By Vandelron (24.44.20.172) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 08:32 pm:

A dj interviewing Ms Wilson recently on WBLS in NY said she and Universal are close to announcing Mary having full/EXCLUSIVE useage of the name Supremes--what goes around....(Supreme Faith -keep it going Mary).

By Marv (152.163.252.68) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 08:56 pm:

I heard that interview the other day too.

Go Mary, Get Busy, it's your birthday!!!! LOL I love it! Peace

By LaJolla (65.238.6.243) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 08:56 pm:

Wow....hope this is so. Will she regroup and use the name to it's full advantage?

By Richard (67.249.84.175) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 09:08 pm:

Yes, but will she have to split the profits with AREC 50-50?

By : (198.81.26.231) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 09:33 pm:

what about the other Supremes?

By medusa9e (66.73.10.80) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 10:08 pm:

..something 2 think about, but I wish her well!

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 10:11 pm:

some will just be "former ladies of the supremes" minus the "of the supremes"
heheheheheheehehe

By Soul Sister (65.43.153.219) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 10:11 pm:

Right On Right On GOOD for you MARY !!!

By Vandelron (24.44.20.172) on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 11:32 pm:

Whats AREC? I guess one of those life lessons of letting things go to get them back--Mary let go of the name and----She doesnt really need it as she is becoming more and more successful on her own--but nice to have for her--JUSTICE.

By Marv (64.12.97.7) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 01:30 am:

I heard that interview also on WBLS the other day. This is great news.

Go Mary, Get Busy, it's ya birthday! LOL

By Common (209.2.55.171) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 08:12 am:

Well it's about time! You go Mary!

Peace!

By Michael/cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:20 am:

It has been a long struggle for Mary Wilson. At one point, she owned 50% of the name with Motown owning the other half. Even at that point she was under a lot of rules about what she could and could not do with the name. For example, she could only refer to herself as The Supremes' Mary Wilson. Then there was a financial deal with Berry Gordy about the name, which only he and Mary know the particulars of. However, Mary has been clever over the years. She has been quietly copyrighting the name in countries outside of the US, and instituting lawsuits and injunctions in those countries to keep other "variations" of the group from using the name. Possibly, Universal has corporately decided that the most beneficial use of the name for everyone is for Mary to have some form of the exclusive rights. In any event, she deserves it after fighting for so many years for herself and other groups who are in the same situation. Let's face it, there is no Supremes without Mary.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:25 am:

Mary Wilson has fought the good fight for her right to use the name that has brought her fame.

Congrats, Mary.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:55 am:

I know I am preaching to the choir here, but
Mary has been a Supreme longer than any of them, she is an original Supreme and has kept The Supremes going for decades..As much as I love Ms. Ross,... Mary kept "The Supremes" going in the 70's so she deserves this....We have a lot of great Supremes music...Mary is in every decade of that music...

Congats Mary....You go Girl!!

Vickie

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 12:01 pm:

I, of course, as everyone else, believe she de-
serves the rights to the name. I only wish
Universal, Motown, Berry Gordy himself, would
step in and right the wrong that was done to
the Marvelettes in the '70s. Gladys Horton
should have rights to the name.

By Michael/cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 12:09 pm:

Randy:

Of course, you are right. It would be of more benefit to Gladys and the fans than the bogus Marvelettes that I have seen over the years who could not have possbily been alive when Don't Mess With Bill (my favorite) was recorded.

By stephanie (66.54.1.38) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 12:48 pm:

Berry doesnt give a darn about the Marvelettes in my opinion and you are right he should help Gladys it was her voice and the group who gave Motown the million selling Mr Postman that enabled Motown to have money to function..
Stephanie

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 03:04 pm:

Those fake marvelettes receive gigs (at least partly) because real Motown acts tour with them.

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 03:12 pm:

Yes, but it is not the fault of the real Motown
acts. Many artists are booked for shows and have
no idea who else is on the bill until they arrive
for sound check. Mary Wilson, however, I think
has it in her contracts that she will not appear
with any bogus groups. Many artists, however,
cannot afford to turn down jobs because of bogus
groups appearing on the bill.

By Michael/cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 04:47 pm:

Everyone:

You guys should go this web page:

http://www.mrentertainment.org.uk/supremes.htm

You will understand what Mary has to continually put up with throughout the world.

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 05:26 pm:

It's like any other collective action -- if all Motown acts refused to tour with the bogus acts instead of just one -- Mary Wilson -- the fakes wouldn't be able to use the real groups' legitimacy to appear "real."

Especially top acts like Otis Williams' Temptations -- do they need this frumpy little group? Is it money out of their pocket if these "Marvelettes" aren't on the bill? Doubt it. And they look less legit themselves when they tour with these 30 something Marvelettes.

