By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:10 pm:

I happened to be on a site and saw the following letter from the lovely Mary Wilson (being a friend I am of course biased). I was wondering what you all thought of this letter specifically and "bogus" singing groups in general. Everyone from the Platters to the Temptations have had problems with groups performing all over the world who not only don't have an original member or replacement member but were too young to have even known the group (think of the presently touring Marvelettes). I once was in Switzerland and saw a group called the Supremes appearing at a local club. The ladies were not only unattractive, but were too young to have been even associated with any variation of the Supremes. They also put on a horrible show. I let the powers that be know my annoyance with the situation.

In any event, let me know what you think.

A Letter from Mary Wilson:
Hello, Everyone!
First, I want to thank you for all the support you have given me over the years. It means so much. I know that many of you have been concerned about the proliferation of groups calling themselves "The Supremes." Thank you for doing what you can to "police" this situation and for letting me know when issues like this arise. Thanks to information I received from a fan, I called the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette earlier this week, to inform them that the group calling itself "The Supremes" that is performing in Pittsburgh on Sunday--and which the newspaper had identified as, "the Mary Wilson version..."-- did not include me. I am not performing in Pittsburgh on Sunday. But, you begin to understand the depth of the problem.

Let me state that there are NO official groups of Supremes touring. Here is my position: there were only three original, legendary Supremes--Diane, Flo and me. There were five replacement singers-- Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne and Susaye Greene. Of the replacements, only Cindy and Jean had hit records with the group. And there are NO other replacement Supremes. This situation has gotten totally out of hand. It upsets me that these ersatz groups are taking over our legacy, making money off that legacy, and are ruining the reputation of The Supremes. It has to stop. I have spent too much money and time trying to protect and maintain the legacy of The Supremes. And now I am being sued by RSM managemen and Harmony Artists, Inc, which claims that I have prevented these groups from working. If this keeps up, I may have to go the way of Prince, and not be a Supreme any more. This is an issue that affects not only The Supremes. So many of the legendary groups of the 50s 60s and 70s are having their legacies and livlihoods stolen from them--all for the sake of the dollar. These legendary performers are our National Treasures, and their names and reputations deserve to be protected. As you know, I am actively involved with a group called F.A.M.E. (Friends Against Musical Exploitation of Artists), which works to educate the public and lawmakers about the issue of bogus groups and imposters, and the need to legislation to protect our rights. F.A.M.E. is a wonderful organization, and I urge you to support it. You may want to contact Pat Benti, F.A.M.E.s executive director, about becoming a member. F.A.M.E.'s adress is: 154 Endicott Street, Revere, MA.

Last year, I testified before the Massachusetts State Legislature about the issue of imposter groups. I am currently talking with Pennsylvania State Senator Robbins, who is very interested in joining our cause. I know that I may lose fans over this stance. However, I can no longer stand by and let the dreams of three little black girls from the Brewster Projects become a "McDonald's franchise." Ours was an Impossible Dream that only Flo, Diane and I made come true. Ours is a real Cinderella story--not a copy.
TOUCH/PEACE,
Mary Wilson

By Common (209.2.55.142) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:32 pm:

Hello cleoharvey,

I've read & heard Mary complain about the fact that she cannot use the Supremes name, even though she was an original member. I'm shocked by this simply because I thought that Mary had owned half the name in her settlement with Motown in the late 70's. I guess that info was incorrect. I really think those management agency is has a lot of nerve to sue Mary!! But what I'm confused is how did these management companies get ownership of the name? This is the same problem that Gladys Horton of the Marvelettes is experiencing except it was said that BG lost the name in a gambling bet. I'm interested to see what the lawmakers will do rectify this situation, seeing that music industry has a lot of influence.

Peace!

By Tony Russi (68.18.226.42) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:42 pm:

As far as I'm concerned, RSM Management & Harmony Artist have no credibility if they represent FAKE groups.Any lawsuit against Mary Wilson from preventing a fake group from working should be tossed out and the prosecuting attorney scolded by the Judge!

By R&B (138.238.41.118) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 12:44 pm:

THE LETTER SOUNDS GOOD,BUT SPEAKING OF BOGUS GROUPS,BEN E.KING TOLD A STORY SOME YEARS AGO ABOUT BEING AT A CONCERT AND UPON BEING TOLD THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE DRIFTERS WANTED TO SEE HIM HE WENT BACKSTAGE ONLY TO DISCOVER THAT HE KNEW NONE OF THE SO CALLED DRIFTERS THERE.I UNDERSTAND GROUPS WANTING TO KEEP THIER NAME OUTTHERE,BUT IF THERE ISN'T AT LEAST ONE ORIGINAL MEMBER THAT PEOPLE REMEMBER THEN THE LINK TO THAT GROUP IS BROKEN AND IT CAN BE SAD.

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:02 pm:

I would guess it would come down to name ownership, two examples being the 2 or 3 competing Glenn Miller Orchestras after WWII (Mrs. Miller's lawyers eventualy cleared that up, much to the chegrin of Jerry Grey), and the Fleetwood Mac's of the mid '70's, where one was the actual band, and one was the band name's owner's group. I find myself a little leary of the Moonglows and Platters and Coasters and the etc. out there that are showing up at the casinos around here if only a) they're so damn young and are "re-creating" the sound and b) after an incident with a "Supremes/Coasters" show in Wenatchee, WA about 20 years ago, I just don't trust them.

By MEL&THEN SOME (195.219.7.41) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:11 pm:

Hey R&B
That kind of thing happened a few times over here in the uk around the late 60s,
there were a few acts coming over and saying they were other groups by using there names and when they appeared live,had nothing to do with the group you were expecting to see.
Regards buddy,
Mel(The Original)

By Nikki (24.46.200.124) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:17 pm:

Bogus groups seems to be a MAJOR problem and all too common in today's revival venues! Recently I saw the "Marvelettes" as well as the "Shangri-las", bogus of course! Those ladies looked like they were perhaps the age of the children of the original singers!!! As far as the Platters, there is Herb Reed's Platters performing on the circuit. Herb Reed was the bass on their recordings, so this group could be considered legit. I am aware of MANY Coasters & Drifters groups around, and truthfully I can't keep track anymore who is an original (if any) and who is not! The Moonglows group that is around is obviously not the original. They actually bill themselves as Bobby Lester's Moonglows and they do a terrific job of keeping the Moonglows sound alive. If only all these "bogus" groups would just modify their names somewhat, like "Bobby Lester's Moonglows", I don't have a problem with it. But when a totally bogus group performs and gets paid for calling themselves the Marvelettes, for example, this is where it gets hairy and totally wrong! I sincerely hope that someone or someones can appropriately "remove" these acts from the circuit, or force them to change their names before being billed on a venue. Just my two cents worth.

In harmony,

Nikki
http://www.harmonytrain.com

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:17 pm:

One of Mary's former background singers has a
group called Sounds of the Supremes, I think
her name is Kaaren Raglind or something like
that. This group recently had a really good
booking for a '60s special at Bush Gardens
theme park in Tampa, Florida. Theme park's
really treat entertainers first-class and
also pay them well. It's a real shame and
a REAL crime in my opinion.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.110) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:41 pm:

R&B, Ben E. King & the Crowns could be considered bogus Drifters themselves. Did you know that the original Drifters were fired and replaced by Ben E. King's group, the Crowns? King wasn't an original Drifter nor was any of the Crowns.

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 01:54 pm:

To all:

It seems basically you are in agreement that this is a problem for a lot of the orginal members of groups from the 50s-70s who are trying to make a living. There are people who say that Mary does not legally own the name (Motown does) that she should not complain. But the strange thing is, if Motown does not want Mary Wilson to use the name, why don't they also put a stop inferior copy groups who were never part of the experience? Kaaren Ragland's group, "Sounds of the Supremes" actually won a lawsuit against Mary Wilson two years ago and that is adding insult to injury. Miss Ragland won because she said she was not saying her group was The Supremes but doing a show of their songs, sort of like Beatlemania to the Beatles. She won even though I have seen ads and possess a CD that calls Miss Ragland's group The Supremes. Motown actually backed Ragland's group during the suit and they have had her group perform at several industry parties and events in the United States and Europe.

I know there exists a great deal of legal aspects that sometimes go against the original members, but it seems patently unfair. Analgous to groups who signed contracts early in their careers that are now uconscionable. True, the artists signed the contracts early in their careers and they are "legal," but are they fair?

Mary told me that over the years she has spent almost 2 million dollars fighting these groups. She is not doing it simply for herself (she does very well financially) but to try to maintain the legacy of the Supremes. Fans should not have go to a club to see a pickup group of rag tag ladies call themselves that legendary name. And also for the wonderful legendary members of original groups like Gladys Horton. If you know Mary, you know this is true.

By stephanie (206.215.11.107) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:02 pm:

I think as long as there is an original member in the group its ok. These other groups should only be listed or billed as TRIBUTE groups only!!!

The reason why Motown lets the phoney Supremes perform is it helps to move their catalog. I think that its criminal that guys that are shady get the copyrights and own names of groups like the Shangri las and they are all in their 30s!!!
Its horrible that legally Gladys Horton cant perform or call herself a Marvelette in some states because Larry Marshak owns the name!!! If a person was an original member in the group they should be able to tour.

