molesters to lurk in the darkness, you see, it's unpleasant, so, let's not talk about it. That's bull! If you're gonna sell me a car & show me the shiny new paint job, you can bet that I'm gonna check the underside for rust spots. So, when these folks try to make themselves a cross between Ghandi, Mother Teresa & The Pope, damn right they'd better be on their Ps & Qs.

On the other hand, maybe the truth is therapeutic for those who've been cheated, slighted or mistreated. Maybe there's cartharsis for them, maybe they need people to know the truth. How do you think nit would feel to live with lies for 20 or 30 years? Maybe these folks feel the need for justice. Maybe people should think about that, before casually dismissing the value of truth.

By John Lester (81.132.224.196) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 01:36 am:

I talked to Cal Street about Norman Whitfield and she has only good things to say about him. I do get the impression that Norman was very passionate about his work and sometimes that can be seen as negative. He pestered Berry Gordy about Marvin's "Grapevine" only cos he believed in his own work.

By JoB (63.168.103.2) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 03:32 am:

...say whatcha will about Otis, but I'll always give the man his props...

The man is SMART as hell, for one. Some say that he had the least amount of talent among all the other Tempts'...well, how many people do you know with little talent, that can stay in the musical spotlight for 40 years (and I'm not referring to the "talent" among us today, back then you actually had to have some real talent)? It takes a lot of savvy to be able to pull that off, and Otis has done it perfectly. So what he couldn't do a run or a split like David, or sing as sweetly as Eddie...I've always looked at Otis the same way I look at a bass player in a band...he might always be somewhere in the back, behind the guitar player and lead singer, but without his contribution, trust me, something would definitely be MISSING.

David Ruffin may have MADE the Temptations a household name, but IMO Otis has KEPT it a houshold name, even among today's generation. And yes, the Dells and the Ojays are still performing and going strong, but when was the last time any of THEM had a platinum record? That is, without having to adopt a pseudo-gangster/godfather-ish persona and have half-naked girls (in that I mean woman who are young enough to be his granddaughters) bouncing around the stage (Ron Isley)??

After the old Motown became the new Motown, many of it's stars had to really fight to stay on top, they no longer had that Motown machine as a driving force behind their popularity...without Otis Williams, the Temptations would have been left in the same spot the Supremes were left...the 70's. And as someone mentioned earlier, the Tempts don't have all those "rights to the name" battles either that the Supremes (or should I say Mary Wilson) has been plagued with.

And as for Otis supposedly being the reason that the other members left, got kicked out, whatever...hell, I'd kick my MAMA out of my group if I felt she was messing with my livelihood and in turn, taking food out of MY kid's mouth. He did what he had to do, if it was in fact he whodunnit.

Go Otis. Hate the man all you want, but you gotta respect him.

By NYC Diva (158.57.150.226) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 11:32 am:

I have heard that Norman Whitfield was indeed disliked by many people at Motown. He may have been creative, yes, but along with that, he had a cocky attitude that turned people off. Now since I don't know the man, I can't say if that is true...only going by what I've heard.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:06 pm:

NYC Diva - Do you know whether MikeNYC, who posts on Ivory's QT, is aware of Soulful Detroit? I enjoy reading his opinions over on the QT.

By Don (68.75.185.172) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:20 pm:

Don Here-It is not easy to be a group leader and I've seen it happen countless of times. Cause their are alot of personalities and egos, working within a group and outside as well. It ain't easy as it looks, believe me, it ain't a day of wine and roses or a picnic at the beach. Not bt a long shot folks.

Don

By NYC Diva (158.57.150.226) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 12:52 pm:

SisDetroit, I don't know if MikeNYC knows about SD, but I will definitely send him the link. I like him very much myself.

By stephanie (69.138.239.31) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 02:00 pm:

I didnt hear about people disliking Otis until the Temps movie came out!!! Personally I think that any man who can keep the thing going for 40 years has some smarts about him. He even let Dennis come back into the group twice so he must not be that bad of a man. One thing a lot of people dont know is that the Temps had major personnel changes because some of the guys were unreliable or were drinking and drugging and wont admit it so the blame gets put on Otis. Some of these guys have even asked to come back to the group and Otis gave them chances. He doesnt want to have to go through finding new guys and training them believe me if those guys are gone its not Otis its their own stupidity and unreliability. Im not saying this is the case with all of them but groups dont like having to find replacements Im sure Otis tries to make it comfortable for them,
Stephanie

By R&B (138.238.41.118) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 02:04 pm:

SHORT AND SWEET[OTIS]FOREVER!

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 02:24 pm:

Stephanie - Most of Otis idolizers did not know Otis until the movie came out in 1998.

By SoniT (66.106.213.162) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 02:38 pm:

I don't hate Otis. I never paid much attention to him until his book and the movie came out.

By R&B (138.238.41.118) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 02:41 pm:

IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THE MAN HIMSELF VISIT SD TO ANSWER HIS[CRITICS]AND[FANS]

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 02:47 pm:

There will always be critics writing about the entertainment artist. I believe Shelly has visited this Forum on at least one occasion.

People have their opinions. They have that right. Nothing can be said to change that. In fact, there is nothing said here which is so grievious that he needs to respond to it. He will probably be the first to admit that it's ok that some dislikes him. As long as those that do, continue to buy his products and buy those tickets to his concerts.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 02:57 pm:

Folks:
I have no complaints about Otis Williams. If anything, I give him and the newer Tempts credit for their perserverence after Melvin Franklin passed & many felt the group should just disband.

Also, the depiction of the "Classic" Tempts in the TV movie cannot be entirely blamed on Otis. Read the book and watch the film - many things were changed. For example, in the book Eddie warned Otis that David Ruffin only joined the group to help launch his solo career whereas in the film, Edddie was almost defensive of David. If anything, the film's producer Suzanne DePasse allowed the writers to change stuff around for "dramatic effect" which later resulted in a massive lawsuit against her & NBC-TV. So, I cannot fault Otis entirely for the depiction of the group in the movie.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 03:04 pm:

Neither do I fault Otis entirely for the depiction of those characters in the movie.

Just think, how would you feel if someone made a movie about your relative, and included things that were untrue about your beloved, which left lasting negative memories to those who do not know what really happened? Especially, the young who are easily swayed.

By Vickie (64.236.243.31) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 03:08 pm:

Ditto Sis ....


Vickie

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 03:14 pm:

Sis & Vickie:
The one thing that boggled me about the Tempts movie was that Suzanne DePasse produced this film and allowed the writers to be "creative" with the story for "dramatic effect." Damn, that woman was there months before David left the Tempts (circa 1967 - she was recommended by Cindy Birdsong)so she must've known the real deal. How she could allow this so-called "creative license" to take place and expect folks to understand it will always be beyond me.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By R&B (138.238.41.118) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 03:19 pm:

VERY WELL SAID KEV,AS A MATTER OF FACT I WOULDN'T BLAME HIM AT ALL,YOU KNOW MOVIES,THEY LISTENED TO OTIS ON CERTAIN THINGS BUT TOOK LIBERTIES ON OTHERS,BUT WHO GETS BLAMED[OTIS],THIS GUY HAS TO BE THE[RODNEY DANGERFIELD]OF SOUL MUSIC!

By Timtashun (139.76.128.65) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 03:33 pm:

Otis,

Rules!!!!

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 03:39 pm:

As I said, Otis was ok for all those years with me. He did nothing extraordinary. Still hasn't, except bring in Ali Woodson, and GC Cameron. (I liked Barrington's voice on his own songs.) Otis's claim to fame is not staying in the Temptations group (As he had nowhere else to go.)

The most extraordinary thing he has done is to participate in producing the movie because it took him to greater heights and fame, which he, as an individual, had never been before. But this was at the expense of ripping up the fame of the deceased, and the pride of their children and grandchildren.

Yes, Otis has a right to have an ego. He should wear it proudly.

By Vickie (64.236.243.31) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 05:32 pm:

I have a lot of respect for Otis, I do..

I just didn't dig that movie all that much....

I understand it though....it happens all the time with film and TV...
sometimes you have to watch it all, read it all and form your own theories and opinions ....