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 08:40 pm:

I'm glad Mary isn't appearing with 30 year old marvelettes now, but she has before.
These real acts all claim they don't know who appears with them, but how can these real stars be 50/60 years, with 30/40 years of music biz know how and NOT know who's on the bill?
hehehehehehe

By Vandelron (24.44.20.172) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 09:17 pm:

Here Here per Gladys and the Marvelettes. The Tempts got their name,the Tops, the Vandellas, the Miracles...Gladys and Mary shouldnt have to suffer these indignities. Are there no just lawyers out there to help Ms Horton?Benefactors?

By Flo Murdock (68.51.53.128) on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 09:47 pm:

None of this makes any sense to me. No matter how good a performer Mary Wilson may be, Diana Ross is still the voice we heard on the Supremes' records. So for anyone else to perform as "The Supremes" just doesn't seem right. On the other hand, what we have been witnessing in recent years is the coming out of Mary Wilson - coming into her own as a person and a performer. With all the respect she has won at this point - why would she even want the Supremes name? She has her own name and her own respect. She no longer needs the Supremes name, she is Mary Wilson, who has received glowing reviews wherever she goes, as HERSELF!!! This is what I believe everyone who is trying to claim group names (namely those who weren't lead singers) should have done all along. Instead of playing off the group name, if they were really good, establish themselves in their own name. From everything I have heard, from so many sources recently, she has done this. Mary - be Mary! The Supremes are over and done!!!

By Tony Russi (68.210.2.246) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 09:10 am:

The NAME is whats worth MONEY.Although these people love their art they want their MONEY.The name brings in the MONEY no one else should be getting their money.

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 09:22 am:

If Mary doesn't have the name, many bogus Supremes
groups will pop up all over the world performing.
It's very difficult and it has an effect on all
performers, example: If a group of fake Marvelettes work for a promoter for $1500 in
February, will this same promoter pay a legit
group, like say the Crystals, $4000 in March?
Phony groups of Coasters & Drifters & Marvelettes
work for much less $ than legit groups & solo
performers.

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 09:42 am:

I have been with too many acts too many times for
shows and they didn't know who else was on the
bill until they got to the city or unless I knew
and told them.

By RD (63.188.33.246) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 09:53 am:

I agree, with the exception of special tours, that artists sometimes don't know whose going to be on the bill with them until they get to the city. People seem to think they all travel in one big bus or something but this isn't so.

But I have doubts as to how valuable the Supremes name is too. The Supremes will forever be associated by most fans with Diana Ross' lead voice anything else was always be lesser despite the presence of original member Mary Wilson or Diana's replacement Jean Terrell. I don't think using the Supremes' name will increase Mary Wilson's fee at all. She was building a career under her own name. Why stop now? Unless, she has plans on using the name in a similar fashion as Larry Marshak and hire a bunch of girls and then send various combinations all over the world to perform as the Supremes.

By breathtakingguy (65.238.115.72) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 10:09 am:

I think the 70's Supremes has a huge fan base. I think she could benefit only is she were to regroup with Cindy and Jean. I think after Cindy and Jean, the group lost a lot of momentum and fans. I truly can't see her doing that on a full time bases after years of solo work. It would make a lot of us fans happy of the 70's Supremes, but, alas, don't see it happening. From what I hear, the 70's Supremes Anthology has been selling pretty well.....maybe?

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 10:16 am:

The name is of great value. The general public
in any age group know the name "The Supremes"
much, much more than "Mary Wilson". If the
names of groups like the Crystals and the
Shirelles still have value in draw for a
performance, than without question the Supremes
is a draw. After all, they were right up there
with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

By RD (63.188.33.246) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 10:21 am:

Yea Randy but everyone also knows that Mary Wilson was an original Supreme. In this SPECIFIC case it doesn't mean as much as it would if it was another group like say the Crystals. Most people can't name one Crystal or Shirelle. She must have another reason for wanting the rights to the name.

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 10:23 am:

I would say it's because she IS an original why
she wants it. Why would she want someone else
(including Motown) to have it?

By RD (63.188.33.246) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 10:33 am:

Ok, but unless she has other ways she's thinking of marketing that name, she's better off marketing herself as Mary Wilson.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 10:35 am:

While it is true that Mary Wilson has made it on her own with her own name, her development as a solo artist has only hit full bloom in recent years. Therefore, in the eyes & ears of many in the general public, the question will still remain, "Who is Mary Wilson?"

Having the Supremes' name will hopefully end those questions because she can now promote the name and herself as one of the original members (to which the general public would THEN say, "oh, THAT Mary Wilson!").

We as die-hard fans know that Mary's name stands on its own. Segments of the general public that loves the music but are not as "committed" as we are only knows the group name. Mary having ownership of that name would help her attract more people to her shows.

And anyway, wouldn't it be nice now that Mary has the name if she could get Cindy Birdsong & Jean Terrell (or Scherrie Payne) together for a REAL Supremes reunion......