I know Mary does not care for Lynda Lawrence and Scherrie Payne going out as Former Ladies of the Supremes but there were Supremes and see nothing wrong with it. YES they do some of the Mary and Flo and Diana songs but they were Supremes and they have to eat too. Anyway there is plenty of room out there for Mary and the gang and the FLOS do mostly overseas gigs anyway but some of these other groups its horrible.

Stephanie

By . (64.236.243.31) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:05 pm:

there's The FLOS too, Former Ladies of The Supremes, that is Lynda Laurence..Diana Ross
I believe suports their efforts

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:06 pm:

Scratcher:
At the risk of adding sugar to your already unsweetened lemonade, check your history regarding the Drifters. The manager of the Drifters at that time (who owned the group's name) was looking for replacement members after Clyde McPhatter went into the Army and the rest of the original group wasn't holding up. So he hired the Crowns to become the Drifters. The reason why he hired the Crowns was because the Drifters owed Atlantic Records a few more sides to record. So,instead of being sued by Jerry Wexler & Ahmet Ertegun, he hired the Crowns.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:08 pm:

Right here in Detroit, the city of Ferndale booked the non-original Marvelettes for the Woodward Dream Cruise no less. Right here, in the Marvelettes' home town! When I told one of the publicists that none of the original Marvelettes was in this group, she said "Well the city of Ferndale said they were real." Oh yeah, they would know!

The point is, the general public can do a lot by calling and complaining, or walking up to the promoter and complaining. Complain to somebody! I don't buy it that nobody expects there to be an original member 30 or 40 years later -- then don't bill them as the original group! Nobody passes themselves off as the Beatles, they say "a tribute to the Beatles." "A Tribute to the Doors."

It's in the R&B field that this is really a problem for the original groups, it seems.

The guy behind the "Marvelettes," the non-original Coasters and non-original Drifters works it like a franchise; he has about three "Drifters" moving around the country, same thing with the "Marvelettes." People are enabling this by buying tickets and not questioning why these acts are 30 years younger than they should be.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.110) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:15 pm:

What about the Drifters, Stephanie?

Or, the Moments before they became Ray, Goodman & Brown? Neither Billy Brown, Al Goodman or the late Harry Ray was a member of the original Moments that recorded "Not On the Outside." Joe Robinson fired the original Moments after their first gig at the Apollo theater.

The original member of the group criteria sounds good, but in some cases, i.e. the Drifters, Moments, and others doesn't fly well. Often times the actual original members and the public's knowledge or perception of the original members are totally different.

If Mark Greene (the lead singer of "Not on the Outside" by the original Moments) put a group together and started giging as the Moments the general public would call them bogus. When infact, Greene was an original member.

Each of the bogus group cases should be looked at and evaluated individually and not lumped together.

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:27 pm:

Scratcher

I believe that you are right in that everyone cannot be lumped into one pot. Certainly the Supremes and the public's knowledge of the Supremes is not similar to that of Ray, Goodman & Brown. All you have do is go to Google and put Supremes in the search field and it will shock you how many sites are devoted to them. But I think you would have to agree there is a "general" problem with this sort of thing. Three years ago, I saw the Delfonics (oops not sure of the spelling) on a bill and not one of the members was over 30. I was annoyed but the audience seemd to enjoy them.

I love the debate.

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:31 pm:

Steph, Sue.....
....it took doing the dishes for me to figure out what I wanted to say in the first place.
Even with an original member or two, legit groups are esentially "tribute" groups, recreating the sounds that made the original groups famous. If Mary was leading a group of Supremes, they would fall under that label, because, although doing faithful recreations, the principle voice has changed, and they would not be the group that recorded "Stop In The Name Of Love". Make sense?

By Ritchie (81.102.249.48) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:32 pm:

Actually, the reason George Treadwell signed the Crowns as "the Drifters" was to fulfill his annual contractual obligation with the Apollo theatre. The name is still owned legally by the Treadwell family - and now the property of Faye and George's daughter.

Bill Pinkney still maintains an "Original Drifters" group, though he is the only member with a genuine connection to the group.

Charlie Thomas led a New York-based Drifters group in the seventies, which included Dock Green and Elsbeary Hobbs, plus Al Banks of the Turbans.

The "official" Drifters, led by Johnny Moore were resident in the UK and worked under licence from Faye Treadwell. Since Johnny's passing, the group continues with no members who have any link with either the Clyde McPhatter group, or the Crowns.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:34 pm:

Stephanie:
I agree with Scratcher on that last point. Just because a group has one original member does not make them authentic nor should it grant them license to represent the real deal.

In regards to the Supremes & Mary you are dead wrong about Motown letting bogus groups push their catalog. Harry Weinger & the folks at Universal Music Group have been helping Mary Wilson fight the battle to keep these bogus groups from such perpetration. I know for a fact that UMG has worked with the original artists to push their catalog. When I managed a major record store in Manhattan, Harry sent the original members of the Velvelettes to my store for an autograph session when UMG released their "best-of" anthology. Out of all the labels I know and worked for here in NYC (from Brunswick Records to Sony Music), I give props to UMG and Harry for "keeping it real" by working with the original artists.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:44 pm:

KevGo

Thanks for the information my friend, and all your comments on this forum. They are always intelligent, informed, and passionate about the music.

By the way, were you planning to be at BB King's next week for Mary's shows? I intend to go and would love to meet you.

Michael

By MEL&THEN SOME (195.219.7.106) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:47 pm:

Kev sure knows where its at.(andthensome).

By JoeR (170.148.92.21) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:48 pm:

Greetings from NYC,

As many have posted, I agree, the only way a group should keep the name is if there is at least ONE original member. That is the criteria used by TJ Lubinsky, producer of the PBS Doo Wop Specials. A group can only appear if there is at least one original member.

The Channels were at Westbury in December 1999 at on the bill were the Marvelettes. What annoyed me was when they said "the year was 1966 when WE recorded..." "WE?" I said to myself. Even when Earl performs (him being the only original performing member) he states "The Channels recorded this song ..." not "we recorded this song in ..."

JoeR - http://mypages.netopia.com/channels

By Scratcher (65.132.78.110) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:55 pm:

When Smokey left the Miracles many considered the ensuing group Bogus though they had three original members.

If Ron Banks decides he's had enough and quits the Dramatics will they then be classified a bogus group because they will no longer have an original member? Or, is the perception that L.J. Reynolds, Willie Ford, and Lenny Mayes are legitimate Dramatics?

Whatever the reason, Ritchie, the Crowns (Ben E. King's group) were not the original Drifters. We're talking about replacing one complete group with another complete group here.

I brought the Drifters up because they're the classic case. Anybody who recorded or toured as a Drifter consider themselves legit (ask them), which is why they're so many Drifters groups out there. You have different ones touring the different provinces of Canada for chrissakes.

CleoHarvey, if you know somebody who went to see the Supremes lately and expected to see the originals or even one original, send them to me, I got some rare Motorcity cassette tapes to sell them.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:56 pm:

Cleo & Mel:
Thank you for the feedback. I will let you know if I will be able to see Mary's gig at B.B. King's Club.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Scratcher (65.132.78.110) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 02:59 pm:

Then Joe R do you and T. J. consider the Ben E. King Drifters' and later versions with Johnny Moore, Rudy Lewis, and others bogus?

Were All Platinum/Stang Records committing fraud when they kept the Moments going with no original members? Were Harry Ray, Billy Brown, and Al Goodman bogus Moments?

By TonyRussi (68.18.226.42) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:18 pm:

It makes a big difference when the individual members are well known to the public,meaning the original fans.In the case of the Marvelettes & especially the Supremes both groups members were well known to the public as both were on the charts for a decade(Supremes almost 2 decades). I noticed since the 70's that many albums & publicity never mentioned individual group members names such as Motowns High Energy & others such as En Vogue ect.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.110) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:20 pm:

KevGo, I know why the change with the Drifters' happened. That's not the issue. The issue is that none of the personnel that replaced the original group were original members, which according to some people's criteria makes any lineup after the original one Bogus.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.110) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:28 pm:

Chess records did the same thing with the Radiants. None of the original Radiants are singing on any of their records from "Don't It Make You Feel Kinda Bad" on. Not only that, but the people they chose to represent as the Radiants didn't even record "Don't It Make You Feel Kinda Bad," it was done by another group name the Confessions.

I've never met anybody who wants to use the hard fast "original member" criteria state publicy that the Crowns and the ensuing Drifters' personnel was bogus. They simply won't do it. Yet, these same people will label other groups with no original members bogus.

By Ritchie (81.102.249.48) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:28 pm:

I suspect it depends on whether you see a group as a number of named personalities or as a collective whole. While I do not condone fake acts with no right to use another's name, should a group really expire if it has no original members?

Let's take two analogies: a football team is still "XYZ United", even if the players change over the years. The London Symphony Orchestra has no original members - should they change their name?

Is there no case for a name to continue if it is being used by its actual owner?

By MEL&THEN SOME (195.219.7.79) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:34 pm:

Fair point Ritchie.