By vince (63.196.242.118) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:12 pm:

Juice, would yu say the same for H-D-H produced songs that that was their sound and not the supremes or four tops sound? for a better stance,was it motown's sound or the producer's sound? Which is it? From what I was told, Berry appointed certain producers with different artists like the Tempts with Norman and Barrent Strong or H-D-H with the tops or supremes, so it was Berry who had that great vision of these talented people. Yes,Norman was overbearing with his production cause Berry wouldn't have it anyother way and Remembered Norman was considered the Underdog of producers, He started out in quality control dept making 30 dollars a week, then going to the pool hall to hustle for his family. Norman was only trying to win the battle and he did what it took to win over other producers including Smokey, I mean Smokey wrote the biggest hit for the Tempts (my girl) at the time and Norman comes along and had a string of hits for years for the Tempts, not to mention hits with Marving Gaye, so doesn't he deserve the right to be the man on his own compositon. I mean I witness myself of how he works in the studio cause I personnally was his assistant while working for him on his own masterpiece. I won't say what it is just yet cause he'll probably cuss me out if I let it out just yet, but that's right you will hear from Norman Whitfield one more time before he puts things to bed. Once again he did some reworks of his earlier hits like masterpiece, he put some rappers on the track with a surprise vocalist that I cannot say right now, which i handled the duties of incorporating the rappers of Normans choice. I watched Norman let this kids work their magic and afterwards he gave them some advice on lyric structure and things of that nature and what a lesson it was listening to a old pro tell some hip hoppers what to do and they was excited and relieved that he respected their work. he didn't say do it my way or hit the highway, he said let's try it as many ways as we can record it and choose the best one, that's how we did it back in the day from the Berry Gordy school and it produced hit after hit for us, is what he always said. Then he would say, What do you want me to do? give the hits and money back, give motown back and say I knew this shit was going to happen? No, fact is fact, and let's remember that. Juice, I agree with you that that was NOrman's sound but that's what was winning for them for so long at Motown and Otis was not a great singer like the rest, But it was NOrman who started to incorporate all of them as singing a lead part on songs that he wrote cause he thought that would change things and create a different sound along with his different approach on topics and street sensible songs. Otis was a baritone in the group and his willingness to lead the group was important for their legacy for the group to carry on. You cannot replace his leadership at all, let's face it David,Eddie,Dennis or Ron Tyson couldn't lead that group in anyother way other than singing lead parts to the hits. Oh, let's not forget Richard Street, the replacement for Paul, no one ever mentions Richard,who is an original member to me,he was their in the beginning with them as well. Melvin Franklin is a distant cousin of mines and I know that he did all he could to keep everyone together as well as Otis did. Norman told me personally that his favorite in the studio was David cause David did what ever it took and he didn't complain, everything he did to hurt himself or anybody else was out of the studio and not in the business of music, he said Eddie was also very good with him, but their personalities clashed more often than the rest cause Norman wanted to push him more and use others to share the leads with Eddie and Eddie didn't want that. He said Paul was another hard worker and when he passed he was missed very much cause he had talent and leadership qualities but other things took it's tole on him and Eddie changed alittle bit. But somehow they worked it out and produced hits. He said his least problems came with Gladys Knight cause that was his real favorite, she was a young pro. He said that he and Marvin was constanstly at it cause once again Norman would push him to no end and their personalities would clash,but they made hits together, but he was the one that Told Marvin he was a great producer himself, and you need to produce yourself cause he was a pro and Norman learned alot from him. Berry Gordy had taught all of them the ropes and he oftened pushed the envelope with everyone. Berry knew what a hit was and wouldn't take nothing less. So they all had to work hard for the successes. Norman also knew what a hit was and had to prove it to Berry, I know you have heard the stories on "I heard it thru the grapevine" it was Norman who pushed the enavelope with Berry about Marvin putting the song on his album and Berry kept refusing to do so. Then finally agreeing to do so, the song went on to being the biggest song in Motown history. Norman has said that he went back to Berry and said remember it was you who taught us that great songs live on forever and you can do them over and over and the right versions could be hits over and over again. Which eventually becomes publishing and publishers exploits the works or the songs to no end, so the formula work for Norman producing his songs over and over on other artist. As far as singers, yes anyone could have replaced otis as a singer, but they never did for some strange reason they left that part alone and replaced the others and kept on moving forward. They could have used Spyder Turner as a replacement back then and he definitely would have made people look twice at the lead spot cause he was non stopper, show topper at all times. Otis also recruited 2 great singers in Ron Tyson and Ollie Woodson, so he had leadership qualities at what he did. I didn't get achance to see the Tempts in their prime, but I got achance to see them at the reunion tour in Las Vegas with all seven of them. It was David, Eddie, Dennis,Melvin,Richard Street,Ron Tyson and Otis and that was the best show I had seen by a vocal group. I am proud to have seen all seven of them before all the tragedy and deaths. Paul was the only one I had never seen live. Norman told me he was a show topper as well. Juice, I thank god for the experience Motown has left us with. NO Doubt it is truly our music, black people's music and I hope that the younger generation can someday relate to what were talking about on this great site. My hat is off to the people who created this site. I was turned on to it by Spyder Turner himself, my true friend and someone I look up to and have had the pleasure of working with getting his professional advise for my own career in the music field. Check out Spyder Turner.com and listen to this brother. I met Norman thru Spyder and the two of them have schooled me on the game and the past. Norman has an album that he wrote and produced for the Four Tops, spyder wrote one song on it as well.Norman put the finishing touches on it and it is the bomb. It is so bad that I believe if it came out today it would win come back album of the year and maybe album of the year perieod. Norman is still the great the producer that he was then and we have learned so much from him by working with him. The music is adult contempary but all young people grow older and they end up listening to 60's 70's music and here we are in the millennium and people say the music sounds dated, no my brother,the music sounds refresshing and great because the lyrics mean something and the melodies are just good feeling songs. Take it from me, I am doing my thing with the new R & B/hip hop and some my artist needs to listen to the Spyder Turners,The new Four tops album 911 featuring Levi Stubbs at his best and maybe his last recordings (I don't know the answer to that) but because of Levi's current situatuon, Norman did the same thing he did when David left the tempts, he took dennis and made it work anyway. In this case, he took Theo Peoples and made it work as well, so you have the Four Tops Levi and a younger Theo sharing the leads and Duke, Obie and some with Lawrence Peyton singing backgrounds before he passed on. Norman and The Four Tops have never worked together before while at Motown cause Berry said that they were too different types of products, The Tops were Pop, Jazzy and lovable, NOrmans style was to risky for the Tops then, well this 911 album is a masterpiece monster waiting to come out. I am here to stirr it up cause it's long overdue. I personally sat in the mastering lab to oversee the project for Norman. That was one of my jobs with him and I heard this piece of work and I said to Norman, Why isn't this out, people need to hear this and I told Duke Fakir the same thing. I think the Motown Foundation or Rythem and blues foundation should look into this album and be instrumental in putting this album out right now, for Norman, the Four Tops and especially Levi Stubbs.
A GREAT PIECE OF HISTORY AND I KNOW WHERE TO GET IT. I will never take up this much time again cause i don't have all the time in the world but I am really excited about this forum and the history that I am learning and I wanted to speak my piece about all of this. I would like to do something one day on dvd or something and talk about these type of things and give our younger music listener a history lesson. peace out vince

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:21 pm:

Oh, great! That post should be under the other thread about Norman. I am anxious to hear what Norman has done.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:31 pm:

Nice post Vince. I'm all excited. Keep talking until that Four Tops cd is released.

Well, it's good to know that Norman said, and I will quote you: "Norman told me personally that his favorite in the studio was David cause David did what ever it took and he didn't complain, everything he did to hurt himself or anybody else was out of the studio and not in the business of music."

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:32 pm:

I'm trying to repeat the above post.
Nice post Vince. I'm all excited. Keep talking until that Four Tops cd is released.

Well, it's good to know that Norman said, and I will quote you: "Norman told me personally that his favorite in the studio was David cause David did what ever it took and he didn't complain, everything he did to hurt himself or anybody else was out of the studio and not in the business of music."

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:34 pm:

"Norman told me personally that his favorite in the studio was David cause David did what ever it took and he didn't complain, everything he did to hurt himself or anybody else was out of the studio and not in the business of music."

By stephanie (69.138.239.31) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:35 pm:

David was a pro when it came to performing and although Otis was the least talented when it came to business matters he seemed to be the most reliable Temptation. It goes to show you that the whole group is important and not just the lead singer
stephanie

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:42 pm:

Stephanie - "although Otis was the least talented when it came to business matters he seemed to be the most reliable Temptation."

Are you affirming that from fact and knowledge, or is that posted somewhere?

By Tony.C. (195.93.34.12) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 06:46 pm:

just listen 2 -loneliness made me realize-2 see who was the reason the temps will be remembered.the movie was good but it is just a movie.the passage of time changes people,s memorie,s of events and facts.hope this makes some sense .