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Scratcher (65.132.78.253) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 11:16 am:

Here I go following Kevgo again. I'm sorry but even if some don't know the name Mary Wilson (and most do) they know the face, and they associate that face with Supremes. The original Supremes with Diana Ross has a huge fan base but I guestion how huge the fan base is for the Supremes without Diana Ross. The name will be beneficial to Mary as to marketing, licensing rights, etc. but I too doubt if it will increase her already busy performing itinerary and may even diminished it with some who don't want to revisit the Supremes at $60 bucks a ticket when they paid $5 to $10 in their heyday.

By douglasm (68.113.13.31) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 11:22 am:

Which, I guess, would bring up the question of "bogus" groups again. Mary, backed by who.....?
I'm beginning to wonder, with all these "old" groups playing casinos and the like, maybe it would be better to let the groups die a dignified death (unless there are a substantial number of original members), and single individual members bill themselves similar to the way Dennis Edwards does.

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 11:57 am:

The name should be protected for when WE all are dead and gone....Especially once "heaven forbid"
the original members are no longer with us...I mean many many years from now....It should be protected for their familys to claim not some fake line up to claim....
No one should be able to cash in on that name once Mary, Diana, Jean, or Cindy are no longer with us..Future generations may not know all the history....the history needs to be preserved for the right reasons with the right person..Mary Wilson is that person..

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:02 pm:

Right on, Vickie! Elvis impersonators should
never have a claim to Graceland.

By stephanie (66.54.1.38) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:09 pm:

Mary Wilson is no fool Im sure that the reason she wants this name is she can stop ALL bogus groups and therefore get MORE bookings and command her normal fee and she doesnt have to worry about competition. People dont fight in court just to get these names to have them for sentimental value!! Trust me this woman has been through enough legal stuff so she probably has a good lawyer telling her what the name can mean to her and how she can use it. Mary is still pretty and can still perform so she can get at least 5-10 more years out of that name..
Stephanie

By douglasm (68.113.13.31) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:13 pm:

Vicki, I agree with you, but Scratcher makes a valid point when it comes to live performance marketing. I wish there was some way someone could purchase group names and histories and pull them from the touring circuit.

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:37 pm:

I have seen a few tribute bands...mainly 70's rock bands....it's known that they are tribute bands..
That's really a big thing here in LA...
They don't call themselves the names of the band ..
Usually they are named after a popular album that band had or song...Like Sticky Fingers is The Stones, Bella Donna is the Fleetwood Mac ..
someone needs to make sure these acts DO NOT use the real name...If someone wants to pay tribute to The Supremes or sing their songs - great!....they should never be able to use that name...it should be protected,
Call your line up The Nathan Jones's Singers, or
The Baby Loves - or something....

I'm sorry, I just think The Supremes name should be protected and preserved, just as the Beatles and Elvis and others are..
I don't know how much of this has to do with concert venues and what not..I am thinking in the future.....when there is no voice to protect the name...Christine McVie has left Fleetwood Mac she is now Christine McVie...Fleetwood Mac is touring right now as Fleetwood Mac...Christine is an original member and we all know that....she can get on any show, anywhere with out mentioning what band she was in...we know she was an original member...The name though is preserved somehow by someone I'm sure....

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:40 pm:

ok, I 'm done...

I am glad That Mary will have the name....
makes me feel better when I pass my albums down to my younger folk in my family...
they'll know who The Supremes really were...

Gosh - I'm sorry to be so outspoken.......
I guess I am passionate about My Supremes..

By Oren (65.115.44.110) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 12:59 pm:

I think there is one point that slips the minds of many of the readers on this site. Consider a person that is NOT familiar with the Supremes. He or she may go to a concert for one of these fake groups. Even worse he or she may go to a record store and purchase "The Supremes Sing Their Greatest Hits" for $4.99. That is actually one of the 10 or so titles currently available, and includes 15+ re-recordings of the Supremes' best known songs - by different artists.

The albums are terrible, in my opinion. I have no idea what the shows are like, however, I cannot believe that they do a good job of conveying the artistry that is typically associated with the Supremes.

Any of the people purchasing these albums or going to these shows will walk away and think that the Supremes are terrible - or, at the least, overrated. In short, the legacy of the Supremes is diminished, and the ability to capture younger fans can be destroyed.

The foregoing stated, I should be candid that I represent Mary Wilson, and am thus (at least) somewhat biased. However, I was not involved in any of her prior lawsuits, including the one which is ongoing in California against the other groups using the name the Supremes.

At various points both federal and state legislators have conducted open forums to discuss and consider the possibility of legislation to prevent the dilution of the group names for established artists. This would be a right which would be a little different from trademark rights, since most artists have to assign those rights in the name to the record label when they originally sign up. Unfortunately, no legislation has ever been enacted. Mary Wilson and other artists travel around the country (at their own cost) to discuss this issue because it is very important to them.

If this is something that you feel strongly about (which some of you obviously do), the next time any government (state of federal) begins to consider the issue, you should send a letter, e-mail, etc., detailing to any relevant official some of the well expressed statements that I have read in various threads.