By Common (209.2.55.145) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:46 pm:

Just to stir the pot a little, would Dennis Edwards & The Temptations Review fit the criteria as being a "bogus" group despite the fact that Dennis sung lead on various Tempts recordings or is that a whole different animal altogether?


Peace!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:53 pm:

Common:
Although he was forced by a court of law to take on the name The Temptations Review, at least Dennis Edwards is not using the actual name. So to answer your question - no, he is not being bogus.

How about this for an argument (Soulful Detroiters, sharpen your knives-whoops, I mean pencils! ) - should Otis Williams be allowed to use the name the Temptations since he is the only original member left? Many of my friends (including me at one point) felt that he should have retired the name when Melvin Franklin died in 1995.

Let the debate carry on....

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By TonyRussi (68.18.226.42) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 03:59 pm:

He's not billing himself as The Temptations.Not bogus.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.110) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:02 pm:

When Eddie Kendricks left they should have went back to calling themselves the Distants (LOL).

But if Dennis was allowed to use name the Temptations without the Review tag, would he be bogus? He did this at one point. Personally, I thought Dennis' Tempts were as legit as Otis's.

By R&B (138.238.41.118) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:03 pm:

HEY SCRATCHER,PART OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT THE DRIFTERS IS TRUE UP TO A POINT,BUT REMEMBER THAT FROM 1959-67 THE SECOND SET OF DRIFTERS WERE AS LEGENDARY AS CLYDE'S GROUP.AND BY THE WAY BEN E.KING QUIT THE GROUP BECAUSE GEORGE TREDWELL WAS ONLY PAYING THE GROUP 100 DOLLARS PER WEEK AND EVEN IN THE EARLY SIXTIES THAT WAS SMALL CHANGE FOR TOURING AND RECORDING.

By Vickie (64.236.243.31) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:03 pm:

so, if Cindy had a group..and Mary had a group, and then Diana had a group..
which of these ladies should be allowed to use The Supremes name..What is fair?
just wondering...cause I would go see all of them.
Vickie

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:07 pm:

Yeah, Tony, Otis is billing his group as The Temptations.

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:09 pm:

Richie....
....It would depend to some extent on the group itself. We refer to the '68 Tigers, or the '71 Tigers, and realise that the current Detroit Tigers aren't even close to the other teams, although they have the same name.
With musical groups, especially vocal, with really identifiable sounds, it becomes more difficult. Paul Revere can re-create his Raiders without any problem, but it would be hard to reproduce the early Supremes without Diana Ross, or a really good soundalike.
As to Dennis Edward's Temptations Review, the implication by name is that it is not THE Temptations, although if it WAS billed as the Temptations, I would consider it a "tribute" group because they are re-creating the sound of non Edward's leads.

By Common (209.2.55.145) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:12 pm:

KevGo, Tony, Scratcher: Thank you for clarifying this. This has been in ongoing debate amongst Tempts fans about whether Dennis is legit or not. I really don't see the difference between Dennis' or Otis' group. Personally, I prefer Dennis' group so of course, I'm being biased! :o)

Scratcher: Yeah, Eddie felt the Tempt should've ended once he, Paul, & David were out. To be frank, I think the group should've been put to rest in the mid-seventies. That's just MY OPINION! So please, don't shoot me! LOL! I guess that also answers KevGo's question as well.

Peace!

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:12 pm:

hey Doug,

For me the Raiders were all about Mark Lindsay's vocals ...I couldn't imagine going to see them without him! For me the voice is paramount, the lead vocal. So I'd be more apt to go see Dennis Edwards than to see Otis' group.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.110) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:17 pm:

R&B, the only point I made about the Drifters is that the Crowns replaced the original Drifters and no Crown was an original member, which according to some make the group bogus from that point, or until an original member rejoined, which did happen later on. I don't see where Ben E. King quitting, or the fact that the various entities had the same manager have anything to do with this point.

By Ritchie (81.102.249.48) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:25 pm:

Re Dennis Edwards' group. Yes, they're a "tribute" act, but a pretty respectable one. I haven't seen them (don't think they've ever played the East Midlands of the UK!) but I have heard their Live CD. While Otis may have the "official" Temptations, Dennis' outfit sound to me more authentic to the spirit of the 'Classic Five' Temptations (no arguments about this term, please) than Otis' current line-up. To me the current Temps appear to be a fine vocal group, but I find it hard to associate their sound with the sixties version. IMO, they're missing Melvin's bass, which really was the anchor to their harmony!

By R&B (138.238.41.131) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:27 pm:

I KNOW BUT I JUST FELT LIKE RUNNIN OFF AT THE MOUTH,AND BY THE WAY WHICH ORIGINAL DRIFTER ARE YOU SPEAKING OF,I HOPE NOT JOHNNY MOORE.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.110) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:36 pm:

No not Johnny Moore, R&B. Moore was not an original. Moore, however, did leave once and came back.

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 04:37 pm:

To me,
It's not a "tribute" group when the actual voice -- Dennis Edwards in this case -- is singing the songs he sang on originally. Dennis Edwards singing "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" is not a "tribute."

By Ed Wolfrum (66.167.214.46) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 05:10 pm:

Let me stir the pot a little with an analogy.

From the formation of United Sound in the late 1920's at Siracuse Music House, through the glory years of the 40's with the great blues and jazz sessions, and in the late 1950's with Motown's first sessions and on into the 60's and middle 70's with the sessions that we all know and love, United Sound was owned and operated by Jimmy Siracuse and the Siracuse family. (Over 50 years)

With the sale of United Sound to Don Davis in the middle 1970's, United continued the legacy. The engineers were different and United ceased to be a full service production facility with film, production and design services being dropped. United became a closed production facility for the legendary Don Davis until the middle 1980's. Jim Vitti replaced me.

Does this make United Sound any less United Sound?

Why is this any different than a Group?

Yes, we know who the originals are. And should we not simply vote with our feet? You get what you pay for! If people would, as Sue says, not support such productions they would cease to exist. Money Talks.

Let's keep government out of our musical nickers. Lawmakers have never done anything right unless they gain from it. What makes us think they can improve this situation.

It is the responsibility of the owner to protect his good name by passing it on to someone just as ethical. If not, he has the responsibility of the litigation, not the government. That is why we have trademark laws.

As they say..."Let the Buyer Beware".

By Nish (216.148.246.134) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:02 pm:

Common, I'm with you on the Tempts, lady.

Overall this is a sensitive issue, because you get into the whole argument of who's a legitimate (name your group). It's hard to decide how this cuts, because it's hard to place a value on a group member's importance. I prefer Dennis' group, but (aside from liking the sound) I don't know why. Is it because he's a former lead during the Tempts second great era? So is his group more preferable because he was a lead while Otis was background? Is Otis' group more preferable because he has the papers or because he was there longer? These questions don't necessary have legitimate answers, I just raise them all to say that usually our view of what constitutes the real group is more of a value judgment rather than an objectively right answer. Philippe Wynn feels like a "real" Spinner - but because he recorded HITS with them. G.C. Cameron really only had one hit with the Spinners, but he's just as real as Philippe to me. Diana Ross is OF COURSE a Supreme, but Susaye Greene is an undisputed Supreme to me, too. It's all very weird and amorphous.

By soulie dave uk (62.254.64.5) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:12 pm:

Hi Guys, I went to see the Flirtations a few years ago in Scotland, and guess what? They were all white ??????? They wern't bad, but they sure wern't the Flirtations. Regards SDUK

By Eli (151.197.40.89) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:52 pm:

In Philly there is a guy named Virgil Ginyard who has been passing himself and his group as The Elgins!! He even appeard on the channel ten morning show talking about his "days at Motown" and sharing some "tour anecdotes"
I wanted to rush over to the station as it is ten minutes from my former abode and the show was live on the air, and do a kind of "stop the wedding" type of thing and reveal the bogus character. He even had a bogus girl who he said was the lead although she appeared to be about 25!!!
He has appeared in philly on occasion and has people believing him!!
He even has an Elgin CD that he made with his bogus group on a bogus label and had the Motown "M" superimposed on the cd cover!!!!!!!
By the way, he is now in prison for tax evasion.
Probably never reported the money earned from his days as an "Elgin!!!"

By Ritchie (81.102.249.48) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:56 pm:

I guess he won't have any takers for "Put Yourself In My Place" now...

By Eli (151.197.40.89) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 07:03 pm:

His "Darling Baby" will be in the form of a six foot three ,three hundred pound Black bruiser with a serious attitude and a dislike for Motown!!!!!
After he is done with ol' Virgil he sure would want to be sent to heaven!!!

By Fury13 (209.69.165.10) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 07:23 pm:

I saw Sonny Turner's Platters not long ago and they were very good. Now, I understand that Sonny is not an original member, but he did become the lead singer way back in 1960, right after Tony Williams left the group. Sonny sang lead on the group's '60s hits on Musicor. Is Sonny's group not legit at all, then? (By the way, Sonny still sounds great.)

By Carl Dixon London (195.153.219.170) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 07:58 pm:

Here's a question! What are the names of the original 'Beatles' and indeed, the 'Beetles'?