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 07:02 pm:

Tony.C. - I agree. Everything change. I'll just go on ahead and listen to that song. :o)

By SPYDER (209.240.205.62) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 07:39 pm:

HEY VINCE!
I WAS GOING TO SAY A LITTLE SUM-UM BUT YOU SEEMED TO HAVE COVERED IT ALL AND THEN SOME MY BROTHER,,,,,,,,,,,PEACE, SPYKIE

By Juicefree20 (141.149.35.24) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 08:36 pm:

I agree 100% with KevGo when he speaks of the differences between The BOOK - "THE TEMPTATIONS & the SERIES - "THE TEMPTATIONS". Especially regarding the tension between David & Eddie. Even Tony Turners' book showed the love/hate relationship that existed between the two. The thing that bothers me about most Motown Production involving Ms DePasse, is this tendency toward "Hollywood" BS. I found parts of The Temptations mini series to be a bit disingenuous & saccharine sweet to the point of nausea. I've found the plots & lines to be as sickening as the catch phrase of Mahogany. I've found outright distortion of commonly known facts & usually get the feeling that I'm watching a propaganda film. Everything seems so contrived & whitewashed. I just can't understand what they're thinking with some of their "productions". As far as Otis is concerned, he did hold things together & for that, he is to be applauded. As for the idea that he is entitled to having an ego, I disagree most wholeheartedly.

I don't recall reading anyone here state that Otis is to blame for the depictions of anyone in the movie. My problem with all of this is that Motown press releases & productions have always seemed to be a cross between Mary Poppins & Fantasy Island. If people had chosen to be a little lighter on the fluff & heavier on the truth, we wouldn't be talking about this crap 40 years later. I think of how various situations have been handled over the years & come to the conclusion that a lot of this speculation & venom was avoidable. There is no doubt that Otis contributed to The Temptations, no one disputes this. I think his greatest skills are selecting replacements & staying in Berry's good graces. I don't believe that he "single-handedly" saved The Temptations. It seems to me that some very talented men had something to do with that as well. I think that it does them a disservice to minimize their contribution to the legacy that is The Temptations.

Does anyone recall the old saying: He's a nice guy, he wouldn't say shit if he had a mouthful"?
It seems as though that was one survival method Necessary at Motown. How many people stood up to Berry & prospered afterward & for how long? Did Martha, Eddie, David survive after constantly challenging Berry? Have you read Mary Wilsons' books, or Martha Reeves book? Do you remember reading about the incident with Berry & Eddie Kendricks? The incident allegedly happened because Eddie wanted the cover of his "He's A Friend" LP to have a shot of two mens' hands clasped in a handshake. Berry supossedly disagreed, worrying about the homosexual overtones of such a picture. After Eddie fought for the cover that he wanted, Berry allowed the cover & basically wrote Eddie off. The only person that survived insubordination as far as I recall, was Marvin. If I am wrong about this, I would happily accept correction. David, Clay, Mike, anyone who has a different recollection to the one's printed, I would appreciate your recollections about this. This is not about knocking anyone, it's about the truth & clearing up falsehoods.

I think of Otis in the same way that I think of anyone else in his position. Otis knew who to piss off & who not to piss off. I'm sure that we all see people like Otis everyday at our jobs. They have a modicum of talent, not a star per se, but enough talent to get them by. They know what's acceptable & they rock no boats. They know where their bread is buttered, who's buttering it & aren't going to jeopardize that for anyone. I think that he negotiated the political waters exceptionally well. He is definitely a very smart man. What Otis is is a survivor.

JoB, when you say that many of the stars had to fight to stay on top, you have to consider a few of the reasons why. Could support be one of the reasons for that?? Why is it that a group such as The Spinners, have to leave Motown in order to blow up? Did they suddenly find talent that the didn't have at Motown??? What about a talented group like The Originals, why did they have to scrap & fight to get releases. Was it because of a lack of talent?? Why is is that an acknowledged classic such as What's Goin On, was in danger of not being released??? JoB, the answer to your statement, has many facets & shouldn't be trivialized or generallized. Every thing is not as cut & dried as people seem to try to make it.

You can't minimize the effect that the rise of Disco had on almost ALL of the established stars of that era. How many of our singers were tossed by the wayside because of Disco. As I recall, even Otis & The Temptations had a bumpy ride with that phenomenon. As the 70s turned into the 80s, music was changing once more. This time it was Rap, whose popularity had negative ramifications that are still felt as I type these words. I think that these factors might have had something to do with the difficulty that MANY stars endured from the mid 70s to present.

Yes, Otis contributed much, keeping groups together is a very delicate & difficult minefield to negotiate. How anyone can lavish all the praise on Otis is beyond me. How can anyone know what would have happened if Otis hadn't been there? Can anyone truly say with any certainty what would have happened?? Anyone who believes that he/she knows the answer to that is a combination of Jeanne Dixon & Ms Cleo, with a pinch of Nostradamus for seasoning. The point is moot, we'll never know.

As far as The Supremes situation, let's take a few things into consideration & let's be fair & honest about it: First of all, who was set up to be "THE STAR", Diana or The Supremes? We all know the answer to that question, so, I won't belabor the point. However, in the beginning, Diana as a solo & The Supremes were running neck & neck as far as Chart listings were concerned. In fact, from '70-'72, The Supremes releases actually enjoyed GREATER POP SUCCESS than Ms Ross' releases!!! They had 7 Top 40 POP hits from '70 - 72; Diana had 5. Somehow, The Supremes only managed to place one song on the R&B charts in '73, 2 in '75, 2 in '76 & 1 in '77. Diana placed 4 in '73, 3 in '74, 1 in '75, 3 in '76 & 1 in '77.

When you consider that The Supremes did as well, if not better than Diana, what happened? Why the sudden decline for The Supremes & the sudden ascent for Diana. It would seem that the public liked The Supremes music & accepted them without Diana. Is it resonable to assume that all of a sudden, The Supremes music sucked??? I can't come to that conclusion. However, I've only stated the facts. Truthfully, I can tell you that here in N.Y., Dianas' name was everywhere. I can't say the same for The Supremes, I cannot truthfully say that The Supremes received the same kind of support from Motown that Diana received. Do you really believe that they did???? So, JoB, whenever you use The Supremes as a comparison, you have to consider a few of these factors. Trust me, if The Supremes had truly been a priority, they would have received even better material, been pushed more to the forefront. The fact of the matter is that they weren't.

In my humble opinion, the differences between The Temptations & The Supremes were as follows: Diana was the star, how would it look for the "Queen" to be outshined by her underlings?? That was not part of the plan & really, how well would that have gone over, knowing what we know now about their relationship?? In addition, The Temptations were still smoldering at that time. From '70 - 72, they were coming off of a run of 7 Top 10 R&B hits & an additional 2 Top 40 R&B hits. To me, that's viable & productive as hell. At that point, they still had the dynamic Dennis Edwards & Eddie had just bowed out. They also had Norman Whitfield (love him or hate him) producing that heavy funk. Are you arguing that The Tempts of this period couldn't have survived without Otis???
They continued this trend from '73-77, scoring 11 Top 10 R&B hits & an additional 3 top 40 R&B hits. This trend continued until those sad Disco days of 1977-79, whereupon they virtually disappeared from the R&B charts. Again, I ask, is anyone really trying to say that all of this success is due to one man, who was a background singer at best??? Incredulous! I'm all for giving Otis his just due, but let's be realistic & keep things in their proper perspective. If you know anything about the music industry, I think that you would know just how difficult a trick this would be to accomplish. Yes, give him credit for keeping it together, that's not in dispute. However, don't give him credit without giving just due to the writers & producers of the songs, the fans who love The Temptations (with or without Otis), the Jocks who still respect what The Tempts represent. Most of all, give just due to ALL of the talented men who have helped keep The Tempts alive as well.

By SPYDER (209.240.205.62) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 08:36 pm:

AS A MATTER OF FACT, ALL YOU NEED IS A FRONT AND BACK COVER AND SOME LINER NOTES. (SMILING)
LUV YA BRO,,,,,,,SPYKIE SPINKLEBERRY

By Juicefree20 (151.205.108.228) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 09:16 pm:

Vince, how can you say that Norman was overbearing because Berry wouldn't have it any other way??? I seem to recall a gentleman named Smokey Robinson who had success with his group as well as Mary Wells & The Tempts, without being overbearing. Did Berry force him to be overbearing?? I don't recall hearing that anywhere. If Norman was overbearing, it was because he was overbearing, I refuse to blame that on Berry. As long as they cut hits, I don't think Berry would've cared if Norman dressed them in Pampers & burped them & gave them rattles. However, one truism is that you cannot always handle any two people the same exact way. Each individual has a seperate & different personality that responds to different stimuli. One person you can kick in the ass, another, you have to handle with kid gloves & reassure them. Some people you have to leave alone, Some you have to stay on top of. A smart person finds the best way to get the best performance out of an individual. As far as any great vision, I've often read about Motowns' Quality Control & the voting system. Also, Smokey produced The Tempts until Get Ready failed to be the POP juggernaut that Berry wanted it to be. When Get Ready stalled at # 29 POP, Norman got his shot with The Tempts. You can look it up.