By P.J. (209.114.157.141) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 01:41 pm:

Michael/cleoharvey,
The web page you posted is rather interesting, to say the least!!! How do they plan to resurrect Edwin Starr? And did you take a closer look at the AMERICAN Four Tops?

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 01:50 pm:

I also checked out that website. Unbelieveable!!
Fake Supremes and Fake Four Tops!!! They're
comment page is down, but their email address is:
info@mrentertainment.org.uk
EVERYONE should email and comment on the fake acts.

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 03:01 pm:

These reals wouldn't even be in business now, if they didn't know what's going on. If a fake is on their tour, somehow they know.
On the protection tip, were where Motown, Berry, Diana and Mary in 1967 and 1970, before the replacements joined? Wasn't that the time to protect interests?
On the reunion tip, Mary said no (and I agree) to a Mary, Cindy, Scherrie 1982 reunion built around Scherrie.
Why in 2003 should she revert back to 1973?

By Scratcher (65.132.78.16) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 03:52 pm:

Oren, with all due respect, people going to see a sixties group know they're going to see people who were not in the group from 40 years ago. And if you talk to people who pay money to go these shows you'll find they don't care whose in the group as long as they put on a good show. They just want to hear and see a good representation of the songs. Most never knew or cared about the individual members. Much of the fuss over fake groups come from writers/reviewers, original members, and people who don't pay one dime to get into these shows.

I agree that Mary getting the name is a good thing for her, though you would think Diana would have some say so. My point of contention was someone's assertion that it would help her (Mary Wilson) booking wise. It will help her financially but not through bookings. Supremes' fans from yesterday never paid more than $20 to see them; these same people, if still around, are not going to pay double and triple that to see the group without their main, dominant member. The most legitimate Supreme group today would be Diana Ross, Mary Wilson and Cindy Birdsong. Does anybody think there's a ghost of a chance in that happening? No, it'll be Mary and some unknowns, which would be one rung above the fake as the bogus groups. You know as well as I that Mary owning the name is not going to stop the bogus groups,it's only going to mean more lawsuits and more chances of income for lawyers.

When a group loses their dominat singer or singers they should disband. The Temptations, for instance, have become a joke. A group that did a few gigs a few years ago that included Dennis Edwards, Richard Street and Damon Harris was more legitimate than the "legit" Otis Williams Temptations. When first David Ruffin, then Paul Williams and Eddie Kendricks became ex Tempts that should have been it.

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 04:29 pm:

Wouldn't it be more economical to just buy those recycled "greatest hits" CDs that Universal/Motown constantly (re)issues?
hehehehehehehehe

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 04:33 pm:

If a 3rd person came into TLC now after Lisa's death...would they have a right to that name?....I say NO!

The name should go to the original members...

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 04:47 pm:

I agree!
But it's up to to the original members to seize the moment and take action then.
hehehehehe

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 04:52 pm:

Vickie --
By that rule, the Supremes would cease to exist after Flo left -- or was forced out.

So Cindy Birdsong wouldn't be considered a Supreme.

I'm on the side of letting the originals have the name, I'm just pointing out that you can't always draw a firm line in the sand.

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 05:06 pm:

True Sue...
It's not a rule, Diana & Mary were left...Mary carried it on....
I wasn't drawing a line in the sand saying that the others are not Supremes...just saying that the name "Supreme" should stay with an original member.
Cindy was also A Blue Bell...
I consider Cindy a Supreme and Jean too...as does the rest of the public....
but the name "Supreme" is another issue...I know how I would be if I was an original member and I did not have the name...
TLC has 2 members left that should have the rights to that name and Lisa's family...anyone that sings with them as part of TLC should not have rights to that name...
For me there are 4 Supremes and I wish they would all work it out and sing togther again..
Diana, Mary, Cindy & Jean....

I dunno...that's just how I feel....

Vickie

By Oren (65.115.44.110) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 05:33 pm:

Scratcher -

Actually I think that you overestimate audiences and the purchasing public. Your comments about the original fans are likely correct. However, relative to the purchasing public at large, they are not.

Think about it a different way. I have a 24 year old sister. She is not very interested in music created before 1980. If I told her that she might like the Supremes, and advised her to purchase a CD, in all likelihood she could purchase a "greatest hits" which either: (i) has been re-recorded in the last 2-3 years without any of the original members, and costs $4.99 (but is not advertised as a re-recording), or (ii) pay $13.99 for what would appear to be the same album which has the original recordings. Moreover, to answer the anonymous question as well, the Universal/Motown recycled material is still far more than $4.99.

If my sister then listened to the recording, she probably would not be impressed, and would wind up thinking very little of the Supremes. I am not sure that there is anything which could be more damaging to the band's legacy. You, and other people who are interested in this site may not be fooled by the new group's cd, but then again, you probably have already bought most of the Supremes cd's that you will ever buy. I think that the younger/newer market is the market that you have to focus on more - take a look at how well the Beatles stuff (which gets far more promotion) continues to sell among younger audiences. Simply put, if the fake stuff was not selling, they would not be putting it out - and certainly not at the ridiculously low prices.