Then look at this: http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/porter.htm

By Sue (152.163.188.68) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 11:49 pm:

I think Sonny's Turner's Platters are legit, sure. In that case he's not an original member but he became the lead singer in 1960 and sang on their '60s hits.

That's totally different than the Larry Marshak "Marvelettes," who were never signed to Motown, who never sang on any of the Marvelettes' hits, and still have the nerve to say in concert, "We remember well when we recorded this tune ..."

That's hoodwinking the consumer, and should be treated -- by the GOVERNMENT, hello -- the same way a butcher is treated for passing hamburger off as steak.

It should be against the law.

P.S. I didn't mean to come off like a Libertarian in saying consumers should protest when they see bogus groups. It can't all be on the consumer and big business, that's what got us into this mess.

Leaving it to the market and to big business is how it came to pass that Gladys Horton of the Marvelettes, the sole support of a disabled adult son, can't tour as a Marvelette because she's afraid of being sued. The law has to be changed to defend the Gladys Hortons.

By TonyRussi (68.18.226.42) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 08:26 am:

Right On Sue!Its a difference if no member was ever a real member of the actual recording group.Thats where the fraud comes in as far as I'm concerned.

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:05 am:

If bogus groups are allowed to continue, you'll
have Supremes, Marvelettes, Drifters, Coasters,
and on & on still performing 50 years from now.
It's one thing to be a tribute, but to say you
are the actual group...

By R&B (138.238.41.128) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:06 am:

IF I MAY THROW IN MY PENNIES WORTH ON THE TEMPS,FIRST LET ME SAY THAT IT'S A SHAME THAT DENNIS AND OTIS CAN'T PATCH UP THEIR DIFFERENCES.NOW MOVING ON,AS A LONG TIME FAN OF THE TEMPTATIONS AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION,I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE SEEN THE EARLY EIGHTIES GROUP STAY TOGETHER WITH OTIS,DENNIS,RICHARD,GLENN{SORRY,I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF RON TYSON}.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.124) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:25 am:

I guess this new SD Forum Board definition of legit applies to the Intruders also, who are now touring with one time member Bobby Starr. Their situation is exactly like Sonny Turner & the Platters, Turner replaced Williams and Starr replaced Little Sonny, the only difference: Little Sonny came back and Williams didn't.

What can the government or the court system do for Gladys Horton since neither she nor any of the other original members of the Marvelettes owned the name? What would any action be based on legally?

The venom should be directed towards Berry Gordy for allegedly losing the rights to the name in a poker game. Who knows what really happened? What is known is that Motown owned the name and somehow relinquinshed it to promoter/manager who's been capitalizing on it every since. But nobody wants to go there.

By R&B (138.238.41.128) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:50 am:

WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFUL JUST TO SEE GLADYS,WANDA,AND KATHERINE TOGETHER AGAIN EVEN IF THEY DON'T SING A NOTE BUT JUST TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE REAL MARVELETTES,TALK ABOUT BRINGING THE HOUSE DOWN,THERE WOULDN'T BE A DRY EYE IN THE HOUSE.DICK CLARK,BERRY,SOMEBODY MAKE IT HAPPEN.

By skip (209.69.165.10) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 09:51 am:

Talking about groups what about the Delfonics there seemes to be three different one with Frank Washington.one with Major Harris and another with William Hart also his brother has a group of Delphonics.

By Sue (205.188.209.38) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:09 am:

Why should the music business be totally unregulated, while in other industries consumers are protected against fraud?

There should be a law against passing off a fake group as the originals. Nobody should be able to charge $20 or $50 or whatever to unwitting patrons, trading on and making money off the goodwill generated by the original group, and forcing the original members into poverty.

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.206) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:50 am:

To all:

It seems that this thread had struck a chord and I am delighted with all the feedback. Just hoping that the discussion doesn't in any way become nasty or contentious, as these things can sometimes become on forums. Agendas are not always good. I started this thread to see what people thought. I feel that some of the problems of bogus groups need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Clearly Mary Wilson's case is different because of her fame and notoriety in comparison to say a member of the Intruders (I do not mean to disparage anyone in any way, but it is the truth). But the "legal" and fairness issues should apply to all groups.

I believe that most agree there is a problem. How to go about correcting it is the issue. It is highly complicated. I believe that Dennis Edwards having a group is not the same as a Marvelette who was never in the group and wasn't even alive when they first starting recording, now passing herself off as a member. Then there is the issue of ownership. Buck Ram owns the Platters name and there is someone who owns the Marvelettes name who feel that they have a right to their copyright and to make as much money as possible. Even Buck Ram's organization has to sue "bogus" groups to protect his interest.

This is a complicated issue and this discussion is tremendous. I think I look at it this way. If I was in a group and then accidently wandered into a club and saw people saying they were my group and making money off of the group I created. Of course there are many permutations of this scenario. And so let the discussion continue. LOL!!

By 1wicked (64.32.154.94) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 12:04 pm:

Skip, the Hart brothers are a little different case. Apparently there is a monstrous family feud and they no longer speak to each other..but both laid claim to the group's name. Some decision was made and now there is a Delfonics and a Delphonics (supposedly to differentiate between the two). I'm not aware of any Frank Washington group...but I thought Major Harris is/was a member of one of the Hart groups. (David Ruffin, Jr. is also a member of *one* of the groups)

By Common (209.2.55.142) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 12:52 pm:

Hey Nish,

I hear what you're saying. In actually, I would've had no problem supporting both groups but Otis' group just doesn't do it for me, vocal wise. I had the opportunity to see Dennis about a year ago & was totally blown away! I think in this case, it's all a matter of performance & style. I tend to agree with Ritchie's view that Dennis' group is more "spirited"......

By stephanie (205.187.255.146) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:12 pm:

Well the lead singer of the Toys ..Barbara Parritt goes out with the real Joe of Johhnie and Joe because she is dead and the audience is told and they dont care.

I think this is more of a problem with more of the well known groups and those in the know. Look what happened when a lead singer of one of the greatest girl groups promotes it without her background singers who the public knows and it fails. You all know who Im talking about. So in that case we cant say that all some people want to see is a lead singer. If all of the Beatles were living and one of the four of them didnt show up if there was a reunion tour their fans would be ticked off. I dont mean this literally but people like Larry Marshak should be stoned. He actually threatened Gladys Horton because she didnt own the name Marvelettes.

I read where she said he asked her to come and sing under his management and of course she said no. I think she can only perform certain places on the West Coast if Im not mistaken if Im wrong someone please correct me.

I know someone posted that I was wrong about Motown having the catalog pushed. I DO believe that Harry Weinger is one of the best things that happened to Motown for the fans and for the music.
I really meant to say years ago Motown probably didnt care if there were bogus groups out there because the music would sell I didnt really mean now. I KNEW Mary Wilson and others are pushing through Congress to get these bogus groups off of the market but I DIDNT know Harry Weinger was involved. Thank you for making me aware of that and thank you Harry.
Stephanie

By stephanie (205.187.255.146) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 10:14 pm:

Hi Guys, I went to see the Flirtations a few years ago in Scotland, and guess what? They were all white ??????? They wern't bad, but they sure wern't the Flirtations. Regards SDUK

By Eli (151.197.40.89) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:52 pm:


In Philly there is a guy named Virgil Ginyard who has been passing himself and his group as The Elgins!! He even appeard on the channel ten morning show talking about his "days at Motown" and sharing some "tour anecdotes"
I wanted to rush over to the station as it is ten minutes from my former abode and the show was live on the air, and do a kind of "stop the wedding" type of thing and reveal the bogus character. He even had a bogus girl who he said was the lead although she appeared to be about 25!!!
He has appeared in philly on occasion and has people believing him!!
He even has an Elgin CD that he made with his bogus group on a bogus label and had the Motown "M" superimposed on the cd cover!!!!!!!
By the way, he is now in prison for tax evasion.
Probably never reported the money earned from his days as an "Elgin!!!"

By Ritchie (81.102.249.48) on Thursday, January 30, 2003 - 06:56 pm:


I guess he won't have any takers for "Put Yourself In My Place" now... >>>>>

This is some of the funniest stuff I have read today ...White Flirtations and a false guy's day at Motown ....LOL
Stephanie

By RD (63.188.33.239) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 11:17 pm:

CleoHarvey, groups could help themselves tremendously by copyrighting whatever name they choose to call themselves. Doing so would "uncomplicate" the matter.

I didn't understand your dig at the Intruders, could you explain further? By the way, all are deceased, one by suicide, except for Phil Terry who nolonger performs but occasionally posts on this site. While not as popular as the Supremes the Intruders were a very popular soul group, perhaps a bit before your time I'm guessing.

Sue, the government should do something, but what? As was stated in the Marvelettes' scenario, on what legal grounds would an attorney even begin? Passion, what's morally right, and emotion doesn't cut much ice in a civil case.