It's nice that you're working with Norman Whitfield....now......in 2004. And respectfully, I ask, what hits has he produced lately??? I ask this because, perhaps one is humbled when success is not as forthcoming as it once was. So, unless you have an account of what went down in 1966, or 67, or 1973, It's not that relevant to what we're discussing. We're talking about how some SUCCESSFUL artists felt about Norman...in the 60s & 70s. Artists who had GREAT success WITHOUT Mr Whitfield. You may find him wonderful & all of that & that's cool. I love his music, The Tempts, Gladys, Undisputed Truth & Rose Royce. I love his music, he produced great music. The point is not whether I like his music or not, I didn't have to work for him. The point is that there were many SUCCESSFUL artists who didn't cotton to Mr Whitfields' tactics. Perhaps, had you been in their shoes, you'd understand their point.

I can't stand it when people try to be apologists for people that they like. You're talking about the Norman Whitfield of 2003/04 & perhaps HE has learned another way of doing things. Tell me, did you know the Norman Whitfield of the '60s or 70s??? That's the Norman being discussed. Did you work with him??? I didn't either, however, there have been numerous books where various artists aired their gripes. Are you to say that they had no right to feel as they did??? Are all of their opinions baseless?? I guess that the ends justified the means, huh? Even so, it doesn't necessarily make it right. I definitely agree with you about one thing. Leadership is important & I think that Otis was the first one of the group to grasp the "Business" part. Most artists get caught up with the "Show" aspect of it. However, If I had to call anyone the heart & soul of The Temptations, something in my heart tells me that it was Paul Williams.

I appreciate your point of view & I really hope that Norman has a smash with his new project. I love his music but as I said, I didn't have to work with him, or, for him. I'm glad that your experience is fruitful, I wish you nothing but the best as well!!! I look forward to hearing more from you. Much respect!

Juicefree20

By Don (68.75.191.178) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 09:27 pm:

I hear everyone's comments about The Temptations movie being based on Otis's book of the same name. And how some reinactments we're switched around from his book. I'll just say this. I've seen lots of movies and film that are based on what was written from a book, and due to time restriction, have to fit as much reinactments to fit time-wise. The first movie to ever flip things around and other film writers and makers has followed in this same trend was when Motown did The Billie Holiday Story starring Diana Ross. And to be honest, I didn't like the way they handled the script of the life and times of Billie Holiday. I disliked it. The same goes with The Tempts movie only in certain scenes I didn't agree with.

Don

By Isaiah (64.12.96.238) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 07:11 am:

BigSis, and others, thanks for providing some clarity on this Otis Williams issue, as I have heard some folks expressing some harsh feelings toward the man, and wanted to know exactly what the reasons for it were... Like Juice, I have an ambivalence toward the man... I did not know him or any of the Temptations, and their families, so the depth of my feelings is rather shallow...

I do say this, however, as regards creative license in cinema, its taken all of the time, and depending on our personal feelings toward people, we do chose to overlook these things... The movie X by Spike Lee is a movie I despise because of Spike's "creative license" tactics in depicting Elijah Muhammad, but everybody loved the film, because they didn't know Elijah Muhammad.... They didn't "know" Malcolm X for that matter, but as the main figure in the movie, played by an exceedingly talented actor, "creative license" was expected, and, I guess, OK...(smile!)

When I watched Temptations Forever, I watched it for the sake of seeing how the actors would master the moves of the Mighty Tempts, rather than expecting a tried and true depiction of their lives off the stage... I knew before the deal started that that was well nigh impossible... Some things rang untrue in the flick, such as the scene at the Copa Cabana, where David arrives late, but right on time, to sing I'm Losing You(smile!) My eyes rolled right up to heaven, and right back down to the deep blue sea after seeing that - again!(Five Heartbeats) In fact, it seemed like the flick was, in many ways, a rip-off of the Heartbeats, yet I've heard folk here say they dug the Heartbeats...(LOL!)

Like I said, I watched the flick - and still do - because I just dug how well these actors managed to assimilate the moves of the Tempts on the closing rendition of My Girl, because it is a rarity to see the culture of African Americans portrayed in such a classy way... I don't know Johnnie Mae Matthews, I don't know Sandra Ruffin, or any of the protagonists and villains and good and bad guys in the film, thus I had no reason to take anything personally... I have seen Otis book in the library and at Barnes & Nobel, and declined to buy it, or even take it outta the library... I'm not sheepish about the truth being unveiled to me, but there's a side of me that says it aint going to be unveiled to me in these "tell all" books, so I keep movin' on when I see them... I tried reading Smokey's book, and James Brown's book, and Mary Wilson's book, but I always thought i was being bulls!!!!!!ted... Waste of good, hard-earned money to me...

Lastly, it is true, Otis Williams was not as talented as the rest of the Tempts - on the surface... But I think that talent comes in many different packages... This man, it must be pointed out, started this group, he organized this group, he accepted a lesser role in this group so that the group might succeed, and that is the antithesis of an ego-driven man... YES, Otis Williams could've been replaced as a singer in the Temptations, but he could not have been replaced as a leader in this group, and no matter how much we dislike the man, I don't think that can be disputed... I ask those who feel that he was not a damned good leader, and the real glue of the group, who would've replaced him as the leader??? Who would've kept the group together through its defections and departures??? To say that he was replaceable because he can't sing a lick is short-sighted... To a lesser extent, it would be the equivalent of saying that Harvey Fuqua was replaceable in the MoonGlows because Marvin Gaye was a better singer... Those of us who know of Mr. Fuqua's history know that's straight ridic...

Peace!
Isaiah

By ~medusa~ (68.79.95.224) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 09:19 am:

Well said Isaiah,
Again, I love all the Temps, but when you're young and in love with being an entertainer and not in love with entertaining, it's a difference.
Otis was not well known, not popular, or a main attraction to the group, he didn't sing on many lead tunes, but he was serious about his Group.
I don't know if he ever experienced with drugs, alcohol etc. Whatever he did or didn't do to sustain himself long enough to keep the Temptations Group on the scene in 2004. The Man had and has ambition and to this day, he's still giving his best to maintain the "Temptations Forever". After the original Temps passed away, he could've just stopped and given up, but he didn't...but he instead became a driviing force to keep the Group alive.
I just wanna thank Mr. Otis Williams for being who he is, although sometimes (as a fan) I may not understand his mooves of replacing group members. I believe his point maybe, when you love something, you preserve it as long as possible...We must give credit where credit is due...
and so there's a Group of 5 Tall, Dark and Handsome Men known as the 'Temptations', still talkiing 'bout ~~That Girl~~ (smile), and it's all because Otis Williams kept on pushing.
Thanx Otis!

By CORNBREAD (66.185.84.74) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 09:34 am:

Wasn't Otis and the Late Melvin involved behind the scene with the career of Quiet Elegance?

By R&B (138.238.41.128) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 11:31 am:

ASK YOURSELF THIS..WITHOUT OTIS WILLIAMS WOULD WE EVEN BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION..THE ANSWER IS PROBOBLY NOT BECAUSE HE PUT THE GROUP TOGETHER AND KEEP IT TOGETHER,NOW PEOPLE ALWAYS SPECULATE,WELL THIS WOULDA HAPPENED OR THAT,I'LL SAY THAT WITH THIER TALENT[MELVIN,PAUL,EDDIE,DAVID,DENNIS]WOULD HAVE HAD CAREERS IN MUSIC,AND YES HITS TOO,BUT NOT AS THE TEMPTATIONS THAT WE ARE ALL SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT,NO MY FRIENDS,OTIS MADE THAT HAPPEN,LOVE HIM OR HATE HIM,OTIS WILLIAMS IS THE TEMPTATIONS,PERIOD!

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:26 pm:

Why don't you guys ask Otis where the name "Temptations" came from. By the time Otis is finished with you guys, not only will you say he hand picked each member of the initial group and put it together, but you will say he gave the group the name.

Medusa - If you read Otis's book, you will see that where he talks about the "first time" he did drugs.

The actors were great in the movie, I loved all of the songs, and the "My Girl" routine, I even liked Leon. Best role he ever played. My second favorite actor was the one who played the role of Paul.

(If that was my daddy that they threw out of the car into the street, lied and said he was john doe for a week in the morgue, I would have called Otis personally, asked him to meet me on 14th and Philiadelphia, where he used to live, and discussed the situation with him.) :o)

Isaiah - You haven't explained how Spike was to have portrayed Mr. Muhammad. I guess I was too busy watching Denzel. I'm going to watch the movie again and pay attention to that situation. I loved that movie. Denzel did a great job. He brought Malcolm to life.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:36 pm:

Isaiah:
I saw the film Malcolm X many times. Al Freeman's portrayal of Elijah Muhammad was brilliant. How was Spike supposed to have had E.M. portrayed? Just want to know....
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Ju (205.188.209.109) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 01:29 pm:

KevGo did you get my email about that cd?