I agree that other original members (Diane Ross, etc.) should have a right to use the name.

However, I disagree with the assertion that if the name were protected (whether by Mary Wilson, Universal, a trustee, etc.) that there would still be bogus groups. No groups call themselves "Beatles," "Rolling Stones," etc. Rather, this a phenomenon that happens with Motown acts more than others. If there were a little more enforcement, this would stop.

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 05:35 pm:

Vickie,
Ok I see what you're saying ...

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 05:39 pm:

Sue,
I think that's my longest post ever - LOL

I like what you are saying Oren...

Vickie

By : (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 05:45 pm:

Oren or someone..
why does this happen more with Motown acts?..
Just curious..
We just saw it with The Beach Boys recently..but singers leave groups all the time and you don't hear much about them going on with "the name" they become solo artists and that's that...
Lional Rithie left The Commadores, Phil Collins left Genesis, Grace Slick, ect ect...
Teddy Pendergrass....many others...
is it becaseu the ones that left did not care about identifying with the name or did not have rights to use it in a solo career?

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 06:12 pm:

Oren:
Your point is well made and parallels what I said earlier - that to us die hard fans Mary doesn't need the Supremes name but to capture the attention of segments within the general population/mainstream, having the rights to the name does help so that these folks will know that Mary was the founding member of the Supremes and thus would attend her concerts and appearances.

As for your point, Scratcher - if people are informed that a bogus group is using a legendary name, you can bet that bogus act will be playing to empty seats. For example, as a record retailer, when I see a customer purchase an oldies CD that was "re-recorded" by a later incarnation of an act and not the original hit from the original artist, I make damn sure the customer knows that the re-recorded CD is NOT the real deal. Everytime I've done this, customers would ask me for the original version from the original act (and I worked in record retail for thirteen years).

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 06:49 pm:

The problem is, these acts are sometimes booked by promoters who don't even know they're bogus.

And often the promoters know, but rationalize. I've had promoters tell me things like "the real Marvelettes don't want to tour anymore, so why shouldn't a new act be put together?"

All sorts of excuses are made. And they certainly don't advertise to the public that these acts are fake.

Here I am, telling people in the Marvelettes' own hometown that they didn't book the original act -- this happened in the case of last year's Woodward Dream Cruise. The nouveau Marvelettes played the city of Ferndale's Dream Cruise event.

The Dream Cruise publicist told me "the city of Ferndale said they're real." Oh, OK. Like they know.

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 07:05 pm:

It baffles me that they get away with it....

I don't understand how they can say they are them, when they are not them...
this weekend there is a Supremes group, Elvis and Fleetwood Mac all playing at a festival....
I believe they all have in their title "A Tribute to"........

Vickie

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 07:09 pm:

Sounds of the Supremes featuring Karran Ragland (Supremes Show)

That's who is playing out here on Sunday at The Strawberry Festival

By Scratcher (65.132.79.171) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 07:31 pm:

Oren, you might find the exception 24 year old who would even care about the Supremes enough to buy a CD or go see them but the average 24 year old taking that kind of an interest to a musical act so prior to their years on earth is akin to trying to get a 12 year old to watch a complete nine innning baseball game on television.

How many people (promoters, investors, etc.) have to burned by believing that they can transform '60s magic into mellennium money before the nonsense stops.

Diana Ross's big tour failed a few years ago because everybody involved over estimated her popularity. She was booked in venues that were too big, the price was too high, and the tour too expensive for anybody to make money. The attendance at some places was shocking.

A guy in England has failed trying to market FLOS (Fomer Ladies of the Supremes) because of a general lack of interest.

What about Ian Levine? For years he recorded UK acts than obscure soul acts before getting the brainstorm to record ex Motown artists--more than 800 tracks. Surely, all the Motown fans would buy these recordings (he thought) if for nothing else but to hear these old legends' voices again, some of which had been silent for decades. Not! The whole project was a complete disaster producing only one little UK hit by Frances Nero (of all people).

You can make money with old Motown and soul and pop acts if you scaled down. While you can't charge $5 anymore, which is what I paid to see the Supremes in a nightclub in the mid-sixties, you also can't charge $50 unless you stuffed the package with multiple nostalgia acts. Just like nobody would pay the prices they pay today to see NBA ball the way it was played in the '60s, nobody is going to pay 2003 prices to see a sixties act that isn't bringing anything new to the table but negatives--age, less mobility and usually, weaker voices. A large portion of the Supremes originally fan-base is unfortunately deceased or too old to give a damn.

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 07:40 pm:

Lack of interest is because we want to see the right combo of Supremes.....
The fans are speaking here on this...
Parents will drag their 12 year old to see a True Supremes reunion...
I know I will drag everyone I know when it happens...

By Music FAn (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 07:44 pm:

The Funk Brothers did really good with this..
The fans are out there....The tour proved that...