By STUBASS (206.135.204.2) on Friday, January 31, 2003 - 11:26 pm:

"THE MONKEES"!!!...THEY WERE A BOGUS SINGING GROUP!!!...WAIT A MINUTE!!!...AM I ON TOPIC HERE???...SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME!!!...CONFUSED AGAIN!!!...STU

By Mark Speck (65.57.16.101) on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 03:33 am:

There was a piece on 20/20 some time ago (I have it on video tape somewhere in this mess!) in which they interviewed the lead singer of the Vogues (Chuck Belasco), one of the Coasters, and Dennis Yost of the Classics IV about the fake groups using their names.

Somewhere there's a legal glitch that allows managers, promoters, etc., to use the name of the group. Belasco's Vogues, the real deal, have been forced to perform as Three Guys From Turtle Creek. Felix Cavaliere cannot use the Rascals' name in his billing. Shirley Alston must now bill herself as "Shirley Alston of the Shirelles". The Turtles now have to be known as Flo and Eddie. And there are many other examples of this lunacy!
Many of the performers we know and love no longer have control of their own identities. My God, how sad is this?

Also in that 20/20, they showed footage of the current crop of "Vogues" and the lead singer prefaced "You're the One" by saying "This was written by a friend of ours, Petula Clark". The next thing you see is the 20/20 reporter grilling this guy saying "Is Petula Clark a friend of yours?" and "did she write that song for you?", to which he fessed up and answered no. He was then asked why he said that and will he say it again. The bastard was embarrassed and rightfully so--chalk one up for the good guys!

Best,

Mark

By John Lester (213.123.121.235) on Saturday, February 01, 2003 - 04:05 am:

Kev Go

I took the Velvelettes on their autograph session...was you working in the store in 66rh street?

If so, the ladies came away really happy.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 12:57 pm:

John:
I was managing the HMV Record Store on West 72nd Street & Broadway. Harry Weinger later told me that the Vels were happy. Thank you, John, for being there.

Stephanie:
Although Harry Weinger & Motown/UMG are watchdogs when it comes down to the bogus groups, I hardly doubt that Berry Gordy and his successor Jheryl Busby (whom I met during my record retail years) would have stood for allowing bogus groups to exist then just to help sell records. No record label executive in their right minds would let this happen because A)it's wrong and B) no label wants their hands dirty. From what I know and have been told by many who worked with the label at one time or another, Motown was VERY protective of their artists and the authenticity of their acts. The poker game in which Berry lost the rights to the Marvelettes' name was a blunt lesson for him and he was protective since.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 01:02 pm:

To whomever asked what I thought should be done; I think it should be treated like any consumer fraud matter. You can't pass off a Honda as a Cadillac, neither should you be able to pass off a 30something woman as a Marvelette.

She can sing all the Marvelettes tunes she wants, but once you take ticket money from people and you've told them they're seeing the "real" group that recorded all those hits -- that's exploiting and defrauding consumers as much as any bum purchase, plus it's creating hardship for the rightful parties who are being impersonated.

This isn't brain surgery, you can leave room for anyone to impersonate anyone or thing they want, but they can't claim to be the original and sell tickets or CDs on that basis.

By Davie Gordon (193.122.21.42) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 01:11 pm:

Mark,

As far as I can remember the reason Felix Cavaliere is prevented from using the Rascals'
name is because in the mid-eighties he supposedly
tried to register the group's name as "his"
property without reference to any of the other guys. When they found out what he was trying to
do they took legal action to prevent the group
name being used unless ALL the original members
agree - "hell freezing over" seems how likely that
will be.

Shady management companies is one thing - how many cases are there similar to the Rascals where
the group members themselves can't reach
agreement ?

There's no easy answer to this one ...

Davie Gordon

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 01:29 pm:

RD

I made it very clear in my post that I was not making a dig at the Intruders "I do not mean to disparage anyone in any way, but it is the truth." This is a discussion of a very large subject and I was responding to a previous post on the thread. I never ever want to get into any ugly back and forth, it is not my nature and has ruined other forums that I have been party to. My point was that there are members of groups who have individual fame as well as their group status, eg Dennis Edwards, Mary Wilson, John Sebastian et al. This was from the point of view of the fans. There are groups that most people could not name the individual members (through no fault of the group members) and it may not make any difference in who is in the group performing today. I don't know, just throwing this in for the discussion.

For me personally it is a big problem if I go see a group with no original members who are being passed off as the group, especially if there are original members who are alive and dearly need the money.

By the way, I will be 52 on March 31st of this year (if you tell anyone I will have you killed LOL!!) and I am quite aware of the Intruders. There are few groups that are "before my time."

Peace My Friend.

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 01:36 pm:

Davie....
.....hell must have at least frosted. Felix's web site is www.felixcavalieresrascals.com , and he appears to be touring under the Rascals name as Felix Cavaliere's Rascals. I don't thing the Bragitti brothers used the Rascals name when they appeared i nthe New York Rock and Soul Review a number of years ago.

By Scratcher (65.132.79.68) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 01:49 pm:

The question I have about the Marvelettes' scenario is...if it's a no brainer legally then why hasn't it ended?

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 01:50 pm:

Doug,
Touring as "Felix Cavaliere's Rascals" isn't the same as just touring as "The Young Rascals."

Calling his group "The Young Rascals" is what is no doubt prohibited. It's like Dennis Edwards' Temptations Revue -- that's not calling himself "The Temptations."

Hell, I fear, hasn't yet frozen over.

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 02:52 pm:

I'm enclined to disagree with you (respectifully, of course), in that there is no real "qualifier". Take away Felix's name and there is no "Rascals Review" or the like. As to the Young Rascals, they dropped the "Young" fairly early in their career. Now, having said that, would they qualify as "The Rascals", seeing that Felix did a good chunk of the singing?

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 04:28 pm:

Doug,
Well whether you or I think it's legit, the courts seem to allow folks to use qualifiers like "Bill Pinckney's Drifters" ...but not just "The Drifters."

You say take away Cavaliere's name and there is no qualifier -- but you can't take away the name, and it IS the qualifier. So I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on??

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Monday, February 03, 2003 - 05:23 pm:

I'm aquainted with a gentleman who sang with the Platters (owned by a window of an original), as a lead singer. A great singer. He no longer sings with them, but when he goes overseas, he bills himself, and his group, as the Platters.

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:38 am:

Sue...
...your point was better (much) than mine. I conceed.

By Sue (205.188.199.179) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:42 am:

Don't concede (laugh) ...we actually agree.

Legally they seem to want qualifiers when there's legal hassles over a name. For me, seeing Felix Cavaliere's Rascals would be 90% of the experience since it's his voice and Hammond B3 I remember fondly.

I do hate that he sold the song (presumably he has control of his catalog) to the drug company for the arthritis drug ...

By douglasm (68.113.15.28) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:46 am:

Sue...
...speaking of bogus, we could bring up the topic of bad commercial rock, or how many versions of "Nobody But Me" have been used to sell things. Potatoes, for example. We could, but I won't.

By Sue (205.188.199.179) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:50 am:

The sad (or happy) thing is, no matter how many times I hear Felix's voice sing "It's a Beautiful Morning," it still sounds good. It's an air-tight song, you can't ruin it, although I hate having drugs and Dorothy Hamill in my head now when I think of it.

There are some cool and surprising songs being used occasionally. Someone at GM has a sense of humor, because they were using "Vehicle" by the Ides of March for a while. Whoa! Did all the suits sign off on those lyrics? "I'm the friendly stranger in the black sedan" etc.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 01:57 pm:

Hey Sue:
Maybe the suits signed off on the lyrics to "Vehicle" and winked to each other at the same time....
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Sue (152.163.201.178) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:01 pm:

Kevgo,
You could only hear the lyrics "I'm your vehicle, baby, I'll take you anywhere you want to go," and they went into the vamp as the announcer spoke ... but there's a definite subliminal effect on those of us who know the rest of the lyrics I guess!

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:16 pm:

I was told by Katherine Schaffner that she was
told it was SMOKEY, not Berry, who lost or gave
away the name "The Marvelettes".

By mc5rules (148.61.97.30) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 02:28 pm:

Yeah, but none of those examples are nearly as funny as Carnival Cruise using Iggy's "Lust for Life" in commercials. If people only knew the words...

...now that I think about it, if people knew the words, they'd probably buy MORE cruises!

By thecount (65.60.201.174) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 04:44 pm:

When we do our commercials and running footage,or even catalog print for FO.MO.CO.We do locations in socal,and norcal,or wherever.We were done with the winter dealer ship videos,and had to do the comentary add-in.JWT was our production company,the cast was from K&E,and there was to be live performance in the GALPIN FORD DEALERSHIP with ENGILBERT PUMPERNICKLE(or whatever his name is)anyhow it was not him,the footage was not run and the comentary went as planded.The music was dubbed in from home,DET.and commercial was run.
This kat still performs somewere as ENGILBERT.
"COUNT"

By Scratcher (65.133.219.142) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 07:29 pm:

Randy, a long time ago I heard it was Smokey too. But, lately all I've read is that it was Berry. I really don't know who lost the name or if it was really lost and not just sold. All I know is that Motown originally owned the name and now Larry Marshak does. How he got ownership? Your guess is as good as mine.

As for Dennis Edwards' Temptations, at least he can use the name Temptations in his billing; Mary Wilson can't use the name Supremes--period.