By Stephanie (69.138.239.31) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 01:40 pm:

Sisdetroit
Otis had to be the most reliable Temp he was the spokesperson and still continues to do the hiring and handles all of the business matters and to answer your question I got it from two sources that know him.
Stephanie PS If Im wrong you can tell me

By Isaiah (205.188.209.109) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 02:07 pm:

BigSis and KevGo, I don't necessarily think this the proper venue to discuss these things, but my disapproval of how Spike chose to portray Elijah Muhammad stems from the fact that he really didn't do his homework, and examine Elijah Muhammad's body of work in our communities - including the ressurrection of Malcolm X himself...

He chose portray him as this shadowy and sinister figure, too old, feeble, and senile to think, and make decisions for himself, and nothing could be further from the truth... This is a man who built a very large organization with a program that salvaged the lives of thousands of Black folks, including Malcolm, himself...

But Spike Lee, and others, who are enamored of Malcolm X's hip eloqence and charisma say Malcolm is responsible for all of this... Well, if we do believe this, then we have not done our research... It was not Malcolm X who rescued himself from prison, but it was Malcolm Little who put him there in the first place... Someone gave him a programmatic direction for his life, and the rest is history - so we say...

But who was that someone who gave Minister Malcolm that direction, and that platform he spoke from those 13 years he blazed into his legend..? It seems to me that Spike was so intent on glamorizing Malcolm, he forgot to gave props to his mentor, the man Malcolm X, himself, praised to the high heavens all those years..? I tell you, I don't even believe Malcolm X would've liked the way the Honorable Elijah Muhammad was portrayed in that movie... He loved and respected him too much for that... BTW, there are other aspects of this movie which saddened me as well, but, again, this is not the venue...(smile!)

Peace!
Isaiah

By Isaiah (205.188.209.109) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 02:09 pm:

Btw, Kev, Al Freeman is a brilliant actor, so it doesn't matter what kind of material you place in front of that man, he's going to do his thing...(smile!) That still does not mean that the material he was given was based on the facts...

Peace!
Isaiah

By johneflat (152.163.253.70) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 02:18 pm:

T he impression that I got is that Otis has been dealing with changing members of the group since the beginning, usually a reaction to that members' actions/attitude, so it was probably just another day at the office when DR, EK, and others started to trip....i'm sure he doesen't take a lot of pleasure in constantly starting over breaking in new members, especially at his age! But when we get a flat tire, do we stand there and agonize over it, or do we change it and keep rollin'? I don't think Otis did what he WANTED to do, I think he's done what he HAD to do! AND i DON'T think he "gets rid" of people, he just sets them free. You sure can't keep anybody who don't want to be there.......

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 02:29 pm:

Isaiah:
I must agree with you regarding Spike's direction of the film. He often "boils down" different characters into one for the sake of "cutting to the chase".

From what I understand, it was Malcolm's own family (his brothers to be exact)and other inmates who introduced him to the Nation of Islam while he was being incarcerated. I may be mistaken but that's what I gather from Malcolm's autobiography and other sources.

Meanwhile, back to the music....

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Ju (205.188.209.109) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 03:11 pm:

Isaiah, Malcolm was largely responsible or the tremendous growth of the NOI. Remember he and his family were Garveyites decades before they were affiliated with Elijah Muhammad. When Malcolm was in Harlem he even tried to school the other hustlers on Garveyism. Although Malcolm portrayed himself as not being able to read during his hustler days in his autobiography, he was a very articulate and intelligent cat. I have personally read letters that he wrote to his cousin James in the early forties and I was like, "no way this cat was as ignorant as he said he was."

Malcolm was responsilbe for the NOI going from a few hundred older in age members to a younger members numbering in the tens of thousands. Malcolm was the Paul of the NOI in that he interpreted its teachings, naking it attractive for the masses, and that he spread it far and wide. Malcolm made the NOI what it was and is.

I agree that this is not the proper forum for this subject, though.

Ju

Hey Kev where is my cd, man?!

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 03:17 pm:

Isaiah, KevGo - I do believe it was Malcolm's brothers who introduced him to the Nation. I didn't notice too much about the character of Mr. Muhammad because the movie wasn't about him. It was about Malcolm. Perhaps if there is a movie about Mr. Muhammad and the things he did within the community, then I would pay attention. I loved Malcolm before he was killed, was heart broken when he was killed, and was pleased with his depiction in the movie.

(I was married during the period just before and when Malcolm was killed. I do remember going without because of the money my Ex gave to the Nation.) :o)

By TRI-PHI (68.5.143.49) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 06:43 am:

I LOVE OTIS, HE AND RICHARD STREET ARE THE ONLY 2 ORIGINAL MEMBERS WHO GO BACK TO THE DAYS OF THE DISTANTS, BUT IF OTIS WAS SMART, HE WOULD GET RICHARD,DENNIS AND DAMON HARRIS TO COME BACK AND A GOOD BASS SINGER, BUT RON HAS BEEN WITH THE TEMPS FOR A LONG TIME AND RON IS GOOD TOO, BUT NOW THE TEMPS HAVE G.C CAMERON WHO WAS WITH THE SPINNERS FROM 68-71 AND I LIKE G.C TOO, TOO BAD HE DIDNT STAY WITH THE SPINNERS

By G CsFRIEND (68.4.75.179) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 03:02 pm:

G C (and i'm not spreading any venom) WILL not stay with Otis for ONE YEAR, he's a REAL lead singer Not,
OTIS's FAVORITE PEOPLE !!! GOOD LUCK G C

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 04:48 pm:

GCsFriend - I think Ron is about the only Otis's favorite people. Ron is low key, which is good for him. God bless his heart. He has had a great career with the guy who has a group called "The Temptations."

By R&B (138.238.41.118) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:35 pm:

TO RON'S CREDIT HE HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE 83[REPLACED GLENN]BUT I HAVE ALWAYS LIKED GLENN BETTER[LIVE]

By Sudi Kamau (172.135.64.194) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:15 pm:

Groups with stars and no stabilizing influences fall apart. The people who do the inner parts of the harmony are sometimes more vital than the leads. I don't remember people having to hide the Temptations' background vocals under female singers or have them sing unison to cover intonation problems and stuff like that.

I've been involved with many groups in which leaders or other key people are the weakest or least dramatic performers. I've played in a lot of big bands, and even with 17 pieces on the stand, nobody is hiding out if the band is good. You look for specific things from of the 4th trumpet or 2nd tenor sax, just like you do from the 1sts.

It really kind of pisses me off when people put performers down for nothing more than that they're not the most spectacular or visible component in an ensemble. Those people can have enormous hidden value to the quality and survival of the group.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:47 pm:

I don't think anyone is saying that Otis doesn't have "enormous hidden value to the quality and survial of the group." I believe he does.

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.54) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 01:45 am:

Hello Sudi. I don't believe that anyone doubts his stabilizing influence. No one is putting him down based on talent alone. People are looking at the entire history of Otis & The Temptations. I don't know whether you've read his book, or, other books relating to The Temptations. People are judging the idea that he was the only one who held The Temptations together.

Just as no one had to hide their background vocals, he wasn't singing in the background alone. Likewise, I don't recall hearing that anyone had to cover the lead vocals of David, Eddie (before the 80s that is), Dennis, Ollie or Ron. We're not speaking about many groups that lacked dynamic or weak performers. We're speaking about The Temptations & thre is a difference. If you are suggesting that Otis was more of a dramatic performer than David, Dennis, or Ollie, you obviously weren't paying attention.

What specific thing were you looking for when you listened to Otis' voice? Can you tell me the difference between the quality of his voice & that of countless other singers. In your opinion, what did you find dynamic & what special quality did his voice have? Was it his way with melisma, what exactly was was that X-factor that made him special?

What pisses us off is the fact that he gets credit for the wrong things. I give him credit for being talented, no one can say that he doesn't. I give him credit for tending to business, as well as understanding the business aspect of "Show Business". I give him credit for tenacity & keeping The Temptations viable. I give him credit for being professional. He does deserve that much credit.

Let's look at it this way: how far would The Temptations have gone without the dynamic singing & vocal style of David, the charm & silky smooth vocals of Eddie, the grittiness of Paul & the unique bass voice of Melvin? Later, the raw gospel-like vocals of Dennis & Ollie, the smooth tenor of Ron fit the mix like a glove. Now, tell me, do you really believe that Otis was more important than these men? How far do tou think The Temptations would have gone without the talents of these men, organization skills notwithstanding?

We didn't buy their records because of Otis' "organizational skills". The only organizational skills that we would have been interested in were the arrangements & productions of people like Smokey or Norman. I don't believe that he was the only one who had input in making up their harmonies. We didn't buy their records because of Otis' background vocals either & if you bought any of their records, neither did you. Without the talents of these men, The Temptations could easily faded away like thousands of other groups. That's reality!