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 07:50 pm:

Scratcher:
You're right as rain regarding an act's need to scale down and the whole Diana Ross debacle but I again must disagree with you entirely regarding the interests younger people have regarding classic music.

As a record retailer for several years (13 lucky ones), I've seen as many mid-to-late 20-year olds buy as many R&B/Motown oldies as the "baby boomers". Why? 1)Exposure (they recognize the act) 2)Lower price (thankfully these labels realize that selling an oldies CD at full-line prices ain't cutting it) 3)They want to build a collection of music. Your over-estimation is way off (I ain't gonna say wrong, just way off). These kids were exposed to the music thanks to MFSB (Mother-Father-Sister-Brother - forgive me, Bobby Eli!) or other family members, radio/TV or the combination of all of the above. For example - when my niece Leigh-Anne was 15, she heard me playing my Jackie Wilson CDs. Today, she has her own collection of Mr. Excitement's music including the boxed set (which she bought with her own money, if I may add).

Maybe in your realm this reality doesn't exist. If so, fine. But I've seen the opposite for quite a while and I think we need to be a little more optomistic about the younger folks and what they really like.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Sue (152.163.252.68) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 07:51 pm:

Yeah and the Funks' audience was of varying ages, some in their 20s came of their own accord, some younger kids were brought by their parents.

A friend of mine, the daughter of Rob Tyner of the MC5, is a huge Funks fans and only 20. She saw the film on her own, and bought tickets to the concert, and loved it. 20 -- go figure.

It's like me going to see Frank Sinatra when I finally could -- younger people will seek out quality. The challenge for the veteran artists is to get the word out that they're on tour, or have new product, without massive radio airplay.

By Sue (152.163.252.68) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 07:54 pm:

A 23-year-old colleague of mine at the paper asked me one day if I'd make a list for him of albums from the past that he should have in his collection. What a fun thing for me to do!

He goes to record shops and buys vinyl so he can cheaply build a "library" of music -- all those old Crosby Stills & Nash, Pink Floyd and Clash albums boomers are off-loading ...so he wants to know what are the "must-hear" albums ...

Music is music, each generation picks up the best of the previous generations' ...

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 07:56 pm:

Tammi gained new, younger fans just from her music being in Step Mom and Remember The Titans..
I have many emails from fans to prove that...

Vickie

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 08:04 pm:

Sue & Vickie:
And to think...I discovered the "Classic" Temptations when some stupid neighbor of mine threw their Temptations Greatest Hits LP in the junk heap outside their house.

I was nine years old at the time (the year - late 1975).

I still have that record (and it still plays).

Like Sue said - we younger folks pick up on the best the older generation has to offer (and still do).


Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 08:16 pm:

You know what they say Kevin.."someone's trash is anothers treasure" - Lucky You!!
There is no arguing that the music of The Supremes
is great music, the voices, HDH, and The Funks..Through out the 60's & 70's and then Mary & Diana have their individual solo works and careers.....I believe if Mary has the name she'll do right by it..she has thus far....
The fans are out there - they are young and old....
These Supremes talks/threads get heated and passionate - we have to remember the music and put everything else aside....
I am optimistic that something wonderful is going to happen with these ladies...

By Scratcher (65.132.79.171) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 08:34 pm:

KevGo, 1975 isn't that far removed from 1964-66. What teenager today is going to embrace music from the '60s--not many. In the sixties I embraced doo wop and '50s R&B, but again, it was not like I was decades older than the sound. I didn't embrace my grandfathers music--Vic Damone, Nat King Cole, the Mills Brothers,etc.

Vickie, drag is what you'll have to do, also bribe. Ever watch a baseball game on television and see the bored faces on the teens and kids who were dragged there by their parents.

Sue, there's always isolated exceptions, I know a pre teen who likes roadhouse jazz (ex. Lou Donaldson, etc.), but he's not the norm and he knows it, his friends considered him quite the odd ball.

The Funk Brothers actually proves my case. Not to knock, but their movie opened at about 20 or 30 theaters. Eminens' opened at over 2,000 or some astronomical number. The Funks movie ended up grossing around $16 million, while the top current movies gross that in a day or one week. If they had gotten the backing I'm sure the movie would have been put out on a larger scale, in the more mainstream theaters, etc. People are not going to lose money to please the fanatic. The Magic Johnson Theater in New York axed the movie after a couple days. It was not personal, they weren't making money and didn't forsee making any. Chicago cancelled the Funk Brothers' concert, again, nothing personal, just didn't sell enough tickets for that particular promoter to go ahead with it. It will be interesting to see after everything shakes out how successful the Funk Brothers' coming out "really" was.

If you guys seriously believe there's money in promoting '60s artists to the younger generation there are plenty of opportunities for you to invest your money. Personally, I know some who did: put their money where they mouths were--and lost damn near everything they had.