By Stephanie (199.183.163.134) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 09:39 pm:

Randy, a long time ago I heard it was Smokey too. But, lately all I've read is that it was Berry. I really don't know who lost the name or if it was really lost and not just sold. All I know is that Motown originally owned the name and now Larry Marshak does. How he got ownership? Your guess is as good as mine.

As for Dennis Edwards' Temptations, at least he can use the name Temptations in his billing; Mary Wilson can't use the name Supremes--period. >>>>

Randy and Scratcher
How can someone LEGALLY lose someones name in a poker game? Whoever wins the game signs the rights away of the name to the other person? I guess Berry didnt think or Smokey that the Marvelettes name meant much to Motown at that time. Its a shame because they have loyal fans and have done compilations.

Dennis Edwards wont have to worry he has the voice on a lot of the Temps songs so he will always get gigs although Otis has been around so long and his group is the one that won the grammy and the gold record for Pheonix Rising...(I was getting ready to say River Pheonix..LOL) so he will always get bookings and he did the movie and wrote the book and is an original member so he will always have an edge on Dennis IMO....

Otis is not hurting and his group is good and Dennis has the authenticity because of his voice so both groups are doing well although Im sure Otis would rather have Dennis with him....or not performing with him..
Stephanie
Chancelloress of Soul
is that OK Mr Boone?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Eli (151.197.41.126) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:15 pm:

Regarding the Delphonics, William "Poogie" Hart and his brother Wilbur have been on the outs for years over a dispute over the Wilbur being envious of his brother for he is the main writer and lead singer.
They spoke briefly at the cemetary after the funeral of their mother as I was there and witnessed it first hand!!!

Why cant we all just get along??????

By Nish (170.224.224.38) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:34 pm:

Steph, that's a good question, how can someone legally lose a group's name in a gambling game? Contracts formed as a result of an illegal enterprise are typically held to be void due to external illegality. Of course, depending upon the state in which the gambling took place, it might very well have been a legal activity. Hmmm...

nothing in this message constitutes legal advice or a sound legal theory upon which to base a cause of action.

By RD (63.188.32.188) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:44 pm:

Stephanie, I read the account of the Marvelettes' name debacle too. It's mentioned in some books about Motown. Randy and Scratcher aren't just blowing smoke.

Dennis Edwards fought in court to use the name Temptations and Otis fought against him so it must have been an important issue to both parties.

By RD (63.188.32.188) on Tuesday, February 04, 2003 - 11:54 pm:

Nish, you can't legally lose a copyright in any game, I don't think anyone is saying that. Either Berry or Smokey lost in poker to Larry Marshak and Marshak received the rights to the Marvelettes' name in lieu of money. The right was transferred to Marshak by whoever had the right to do so at a later date.

By Nish (170.224.224.38) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:08 am:

RD, I wasn't suggesting that anyone was saying Berry or Smokey lost the copyright in the game. I was more just thinking aloud. But the agreement to hand over the name rights at a later date as a result of B or S losing the poker game is essentially what I meant when I said "how can someone legally lose a group's name in a gambling game"... sorry for the utter lack of clarity on my part.

By RD (63.188.32.188) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:14 am:

No problem, Nish. It's hard at times to discern what somebody really mean in message forums.

By 1wicked (64.32.154.94) on Wednesday, February 05, 2003 - 12:58 pm:

Eli, I figured that was the gist of the beef between the Hart brothers....and it's really a shame. How much did Wilbur sing lead on anyway ??

BTW...."The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh" was on ESPN Classics a few nights ago....and the soundtrack STILL hold up !

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 10:59 am:

To everyone:

Here is another permutation of the "Bogus Group" scenario that appeared in Billboard today. It was with regard to the legendary group The Doors:


John Densmore, former drummer and co-founder of the Doors, has filed a multiple-count lawsuit against surviving original band members Ray Manzarek and Robert Krieger, among others, Billboard Bulletin reports.

The suit -- filed yesterday (Feb. 4) in Los Angeles Superior Court by Densmore and on behalf of the estates of the late vocalist Jim Morrison and his wife, Pam Courson -- revolves around a new incarnation of the Doors that has performed in recent months. The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, claims that written and oral agreements mandate that the Doors name and logo can be used only by the original band members.

Keyboardist Manzarek and guitarist Krieger have been playing dates as the Doors with Ian Astbury (formerly of the Cult) on vocals and Stewart Copeland (ex-Police) on drums. The group, which performed recently on "The Tonight Show," played the L.A. House of Blues on Jan. 31 and is scheduled to play Universal Amphitheatre on Friday.

Manzarek told Billboard.com in September that Densmore had opted out of the tour because he was suffering from tinnitus (a ringing in the ears). However, the drummer said in an interview yesterday with the Hollywood Reporter that he has fully recovered and will be performing live Saturday for a public school district benefit.

"I'm troubled by one guy singing the whole night," Densmore said. "There are Doors cover bands in every city; we shouldn't join that, should we? No disrespect to Ian Astbury or Stewart Copeland; they are wonderful musicians. But my point is they are not the Doors."

Manzarek countered in an interview with Reuters that Densmore's suit was "frivolous," and that he and Krieger were billing themselves as "the Doors, 21st Century." In fact, Densmore said he found out that Astbury and Copeland were going to tour as the Doors from an article in Billboard. "I thought, 'Oh, OK, I'm fired in the paper,'" Densmore said. "I called Robby and said, 'Robby, you've got to change the name, please.'"

Even though his ears are back in shape to perform, Densmore said he would not want to play with the group. "Who can fill Jim's leather pants?" he said. "The Doors is John, Jim, Ray, and Robby. It's not Ray, Robby, Stewart, and Ian." Densmore said he's not after money, nor will he try to stop Friday's show. He just wants the band to change the name. "They can call themselves Formerly Members of the Doors or the Hinges or the Windows," he said.

By Vickie (152.163.188.68) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 11:11 am:

The Beach Boys are going through this right now too...

Vickie

By Vickie (152.163.188.68) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 11:13 am:

Maybe they should let The Beach Boys name rest with what is long gone, and the ones that want to perform now can be called The Beach Men -

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 11:13 am:

Cleo:
I saw that article as well as the appearance of Manzarek, Krieger & company on the Tonight Show. This one is what our UK brothers & sisters would call "sticky-wicked" because you have two of the original members of the Doors in this new version. Therefore, they could use the original name or a variation if they so choose. It's too bad Densmore is taking the lawsuit route (pardon the rhyme) because it sounds to me that for reasons within and not within his control he missed the opportunity to join the regrouped Doors and is trying to punish them for his mistake.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 11:23 am:

Kevgo,
After seeing Stewart Copeland bashing away in Densmore's place, when the Doors were on the Tonight show, I think Copeland is punishing us all for Densmore's mistake.

I loved the Police too, so it's not that I'm anti-Copeland in all his guises.

I'd heard Densmore had the ringing in the ears disease and couldn't play a lot?

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 11:26 am:

Sue:
Densmore did have that disease which prohibited him from joining this lineup.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Lynn Bruce (65.60.200.153) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 01:34 pm:

This sounds like all the legal crap that was thrown at us when the Hurricanes left Johnny. We called ourselves"The Hurricanes" formerly of Johnny&the Hurricanes.The legal beagles said we'll sue so we dropped the name. I still wonder if we would have won,but we didn't have a lot time or money for a long drawn out legal fight.
There should be a good attorney NOT associated with the record company that sits in on every signing of new acts.It's kind of like a marriage for groups and you can just about count on a divorce sooner or later,so it's good to have all the little legal problems that Will pop up addressed on a contract.

Of course this is a pipe dream as most groups want a record contract so bad that they'll sign anything thrown in front of them.

Slainte, Lynn

By stephanie (199.183.170.212) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 02:32 pm:

I believe Ray Manzarek. I read in the papers that the Doors were going to tour again and that Densmore couldnt due to the problems with the ear.
I think he is just jealous. They are not hurting for money according to all of them.

If the public comes to see them and they can accept this Ian guy then Im all for it they have two original members and if Densmore was well there would have been a third. Besides in this case the public KNOWS that this is not Jim Morrison its not like the Doors are pulling a fast one.
Steph

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 03:03 pm:

I don't have any problem with them using the name, I just didn't like their sound at all. Copeland bashed away when he should have been way more subdued (making me appreciate Densmore when I never did before), and Manzarek seemed puzzingly unsure of one of the most famous organ solos of the '60s ...

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 03:41 pm:

Regardless of who they got for the drummer's chair, I agree with Stephanie. The Billboard item made John Densmore's case sound like sour grapes if anything. Granted, he couldn't play because of his ear malady (no fault of his own), but he should have just accepted Manzarek & Krieger's decision to choose another drummer and move on. While Copeland may not have shown the sensitivity toward's the Doors songs as Densmore would've done naturally, I think they made a wise choice in having a seasoned drummer like Copeland in the group.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 03:50 pm:

To Everyone:
This is an example of the kind of thing that I believe gets Mary Wilson up in arms. I found this advert for a "Supremes" CD on Ebay this afternoon.