It's one thing to appreciate the various nuances that go into making great, memorable music. However, you can create the greatest background parts in the world. You still need a great lead singer to bring it home. You could have stuck any number of other equally, or more talented background singers into that mix & not have missed a beat. Although he had a very professional stage show, how far would Harold Melvin have gone without a great lead singer like Teddy Pendergrass? How successful was he until he accidentally discovered that Teddy (who was originally his drummer)had a tremendous voice? Harold also felt that he was the genius behind the group & he felt that he could plug anyone into Teddy's spot & have equal success. Gross miscalculation, wouldn't you say? Although David Ebo was a formidable singer, they never again scaled those heights. We all know how Teddy made out.

I see great similarities between Otis & Harold. Both had great "orginizational skills" & both felt that they were a bit more important than they were. We see what happened to The Blue Notes after Harold basically ran Teddy out of the group. If you don't believe what I'm saying, read Teddys book. Otis was fortunate in that he had a savvy genius like Berry running Motown & one hell of a vehicle that was named The Temptions.

I don't believe that he had carte blanche in picking replacements. If he had chosen someone who was not approved by the powers to be at Motown, if he had ruffled any feathers, you can bet that he'd have been persona non grata at Motown. We all know what that would have meant for him. He would have had the shelf life of week-old fish if he'd made too many waves. If he had been ousted from the group, who woul've complained? The fans? After losing David & Eddie? I seriously doubt that there would have been any uproar about that. He knew it too, what was he going to do, threaten to get a solo deal? Sure he was.

What most of us don't like is how there's this perception that he was the end all & be all, regarding The Temptations. Let's be honest, Otis NEEDED The Temptations. They were his claim to fame, they're his lifeline. Without The Temptations, where would he have gone? We wouldn't be having this discussion, you can believe that. You can talk about great background harmony if you'd like & some of the greatest harmonizers are unsung studio singers.
Otis doesn't fit that category. All I know is that David, Eddie & Dennis had some pretty fair solo hits & albums. They had some success on their own & all of them sang background parts on songs. They had the voices & talent to stand on their own. We can't say that for Otis.

I respect his role in legend of The Temptations. He played a vital role & definitely helped keep things together. For that, he deserves respect. Most others could not have pulled it off. He gets high marks for perseverance & business sense. I credit him for being a survivor & a man who definitely knew how to maneuver himself into a position of power. From what I remember, he didn't get caught up in some of the excesses that some of the others did & if so, that's very commendable.

However, let's maintain some semblance of proportion & perspective here. He was important, but from reading his book, he comes across as being self-important, with a dose of just being a little too good to be true. To take away from the great lead singers is ridiculous. Without Motown, those classic Smokey & Whitfield songs, as well as those great vocalists & harmonies, the group could have faded long ago. How great would Otis have been then? He didn't do it by himself & there's a excellent chance that they cold have been just as successful without him.

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.54) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 03:01 am:

I also neglected to add Damon Harris & Ricky Owens to my list of good leads. Please pardon my oversight.

By Sudi Kamau (172.208.51.14) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 02:36 pm:

I can understand the reaction to inflated claims of Otis William's importance. I think a person would have to be nuts to think that he was the end all and be all of the temptations - he wasn't that by a very long shot.

I guess context is the important factor at play. In one context, I have no quarrel with people's indignation at a guy making himself out to be more than he was or being given undue credit for what others contribute to an effort.

In another context, I bristle at a large segment of the public that I think is overly dismissive of things like background singers, side-men, and "one-hit wonders." Some things are great for sales, but sometimes the stuff you really want to "cop" comes from somewhere else.

By stephanie (69.138.239.31) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 03:01 pm:

What the heck is Ricky Owens doing now?
Stephanie

By Soul Sister (65.43.144.46) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 03:03 pm:

Steph;
Ricky passed away in the 90's. Eli can tell you more.
S.S.

By R&B (138.238.41.118) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 03:40 pm:

HEY JUICEFREE20..DID YOU READ THE BOOK?..OTIS IS TELLING THE HISTORY OF THE GROUP,YES IT WAS HIS SIDE OF THE STORY,BUT EDDIE,DAVID,RICHARD OR DENNIS COULD'VE WRITTEN A VERSION OF THIER OWN BUT NONE HAS TO THIS DAY,WHAT I'M NOT GETTING IS WHERE ALL THIS STUFF ABOUT OTIS BEING THE END ALL OF THE GROUP IS COMIN FROM,I DON'T SEE IT IN HIS WRITING OR IN INTERVIEWS,SAY WHAT YOU WILL,BUT OTIS WAS THE STABILIZING FORCE IN THE TEMPS REMEMBER,EDDIE AND MELVIN DID'T GET ALONG[THIS IS FROM BLUE'S OWN MOUTH]EDDIE DIDN'T WANT BLUE IN THE TEMPS[WITHOUT BLUE'S BASS THE TEMPS WOULD'VE BEEN JUST ANOTHER GROUP]SO THAT'S ONE PROBLEM RIGHT THERE,DON'T BUY THAT SOFT SELL IN THE MOVIE,THE TEMPS AND OTIS NEEDED EACH OTHER,OH AND BY THE WAY I'M STILL WAITING TO READ DENNIS OR RICHARD'S VERSION OF THINGS.

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.54) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 07:10 pm:

What's up Sudi? You make an excellent point. That is part of my problem with this thread. When I read how much credit Is given Otis, my reaction is that he didn't do it all by himself. I bring up all of those great lead singers, to indicate that without them, The Tempts might not have lasted past the 60s. The thing about The Temptations is that they were a great COMBINATION. The sum was greater than the individual parts & for anyone to neglect that point, hits me the wrong way. I feel that there is equal credit here. Not to mention the great writers, producers & Berry Gordy. People may try to slam Berry, but Berry was simply the master. I credit Berry for The success of The Tempts, far more that I do Otis. I credit the production skills of Smokey & Norman totally revamping their sound (Cloud Nine was very innovative & different, remember how surprised we were at their new sound?)for their success. More importantly, it was the blend of their voices & their stage presence that put them over the top. They were the coolest group out there in those days. The were classy, smooth & could dance their behinds off. ALL of them should be credited.

Hello R&B! Yes I did read Otis' book & I've read other books as well. Books such as Pattis', & Tony Turners travels with David, Eddie, Dennis & The Tempts. I assume that you've read them as well. I definitely felt that Otis could have been a bit more honest. It seemed to me that he was very good at letting us know how Dennis & David messed up. He was good at letting us know about Eddie's moodiness & problems with Melvin. I agree with you that Melvin was a huge part of The Tempts, with that big, fat bottom. I would have liked to see Otis give a little more of a critique of himself. No one is that squeaky clean & since he pulled the covers off of others, he could have done the same as regards himself. He came across as a most beleaguered soul, with the patience of Job. If we have to consider Otis' recollections to be honest, don't we have to consider others accounts to be honest as well? How do we decide who's right or who's wrong?

I've acknowledged that he had a difficult balancing act to pull off. That is not in dispute. I agree that that movie wasn't up to par with anything that I read anywhere. I felt that a lot of creative license was taken & storylines used merely for dramatic effect. What you just said is one of my points. They did need each other, Otis moreso. Eddie didn't seem to be the type to write books. Eddie seemed to be very private.

You know what I wish that I could see? All of them together, clearing the air & dispelling these mysteries & half-truths, once & for all. Unfortunately, we know that's impossible. We could go around & around with this forever & still get nowhere. I don't believe that Otis is hated by anyone. I honestly don't believe that the average person looked at it like that. The average person that I know doesn't say "Otis", or anyone else. You know what they say? They say The Temptations, that's what they say.

As for myself, I don't care who was liked, or who wasn't. I didn't start this thread, I'm just giving my opinion based on God knows how many books on the subject of Motown & the artists. If these are lies, they're not my lies. If they were lies, then I would think that several people, as well as Publishers would have been sued big time. I haven't heard where that happened, so, what are we to make of that. Frankly, I'm playing devils advocate here, as, I wasn't there. In fact, very few of us were, so what can we go by? If I have to take the press releases as gospel, I have to give equal time to those artists, whom have raised their voices in opposition.

I have no particular favorite, as they have made beautiful music. I don't care who slept with who, or any of that. What I do care about are the straight out lies that were spoon fed us through the publicity mill. Growing up, I believed the hype. I believed every press release that I read. I believed all of it. Years later, as different things came to light, as a fan & supporter, I felt betrayed. Some of the lies were nonsensical lies, needless publicity BS. You can excuse that, no harn no foul. Unfortunately, some of them were had significant ramifications for some.