Promoters have a problem booking '60s soul acts anywhere but theaters and 250 to 750 capacity night clubs (and they're aren't many of those). Pro sports colliseums, stadiums, and even college basketball arenas are simply too big. Yet, Rap, current R&B and Rock artists appear at the larger venues all the time and usually sell the places out. Any venue over 8,000 seats is chancy. For one you pay more for the bigger places and need to sell more tickets. Shows that don't sell enough tickets are cancelled quick.

By Happy Camper (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 08:38 pm:

Baseball is boring for me after 6 innnings and I am 37..
you can't compare baseball and music...

Happy Camper

By Scratcher (65.132.79.171) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 08:45 pm:

Happy Camper when I was a kid baseball was exciting to me and most kids. I still watch baseball, go to games sometimes, listen to it on the radio, and watch it on television. But I be damn if many people under 40 do. I used it as an analogy to the growing and changing tastes in people of different generations.

By Happier Camper (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 08:50 pm:

I just went to a game and there were so many kids we moved sections....


Happier Camper

By Sue (205.188.209.109) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 08:52 pm:

Scratcher,
You're not disproving any of my points. I said it's a challenge for veteran artists to get the word out that they're on tour because radio favors new product by teen artists.

I think you need to get out of the house more. I mostly work with people in their 20s. I'm telling you what I observed of several Funk Brothers audiences -- these aren't one or two exceptions to the rule. In many ways younger people are more anxious to see the music while boomers who saw it the first time around can be blase.

The challenge with a concert like the Funks is to let the OLDER fans know about the show, then to get off their butts and into the concert halls.

The people who are out and about, and buying tickets to concerts tend to be younger.

Happy Camper is right, baseball can't be compared to music. Basketball is also a venerable old sport, but younger people love it. So?

You don't promote "60s artists" to a younger generation, you promote good music.

In a world where there are no more mass appeal radio stations or TV shows, just endlessly fragmented "niche" audiences, getting the word out is the challenge.

When Bruce Springsteen has to do a media blitz in order to let people know he's got a new album, because radio doesn't play his new stuff -- these are strange times.

By Sue (205.188.209.109) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 08:55 pm:

"Changing tastes" -- Liking hiphop doesn't mean a young person doesn't also become fascinated by early punk, Beatles, '60s soul or whatever.

Because of sampling, soul and R&B has never quite gone away.

And look at TV shows -- when I mentioned Barry White to a younger friend, she said "Oh the Ally McBeal guy." Soul is classic, like Sinatra or big band, to kids it's old school, and just a snippet instantly denotes sex, fun, a more innocent time.

We're just lucky enough to have experienced it firsthand, like my parents' generation experienced Sinatra, big band and Miles Davis firsthand.

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 09:04 pm:

I have been listening to The James Brown Funky Divas CD set, when Harry first sent it to me I just listen to it as a background to other things I was doing..listening more closely I heard so many songs that I never knew where the original songs of modern/current songs..So many songs are samples from that original work..
I'm sure most of you knew that already

I love the set though...
New music I was introduced to via this site and anothers influence...

Vickie

By JoB (204.42.12.2) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 05:13 am:

Hello everyone :o)

I was reading over this conversation and just HAD to add my little 2 cents...

I am a 23 year old female who knows a lot more about the 60's-70's music scene than not only my peers, but most older people I know who actually lived it (All of my friends say I'm a 60 year old woman in a 23 year old's body). No, I didn't get this way from my parents' "in MY day, we had REAL music" speeches, because to tell you the truth, growing up in our house, if it wasn't gospel, it wasn't allowed. Period. But how I got turned on to Motown and Al Greene and E,W,&F was from a radio station in the city that I lived in. It was the Jammin' Oldies station that a lot of cities have. I mean they played ALL the good stuff, ALL the time. And since I've always been the way that I am (when I was little, and all my friends thought they were the female rap group Salt-N-Pepa, I was in the mirror with long gloves on my hand doing the "stop" sign, thinking I was a Supreme.I even named my cat "Flo"), of course this was the station my radio stayed on. But it was something about this music that made me feel so good, that I just started learning everything I could about it. I have everything sixties(especially motown) that you can possibly buy on a CD, I've read all the books(Divided Soul, both of Mary Wilson's, Where did our love go, Otis Williams', Diana Ross', etc.) and seen all the movies and concert footage that is out there (by the way, 2 thumbs up to SITSOM :o)
I love that musical era with a passion, and even though every once in a while you might catch me at a modern R&B/hip-hop joint, it is the music of my parents' generation that is my true love.