"This is your opportunity to own a COPY of an extremely rare Supremes CD issued in limited quantities in Spain only- this is not Diana Ross, Mary Wilson, Florence Ballard, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Lawrence,Scherrie Payne or Susaye Green rather it is three women from Chicago who tour as The Supremes(would you call them a tribute bans?) and this is live recording recorded at a disco in Spain called La Boite- e mail me with your questions about this COPY of the rare CD"

Mary Wilson has to put with this group in addition to groups like Sounds of the Supremes, Former Ladies of the Supremes, etc. I believe this group is the one I saw in a Disco in Geneva that infuriated me. Oh well....

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 03:53 pm:

Why would anyone buy it?? It's like yeah, I have an extremely rare CD of my cousins' cats singing as The Supremes, live ...

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 04:02 pm:

Sue:

It is strange but the bidding was already up to $25.00 for the "bogus" Supremes CD as of 3:30 PM today. I guess someone wants it as a novelty, who knows?

By Ritchie (62.254.0.8) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 04:25 pm:

These "Supremes" are Sheila Weaver, Valery Reid (sic) and Michelle Green. Yep, that proves they're authentic.

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 04:31 pm:

Ritchie:

WHO? LOL!!!

Michael

By Ritchie (62.254.0.8) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 05:32 pm:

My point exactly, Michael. I wonder - is Billy Wilson (MAA) aware of these fakers?

By P.J. (12.227.39.40) on Thursday, February 06, 2003 - 07:05 pm:

I respect Mary Wilson as a Supreme and as a spokesperson in the fight for authentification of vocal groups and legends. I am 100% behind her efforts to safeguard a most precious legacy of American music and the rights of those who have given us that music. The debate that has followed in this forum's entries has been both informative and thought-provoking.
However, and I wish to say this ever so gingerly, is there anyone who is in contact with Mary who can ask for a clarification of one statement in her letter? Whenever I read it, I find myself torn.
Mary states "Of the replacements, only Cindy (Birdsong) and Jean (Terrell) had hit records with the group".
On October 29, 2002, Motown/UMG released a much anticipated, beautifully remastered and well received 2 cd set ''The Supremes The 70's Anthology". This compilation was produced by Harry Weinger, Andrew Skurow, and Mary Wilson. The liner notes 'Promises Kept', authored by Mary Wilson, were filled with wonderful photos and Mary's remembrances of each pairing of 70's Supremes and insightful facts about their recorded output and previously unreleased gems.
I quote "I was proud of our 1975 album, The Supremes. Motown put us together with new producers and Scherrie, Cindy & I had taken a new direction. ......"He's My Man" was the real winner, though- it had dance smash written all over it and was No 1 in the clubs." (pg 17)
"Then Cindy was out. Cindy's replacement was the talented Susaye Greene. Susaye had an amazing five-octave range and is also a great songwriter......High Energy was our first album produced entirely by the Hollands since 1967......"I'm Gonna Let My Heart Do The Walking" is considered a dance classic. Little did I know
i(t) would be our last Top 40 Pop hit." (pg 19)
"For the title of what was to be our final album we chose Mary, Scherrie & Susaye, to give ourselves some individual name recognition. Each of us sang lead on various cuts. We still had hits of course so, as disco raged, the Hollands loaded the album with dance tracks. "You're My
Driving Wheel" and "Let Yourself Go" hit the clubs hard- we hit top 5 on Billboard's new Dance chart- and they still get spins. But in the Pop world...nothing." (pg. 21)
The cd booklet also lists chart positions for "Where Do I Go From Here" #3 Dance Chart/Sales (MSC), "High Energy" #1 Dance Chart/Club Play, "Love I Never Knew You Could Feel So Good" #5 Dance Chart/Club Play.
My concern is that Mary's statement in the letter
reprinted in the first posting of this thread seems to be both true and untrue, depending on how one defines a hit record. In fact on pages 19 & 21, she uses the term hit/hits to describe records recorded with Scherrie & Susaye. If the criteria is Top 20 Pop/R&B, then it is a true statement that only Cindy & Jean had hit records with the 70's Supremes. If we count Top 40 Pop/R&B/Adult Contemporary/U.K./Dance,
then all of the replacements would have to be included, even Lynda Lawrence ("I Guess I'll Miss the Man"- #17 Adult Contemporary "Bad Weather" #37 U.K).
Perhaps Mary may wish to amend the wording in her letter as regards the line in question. Being the gracious woman that she is, I'm hopeful that she would be glad to oblige.

By stephanie (206.214.1.77) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 02:20 am:

PJ
However, and I wish to say this ever so gingerly, is there anyone who is in contact with Mary who can ask for a clarification of one statement in her letter? Whenever I read it, I find myself torn.
Mary states "Of the replacements, only Cindy (Birdsong) and Jean (Terrell) had hit records with the group". >>>>>>

That statement is indeed true Mary posted it on my Mary Wilson club on Yahoo it DID come from her.
Some fans (not many) were upset when they saw her statement. Some took it the wrong way and some left it alone. I agree with you but I would rather she explain herself. I dont think she meant any harm whatsover.

Sue!!!
I liked the way the Doors sounded but your statement made me think. I respect Stewart Copeland but you are right I respect Densmore when I think about how he played on the record and live and I did miss him. Thanks for reminding us. I actually liked watching Ray Manzarek get off and not be as subdued as he usually is..LOL
Stephanie PS By the way I have your book the Motown Women the Oral History and its great I have a lot of respect for you by getting the facts and not hearsay.

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:32 am:

Stephanie:

I think Mary's comments come out of the fact that she is most friendly with Cindy, and Jean. She likes Scherrie Payne (everyone does) but with the Return to Love Tour and lawsuits, I think it is difficult for her to raise her to the level of Jean and Cindy (with who she had her biggest post Diana Supremes hits). She has an especially warm relationship with Cindy Birdsong and re-established her friendship with Jean during the Return to Love thing when Jean called to offer her support. Most people do not realize that Jean was also asked by Diana's people to join the tour and I cannot print what her answer was. Needless to say it was no.
love
Michael

By Vandelron (205.188.209.38) on Friday, February 07, 2003 - 10:03 pm:

What a great topic. Its time to come out of denial and admit what is going on. FLOS have cds out titled"The Supremes." Formerly of on their website is in very small letters. It is an outrage that Mary lost a suit to SOS. This woman deserves so much vindication. Gladys Horton got depressed and retired, tho briefly, after the fake Marvellettes played the White House not too long ago-she felt so discouraged. My understanding was a congressional bill almost passed but got stuck per what constitues one original(eg Dennis Edwards,used to be 3 Shirelles groups each with one original). The public is lied to and deceived and the originals suffer and legislatures dither. I am joing F.A.M.E. It is all about deception--just look at SOS advertising. I know of a guy who goes to every bogus Marvellettes show he can and demands his money back after because of false advertising.!This is my first post--great to be here.

By Fred (64.12.105.177) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 01:20 am:

Vandelron wrote:
"My understanding was a congressional bill almost passed but got stuck per what constitues one original."

I was the co-author of the legislation you refer to.

Dubbed the "Truth In Rock" bill by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the original sponsor, it would have established a federally chartered (but not tax-supported) organization which would have established criteria for former members of groups to use the group names in advertising their own performances. All too often, the original members, like Gladys, Dennis Yost (Classics IV), the Boxtops and the Vogues have been prevented from even referring to the name of the group because the name has been trademarked by someone with no relation to the group itself. We had hope that we could simply make Congress aware of the problem, but, thanks to Kucinich, we actually got a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. Chuck Blasko of the Vogues, Sam Moore of Sam & Dave and Jon (Bowser) Baumann testified.

The criteria themselves, which had originally been set out in the bill had been the subject of a rather vigorous and sometimes rancorous debate between artists who held the group name trademark and those that did not. The criteria language was deleted from the bill and replaced with giving the new organization the responsibility for working them out. (Frankly, after six months of lobbying by the artists and the fact that we were doing this during the Clinton impeachment investigation, the Judiciary Committee was very interested in getting the issue out of their hands.) The final bill language was a compromise that essentially allowed everyone to fight their private battles somewhere else. The board of the new organization would have been dominated by artists themselves, and fund raising concerts were being planned for after its passage.

The Truth In Rock bill itself was uncontested, and we had already lined up sponsorship for an identical bill in the Senate. It was attached to a technical bill revising some telecommunications standards and scheduled for a voice vote in the House, meaning that there would be no debate. I started working on the organizational structure and procedures for the authenticating board. The goal was a set of rules so that Gladys Horton could say "of the Marvelettes" without getting sued. (That trademark is actually held by a promoter in New York named Larry Marshak. The name on the trademark application is actually misspelled "Marvellettes," but it has been close enough for him to keep up the threats.) The idea was to allow authentic group members to use a "Truth In Rock" symbol in their advertising. I had already contacted a number of venues who had indicated a willingness to formally and publicly support the effort by not booking fakes, and helping to promote our "real artists, real music" campaign.

Literally at midnight the night before the vote, the Truth In Rock language was deleted from the bill, and in its place was substituted one of the most anti-recording artist laws in recent memory; an amendment of the copyright law declaring all sound recordings to be "works-for-hire," which means very simply that the recording artists would never be able to seek to recover the copyrights in those recordings. Mitch Glazier, the committee staffer responsible for the last minute switch, took a job with the RIAA six weeks later, watching his salary jump from $80,000 to $500,000 in the process. Funny how those things work out sometimes.