How can anyone truthfully be surprised when someone questions these things? When you've discovered that you've been played, for years at that, would you ever take anything said at face value again? How do you feel when someone you consider to be a friend, lies to you, continually, at that. Do you continue to trust what they say out of blind faith? Out of loyalty? Or, do you begin to consider others' opinions like most of us would? People are free to believe what they want to & that's alright.

What I truly don't understand, is this indignance that arises, whenever thinking people don't agree with the status quo. I see no need for the indignance. If we didn't question things, or point out the wrongs, what are we saying about ourselves? However, if we choose to gloss over topics such as this, why not ignore everything else in the world. Why not gloss over Enron, Worldcom, or every other scandal that's come along? Why question anything at all? However, we'd still be living in a society that openly oppresses gay people, women & people of color. There's nothing wrong with questioning things. Remember, much of the music that we loved & Motown produced was because of questioning things such as this. Remember War, What's Goin' On, Ball Of Confusion? What was the point of those songs, if not questioning the status quo that existed at the time. This is so myopic, that it's sad.

I'll end my participation in this thread by stating this: The Temptations were a great group, a great group. I don't care about who liked who, I don't care if This person or that person was disliked. It's about 30 years too late to worry about about that & regardless, they've left us with some great music & memories. The personal issues are just that personal issues. That can't be changed no matter how much we scream & shout. Why are we even arguing over this? I'm open to listen to EVERYONE'S side of the story. As I said before, if the truth was told from the start, we wouldn't be talking about 1964, here in the year 2004. I'm gonna listen to the accapella version of My Girl & think back to those innocent days & enjoy those sweet harmonies!

I'm out, Peace to all!
Julius Freeman (Juicefree20)

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 09:24 pm:

Another thing that rubs me the wrong way, is when people say that Otis kept the Tempts together. That's certainly not so. The Tempts have been split more times than I can count. If he had kept "The Temptations" together, then there would be Paul, David, Eddie, Melvin, and Otis. Let's just accept David in place of Al Bryant, since they exploded after David joined. (Meet The Temptations is a great piece of work, with Al on all the songs except one.) Still, if he had kept the Tempts together, then there would be Paul, Dennis, Eddie, Melvin, and Otis.

Bottom line, Otis did not keep the Tempts together. The Tempts were not kept together. When the above set of individuals disbursed, the other subsequent individuals became the group that Otis, Shelly and Melvin invented, and hand picked. Face it, when Melvin and Otis went to another label, it was proven then that it was Motown who made them, and it was Motown who called the shots, giving license to Otis and Melvin to make a living on stage. Otis may have the name, by approval of Motown, but as far as keeping the Tempts together, forget it. The facts speaks for themselves.

By Nosey (152.163.253.70) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 09:28 pm:

I read in this guy's book who said he was David's valet that David, Eddie & Dennis referred to Otis's group as the Imitations.

By Tyrone (12.20.58.68) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:15 pm:

This discussion started off great until the long, long comments from some. The original question was 'Why is Otis Williams so hated'. Isaiah, it appears to me only a few on this forum are against Otis. In my everyday life and remembering the years past, none of my friends, families or co-workers have said anything negative about Otis, whenever the topic of the Tempts came/come up. I've only noticed this since I started reading this forum. Otis has done a great job with the Tempts, especially since no other original group member plus David are alive. Bringing in the likes of Barrington, Ollie and GC is a plus. Imagine if Mary Wilson's leadership role in the Supremes was as strong as Otis', perhaps this discussion would be about Ms Wilson. Folks, stop believing everything you read and let's stop the hate. Why can't we be uplifting? What we need to do is figure a way to get Bush/Cheney out of office (LOL)?

Peace,
Tyrone

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:32 pm:

Tyrone - I feel you. First, this forum is not a political forum. DMeikle does not vote here in the USA.

I don't know why Mary Wilson does not have the license to use the name of the Supremes. I don't believe anyone is "against Otis." I'm certainly not against him. He owes me nothing, I'm pleased with what I have of the Classic Temptations. I don't need anymore from the Tempts. I'm thoroughly satisfied with what I have.

I could care less whether he has a group or not. As far as I'm concerned, his group is just another group. Nothing special about them, other than the fact, that Otis used to sing with the Classics, and now they are singing Classic songs. If he had let Barrington be Barrington, I would have been pleased. But he didn't. I want to like the Tempts for what they can do. Not what the Classics did. Otis could retire right now, and not have another group. I would still be pleased with what the Classic Temptations did. I have a right to like what I like, and to dislike who I like. That has nothing to do with anyone else. That is taking nothing away from Otis. I have no reason to like to now. I like him as he was with the Classics. The Classics are no more. And I do not have to honor those who call themselves "The Temptations." It's a matter of taste. I liked GC Cameron before he went with Otis. I like Ali-Ollie since he left Otis. My likes for them has nothing to do with Otis, but has something to do with them, same way with Barrington.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:50 pm:

Analyze this, why has Otis been given licensed to use the Temptations name, and Mary has not been licensed to use the Supremes name?

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.54) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:51 pm:

Hey Sis, Nosey

Nosey, you're referring to Tony Turners' book. He claimed that David allowed him to call him godfather. I wonder if anyone at Motown has any recollections of Tony. He had two books, one focusing on his time with Florence, the other focused on his time on the road with David, Eddie & Dennis. No one seems to know much about Tony.

Evening

By Nosey (152.163.253.70) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:02 pm:

JuiceFree20: Did you see my email yet?

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.54) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:10 pm:

Yes Nosey & I answered you! Check it when you get a chance : )

Peace
Juicefree20

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:11 pm:

There are so many groups singing classic temptations' songs, that to pay big money to hear Otis's group sing classic temptations songs, would be financially unwise. If Otis has been lead on those songs, it would be quite another matter. But he was not. So, to hear GC Cameron sing "Ain't to Proud," is no difference than to hear David Sea sing "Ain't to Proud."

To settle this, they should have both groups on the same stage, and then we will see who has the best Classic performance. Especially since this is what the current Tempts are about.

By RD (65.54.98.18) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:30 am:

R&B a few reasons why Eddie Kendricks didn't want Melvin Franklin in the group initially was his age and that Eddie wanted this bass singer out of Cleveland that he and Paul woodshedded with when they lived here and worked at the Majestic Hotel to be in the group. His bass was as deep if not deeper than Melvin's. I can't think of the guy's name offhand. If Eddie had got the guy in the group then he, Eddie and Paul would have had the majority votes over Otis and Elbridge when a show of hands was needed to decide whatever.

By Juicefree20 (151.204.159.54) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:50 am:

Good Evening.
Tyrone, I can't speak for anyone else regarding the long posts that you speak of. I'm sorry if you don't like them. However, when you speak on topics such as this, there is no simple answer to it. How do you sum up 30 - 40 years in a paragraph? Subjects such as these require thought & contemplation. If some people choose to have an opinion without being able to show why, hey, good for them. As for myself, I hate it when people throw all kinds of opinions out there, yet, can't substantiate their position, much less express it.

Frankly, I don't set out to write essays. What I try to do is show reasons why people have contrary opinions. All that I can say to you is, as long as David & Ralph have no problem with it, I have no problem with it. This is a forum & people talk in forums. All that is can't say is this: when I see a thread or statement that I'd rather not bother with, I skip it. If mine happen to fall into the long, long category that you mentioned, I'm sorry. I'm glad that you are able to express yourself in fewer words. I haven't mastered that art, as I know that things aren't always what they seem to be from a surface view.

I am glad that some people get the point & maybe they get something out of it, that you perhaps you don't. To each his own. In addition, I don't see where anybody's hating here. If you picked up the idea that this thread is about hate, you're seeing something that I'm not. What we are doing is giving a different point of view, that is contrary to what most would prefer to hear. Sorry about that. I simply can't agree with statements, because they happen to be popular.

The problem is that most people have the tendency to try to oversimplify issues that are very complicated. I'm not into that, I'm into trying to understand the various sides of an issue. I'm challenging people to think, which most people don't like to do nowadays. I take things seriously & perhaps I simply think too much. I guess when you see my posts, you'll do what I do, when I see something that I'm not interested in: you'll skip past it. It's nothing personal & I hope that this post wasn't too long for you Peace!

By RD (65.54.98.108) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 07:34 am:

Juicefree some things that happened over 40 years ago or more can't be substantiated because the participants and witnessess are dead. The Temptations' book was written from Otis Williams' perspective. If the book had been from Eddie, Paul or David's perspectives it would have been totally different. Otis knew nothing or didn't care about Paul and Eddie's time in Cleveland prior to moving to Detroit so it was glossed over in his book.

By Reese (12.15.168.95) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 10:43 am:

SisDetroit:

If I remember correctly, Otis is not licensing the Temptations name. He actually owns it. When the Tempts left Motown for Atlantic, the name was given to Otis and Melvin. Otherwise, they would have had to change their name since Motown claimed ownership of the name, back around 1968.