All the artists actively involved in lobbying for the bill went on their own dime. I made five trips myself to meet with staff members to work out language, and I worked closely with the Intellectual Property Attorneys Association, who were extraordinarily helpful in developing the final concept. By my estimate, I spent about 600 hours of unbilled time and a couple thousand dollars out of pocket on the project.

When the bill didn't pass, we were all spent; physically, financially and emotionally. The artist-to-artist debate about the criteria had left some deep bruises as well, although blaming the debate for the failure of the bill is wrong. Some of us immediately realized how harmful the new "work-for-hire" rule was for artists and removing it became our first priority. It took nearly two years and the arrival on the scene of the Recording Artists Coalition before the bill was repealed.

By that time, all the momentum for Truth In Rock had been lost. On the upside, Dennis Yost and the Boxtops recovered their trademarks. On the downside, Gladys has been unsuccessful in beating Marshak's claim to the trademark (even though the original application is fraudulent) and the Vogues can't call themselves that outside of Western Pennsylvania.

Maybe we will pick up the fight again. Right up until we got sabotaged, it was the most amazing civics lesson I had ever learned, and looked like it would have been a textbook exercise on how a group of committed people could actually petition the government for redress of grievances like the 1st Amendment promises. As it turned out, it was an important demonstration of the Golden Rule as it works in Washington: those with the Gold make the Rules.

Fred W

By Fred (64.12.105.177) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 01:35 am:

Sue said:
That's totally different than the Larry Marshak "Marvelettes," who were never signed to Motown, who never sang on any of the Marvelettes' hits, and still have the nerve to say in concert, "We remember well when we recorded this tune ..."

That's hoodwinking the consumer, and should be treated -- by the GOVERNMENT, hello -- the same way a butcher is treated for passing hamburger off as steak.

It should be against the law."

It is against the law in many states, but completely unenforceable. Sam Moore, who owns the trademark of "Sam & Dave" (having bought out Dave Prater's interest in the 1970s) spent a lot of time and a lot of money chasing Dave who continued to bill himself as "Sam & Dave." He always won in court, and Dave would move on to another state.

During the lobbying I talked about in the previous post, I spent a great deal of time educating the folks at the Federal Trade Commission about the way the the fake groups violated present regulations on truth in advertising. The analogy I always used was "selling grape juice in wine bottles."

The law prevents you from selling a washing machine with replacement parts unless you tell the buyer that is what they are getting, but the FTC seemed to have difficulty grasping the idea this could apply to groups of people. We weren't trying to drive the impostors out of the business, we just wanted them to be honest in their advertising. We figured the public was smart enough to want to know. Weirdly, however, we found a large portion of the public really didn't care.

Fred W

By ...... (207.241.96.10) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 07:00 am:

I'm sorry to hear about Gladys Horton's plight.
I always read about her battles with Larry M, but
I have one question. How can Otis Williams, Martha Reeves,
and Mary Wilson tell me not to support fakes, only
support originals, but I see Motown Revue posters
of them touring with 30 year old marvelettes?
I've declined attending such Motown Revue tours, because
I don't want some 30 year so called marvelette
profitting with my money.

By brianday@cwcom.net (212.137.141.49) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 09:11 am:

this is a interesting subject,i saw a advert for feb 14th at the london arena ,the manhattans,millie jackson ,ben e king. a terrific line up ,however i cant get there ,due to work committments, so i thought i would look up the official web site of the manhattons ,to see if there were any other uk dates,it appears they are in the usa on the same date? so it cant be them.can it? so i have emailed the group to find out more.
ps if anyone is going to london arena please
please ,get me a programme
email me

By Sue (205.188.209.38) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 09:32 am:

I heard from Martha that she resisted for a long time touring with the fake Marvelettes, but finally gave in because she was losing gigs.

Otis and the Tempts -- I think they've toured with the fake Marvelettes from the get-go.

I don't buy that they have no choice, it IS appalling. Can you imagine Martha screaming if they went out with a "Martha and the Vandellas"? She doesn't even like anyone else singing her songs.

By RD (63.188.32.217) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 09:59 am:

Brianday, there are two Manhattans' group touring and both have original members. The most popular and longest running one features Gerald Alston and Winnie Lovett (an original member) with other guys, which includes David Tyson (Ron Tyson's brother).

The other group features Ernest "Dip" Bivins (an original member), Lee Williams (Lee Williams & the Cymbals), and others.

The Gerald Alston & Winnie Lovett Manhattans' usually tour with Millie Jackson. The other group tends to confine its gigging around New York and its neighboring States.

By brianday@cwcom.net (212.137.136.101) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 12:30 pm:

thanks for the info looks like its the other way round ,the lovett group is in the states feb 14th
any one going to london arena?

By RD (63.188.32.217) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 01:32 pm:

Brianday, according to this Manhattans' (the Lovett/Alston group)website they're going to be performing on the Grand Cayman Islands on 2/14/2003.

http://www.kissandsaygoodbye.com/tourdates.htm

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 04:17 pm:

The very young and fake Marvelettes performed at Chene Park with the Contours and Dennis Edwards' Review. Sometimes the artist don't know who is going to be on the show when they sign on to perform.

A picture of the fake Marvelettes was in the Chronicle. I could email a copy of the pix to Ritchie or DMeikle to post it, if you would like to see it.

By Ritchie (62.254.0.8) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 04:24 pm:

Sis

I'll be offline for about an hour, but do feel free to mail it to me. I'll post it when I'm back on.

By Vandelron (152.163.213.58) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 05:25 pm:

My understanding is Mary Wilson will NOT perform with the fake Marvelletes or any such outfit. I believe she has a clause in her contract stipulating that--once again Mary has integrity. As much as I sympathize with Martha I feel if she said NO it would help to change things--she would usually get the gig as opposed to the fake Marvellettes and if Martha kept speaking out to the media as to why she wont appear with the Fakeellettes. Life is a hard choice sometimes but Martha is doing well with bookings and I imagine a handful with the fakes wouldnt be disastorous for her--if everyone did that rarely could the fakes headline on their own. Just my opinion and I could be wrong. Fred W--thanks for all your hard work. Icouldnt email u privately but Id love to help if u start up again. Its unbelievable what happened--and that guy working for the RIA!!!!!!!!!!!Can u imagine buying a Stars Wars dvd and opening the box and getting a grade b dvd made by others but same plot?????????????--people would go bananas.

By Ritchie (62.254.0.8) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 05:37 pm:

Here's the pic of the fake marvelettes that Sis sent:

By STUBASS (206.135.204.2) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 05:40 pm:

GEEZ RITCHIE: IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE "TOO MANY FISH IN *THAT* SEA"!!!...STU

By Scratcher (65.132.76.39) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 05:46 pm:

Dem fake Marvelettes are some real babes!

By Ritchie (62.254.0.8) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 05:59 pm:

Danger, heartbreak dead ahead.

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 06:04 pm:

In the mid 90s, there was a Mary Wilson Fanclub newsletter cover with Mary, Otis and fake marvelettes. This was about the time FAME was getting news and Mary's fake group quotes were all over the net.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 06:53 pm:

LOL - StuBass, Scratcher, Ritchie. Men will be men.

By Sue (152.163.194.187) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 07:34 pm:

Sis,
The artists know that when they're booked with the Marvelettes, that they aren't going to see Gladys Horton and her group. They know that Katherine Schaffner is retired from performing, as is Wanda.

It would be big news in the Motown community if Gladys was out and touring again as "The Marvelettes."

Hurray for the Michigan Chronicle and Steve Holsey for printing the picture of the Fakelettes. Did it run last summer? If they have the nerve to book them this summer I'll steal the idea.

By Vandelron (152.163.195.212) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 08:16 pm:

I do believe that subsequently Mary has refused to perform with the Fakeellettes. I dont think u will find any concerts certainly in this century that lists her and them.

By SisDetroit (68.42.209.170) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 08:23 pm:

Hahahah Fakelettes.

Sue - That article ran in the Chronicle in September 2001.

By Sue (64.12.104.156) on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 08:25 pm:

Big sign, FAKELETTES ...That'd bring the house down the next time they try to sing "Please, Mr. Postman."

By cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 12:42 pm:

The REAL Marvelettes would not be caught dead in those outfits. LOL!!!!! They look like they made them in home economics class.

By NIsh (170.224.224.134) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 12:46 pm:

Cleo - naughty!!! BUT TRUE! LOL!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 02:12 pm:

Damn, with all of this talk I feel like I just entered a cyber-space version of the Soulful Detroit ladies room!

Anyway, who were those Fake Marvellettes? They all look like they were still sipping Similac when our dear beloved REAL Marvellettes were nailing gold records on their walls.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By TonyRussi (68.18.227.123) on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 02:45 pm:

In Martha's defense I will say that the time she was on a bill with fake Marvelettes....she made a statement to the audiance that she didn't know who those Marvelettes were and she did not acknowledge them backstage.Many times she does not know who or if anyone else is on the bill.