At various times, Mary Wilson owned (at least in part) the Supremes name. But around 1990, she came to an agreement with Motown and gave up her rights to the name. When Motown was sold, Mary wrote that Berry told her the Supremes name was sold for the token amount of $1.

The above info I gathered from the books written by Mary and Otis, as well as J, Randy Taborrelli's book on Motown.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:08 pm:

Motown owns the name.

http://soulfuldetroit.com/forum/messages/6233/5093.html?1063000464

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:11 pm:

http://soulconcert.tripod.com/soulmusic/id8.html

By ...... (152.163.253.70) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:13 pm:

Otis has 'exclusive rights' to The Tempts name. He doesn't own it, Motown does. See the injunction that Otis Williams served Kimberly English(Melvin's widow) to keep her from licensing the name to other former Tempts. It is somewhere on the net.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:37 pm:

A portion of that brief is in the soulconcert link above.

By ..... (152.163.253.70) on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 06:02 pm:

Thank you.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 02:09 am:

Are there any other questions? :o)

By fayette (64.12.96.102) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 11:18 am:

hate is such a harsh word.i never hate anybody
may dislike what they do.i think the confusion
maybe the book he wrote.i hate because the
others has passed and gone and their story
not told.what he wrote may have happened
and may not.if i were in a group and there
was nobody left i can paint a picture of
my that is the best.but anyway, what do you
others think about the book and movie

By RoseyK (64.12.96.102) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 12:24 pm:

Otis Williams' book came out in 1988. Eddie and David were still alive and could have told their side of the story and obviously chose not to do it for whatever reason. I wish they had. It would have been interesting to get another perspective.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 02:43 pm:

Since the original release of the book called "Temptations," not "The Temptations." Apparently, he did not get approval to name the book "The Temptations." Had he done so, he would have been writing about the group. He cannot speak for the group. I've not re-read the book. He did not get a re-newed interest in his group after the book. I do not have the second version of the book, I think released last year.

After the movie, I do not want to read anything he writes. I was totally disappointed in the private story line of the other families. Things which he could not have known. But people take these things literally. We, as adults, who were there during those days, (hopefully) know that these things were fabricated, and do not take those things face value. If the real story was told, it would have had a great impact as well. It wasn't until after the movie that there was wide spread re-newed interest in the current group. This interest is due to the fact that the music by the Classic Temptations is so great, and reached all segments, as it did in the past. The music of "The (real) Temptations", has reached the new generations. Now, the group "continued to use and profit from the Temptations name in the manner set forth in the partnership agreement."

By Soul Sister (65.43.144.46) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 02:53 pm:

Hi SisD;
How are you today? What you just wrote was exactly my point when it came to the recent documentry about Jimmy. Hopefully, the movie will be more acurate and more complete, I'm sure it will, everything done on Jimmy thus far is better than that twist on reality.
I certainly understand where your coming from Sis, and thanks for the good reporting.
Have a nice day,
S.S.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 03:02 pm:

SS - Now I understand what you and KevGo were saying about that documentary on PBS concerning Jimmy. I was without previous knowledge (ignorant(, and I took that documentary literally. Just think, if it had been in a movie which acted out and portrayed those fabrications, you would have been totally upset. It would have influenced public opinion.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 03:35 pm:

The Temptations movie is advertised as being "A True Story." If they had advertised it by saying " the music is original, the writers have been "creative" with the personal stories for "dramatic effect," then maybe I could forgive.

Not only was Otis's 1988 book release not well known until after the 1998 movie release, the box set of the "Emperors of Soul", released in 1994, reached greater heights after the 1998 movie. I would love to know the difference in the statistics on the sell of that great set, prior to 1998 and after.

By Juicefree20 (141.149.33.203) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 07:05 pm:

Hello to both of my "Sisters" . I love your messages. Why is it thatbwe understand the point that so many others seem to be missing? My thing is about the truth & that's how it should be. It's alright to like certain individuals, but, as most of us have no vested interest, why the denials & defensiveness?

People also say that certain things are none of our business, it's personal. That's nonsense. The minute you make statements in press releases, the minute that you become a public figure, people become interested in your life. Even the labels & artists recognize this. If not, why did they form official fan clubs? That indicates that they knew the value of maintaining the interest of fans. If it was so personal, why did they participate with the maqgazines & float personal info to the readers? These things were done to whet the appetites of the fans.

However, they neglected to consider the other side of the coin. Once you get the fans to feel a bond with an entertainer, it's natural for them to want to know more. It's also natural that people who know these artists for who they are, as well as what they've done, will speak out if there's the scent of B.S. in the air. That's human nature. What makes it worse is when you have floated B.S. from the start, then write books from a one-sided perspective & associates nmake movies with glossed-over facts, people wonder why. I can't blame him for what the producers of the movie did.

Those are the things that get people so angry & make them dig for the negative things. It feeds on itself. I guess that some people feel that if they've been lied to about certain things, what other things have they been lied to about, as well. If the lies weren't put out there at the start, there'd be nothing for anyone to try to dig up.

I bought Otis' book from the start. I was interested in the story of The Temptations, not so much Otis. I had no real opinion of him as, I never heard anyone say much about him. After reading the book, I felt that he made statements that showed his frustration with some of the members (and rightfully so, might I add). Then, as if he remembered his training, threw out some praise, that came across as a bit insincere.

I don't believe that any fan HATES Otis. I think that some are disappointed with him. He kinda aired other folks dirty laundry, but, didn't air much of his. Even the Patti LaBelle situation was glossed over a bit. It seems to me that many have bought into the hype for so long & have been so blinded by the music & memories, that objectivity is simply not in them. They can't be objective about these types of things. I can give the devil his due, yet, still see the other side of the equation because I simply like to know the truth.

To both "Sisters", thank you for the perspective. I fully understand where you're coming from.

Juice

By Soul Sister (65.43.144.46) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 09:03 pm:

Hey Juice Baby!
Loving what your saying too, especially the part about truth and producer/directors glossing over the true facts as they are. Not to mention when family members hide their own dirt and want to come off like its all sweet and light, thats real bull. Its very misleading to the public and frustrating to the real people involved, who are in the trenches and know the real deal.
Juice, its always a pleasure to read your very insightful comments. Keep sockin'it to us!(smile).
S.S.

By Tyrone (209.219.209.68) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 11:22 pm:

Juicefree20,
What's up my friend? Just responding to your statement. I never said I didn't like reading long comments. What I said was that the topic started off great until the long comments. If the long comments are interesting and not overbearing, I enjoy the reading. I never mentioned the word 'hate', I said 'against Otis'. You also suggested that I should overlook or not read any topics I may not be interested in. That is exactly what I do. I am a fan of classic Motown and whenever there's a topic on some of my favorites, I will read whether there's positive or negative feedback. Again, I am not knocking your "voice" on this matter. What I am questioning is are these facts or just your opinions? One other thing, I don't always believe what I read, see or hear!

Tyrone

By Juicefree20 (141.149.37.7) on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:35 am:

Hey Tyrone! Thanks for your response. I really appreciate responses such as yours. I wish that we could all communicate like this. When I referred to hate, I was referring to your statement about stopping the hate, as well as the idea that Otis is hated. I honestly don't believe that he is hated, that's much too strong a word. I don't think that he merits an emotion as strong as hate.

Some of the things that I base my opinions on are: the many articles, books & magazines that I've accumulated over the years. In some cases, my own recollections, friends in the industry, fan club & press releases & recollections of those who were there. In other cases, I try to use deductive reasoning. Some things must pass the sniff test, if they don't, something's wrong. Most of the things I speak about are pretty much things where the info has spoken for itself. When I find discrepancies, I try to reason why they exist. All too often, these discrepancies come from the same sources, sometimes from the subject(s) themselves.

I couldn't & wouldn't state certain things regarding an individual as fact, as that would be libelous. But, where easily obtainable info is available, we can connect the dots for ourselves. As far as this thread is concerned, I think that I've given pretty fair & measured opinions throughout. I don't believe that I've said anything erroneous, slanderous & nothing unreasonable.

I responded as I did, as you specified that the thread was going fine until "the long, long comments of some." Now, as I've followed this thread, I would have to put myself in that category. I think things through thoroughly & as a result, very few comments of mine are of the short & sweet variety. As such, I definitely though that your comments were directed to me.

I appreciate your response & if I responded to you in error, you have my sincerest apology. I agree with you in that we don't need so much hostility where the music is concerned. I think that some of us take it a little too much to heart.
Respectfully, Peace!
Juice

By Tyrone (192.128.167.68) on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 09:39 pm:

Cool response, Juice. I appreciate it.

Take care,
Tyrone

By Juicefree20 (141.149.61.110) on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:32 pm:

Tyrone!

Spoken like a true gentleman! It's been a pleasure.

Peace!
Juice