That being said, I'd could neither agree nor disagree with those who say that you could not market 60's music to today's generation of music listeners. On one side, I'm sure that there are many others my age (and younger) who would pay good money to see Motown and other 60's music acts. But thing is, we want to see it as close a possible to the real, original way it was when you all got to see it. Not all Y2K-ized. I want to see the raw talent that was enjoyed then, though I also realize that these artists are much older than they were then (those that are still alive). I'd give anything to see Diana Ross, Mary Wilson, and Cindy Birdsong on the same stage singing "I Hear a Symphony" backed by (who else but) the Funk Brothers...Yea, I know...when hell freezes over along with few oversized egos and a whoooole lotta pride. But that is the closest I will ever come to experiencing what most of you got to enjoy on an everyday basis.
But on the other side, if I had a nickel for every time I got outvoted by my friends(in my own car!) over what CD to listen to (usually between something like Marvin Gaye's greatest hits or R. Kelly's new joint), or been asked when listening to one of my classic treasures "girl, what'chu know 'bout dat?" by an older person, or have had my boyfriend threaten to break my Bill Withers CD in half if I played it one more time, I'd be a rich lady right about now. But don't worry, I'm doing my job to educate my peers on the REAL Sound of Young America.
So to answer the question, NO, I don't think that a Supremes (I mean a REAL Supremes) reunion tour would bring in as much as, say, a Destiny's Child reunion tour would, but I know one thing, that it would be HIGHLY appreciated by fans such as myself, as well as highly beneficial for the artists, whom I'm sure wouldn't mind the cash and exposure.
So just to let you all know, that there ARE younger people who don't just see it as "old" music. Whenever I come in contact with someone with a little gray in their hair, the first thing that comes to my mind is, "I wonder if they ever saw the Tempts (classic 5) in concert?"...
I love my life, but(with the exception of racial injustice and hardships that it brought on) every now and then I sometimes wish I was living in the 60's...

By RD (63.188.33.11) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 07:53 am:

Too many zeros Scratch, SITSOM actually only grossed 1,722,119.00 and at its peak was showing on only 59 screens. It opened on 23 screens.

8 Mile grossed $116,744,370.00 and at its peak was showing on 2585 screens. It opened on 2470 screens.

But point well taken.

By stephanie (66.54.1.38) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 09:14 am:

With shows like American Idol and baby boomer movies and American Dreams young people are rediscovering this music Im telling you!!! I will say that the above poster who said that the RTL tour with Diana Ross should not have been in arenas is correct!!! Save those places for the rock groups and people who are having hit records.

If the RTL tour had been booked in venues of 5,000 seats or less it would have been a rousing success. Miss Ross can pack them in at Madison Square Garden and arenas overseas but for the most part she has to go to venues that have 5,000 people or less which still is not bad!!! If Mary Wilson is not part of a package she can usually fill clubs that hold 800 people or even as many as 1500. You wont see Mary Wilson trying to fill an arena though. What a lot of people dont realize is you dont have to fill an arena to make good money. People who do private parties and county fairs dont do badly. I dont know how much they make but they do make more than 2000.00 for themselves. Mary Wilsons backup girls and she has had several stuck with her for a long time so she must pay well. I have been told that a backup singer on an oldies show makes about 500.00 which is not bad!!!

I went to a website to see what Mary Wilsons fee was and the site said 10,000 dollars after she pays her back up singers and her band I dont know what she collects for herself but I would say that since she plays BB Kings every year and always has a lot of work she must be a good draw.
I dont know how long the oldies market is going to last buy judging from the rousing response to the PBS specials and movies still using old music and shows like American Dreams cropping up and American Idol singing the old songs there must be an interest amongst the 30 and younger crowd.

Im 41 now but when I was twelve like the other person who posted I was listening to the older stuff and people were amazed...there are a lot of us out there. I was really shocked at the interest in Swing music again and the blues not just old 60s music. Remember the Brian Setzer Orchestra and he used to play with the Stray Cats and remember when they were out how Rockabilly got popular again and Gene Vincent's catalog started to move again. I wouldnt worry about hip hop and the like this stuff we have stands the test of time..
Stephanie

By Scratcher (65.132.76.216) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 09:52 am:

Stephanie, you see my point. You can make money on the older acts if you scaled it down and don't get fooled by Internet and collectors' hype. The Funk Brothers played in theaters not arenas. Theaters usually have seating capacities of 600 and less. Arenas, 10,000 to 22,000.

KevGo, I didn't mean a dig when I stated that 1975 wasn't too far removed from the sixties. As you know many your age didn't embrace the music of the sixties as you did. I have a nephew whose two years younger than you. We were watching Soul Train together once when he was about 14 and Don C. announced the Spinners as the Great Spinners. My nephew watched them lip synch and dance to one of their current hits and boringly said "what's so great about them." He didn't get it, never did. Not only didn't he embrace the '60s groups, the '70s groups had nothing coming either. He didn't get passionate about any music until rap came along. He's a rap freak. He educates me on rap artists, their lives, their CDs, chart positions, etc.

People who say that if rap hadn't come along that youth would have embrace "their" music are simply wrong. Some would have, but not the majority. With most teens if its cool with their parents it's not cool with them.

ESPN2 shows old classic basketball games. If you watch a game from the '60s you'll see that the game played today is different. My point was if they played and presented the game the same way now as they did back then the youth today would not be interested just as most are not interested in Major League Baseball where changes have been few and far inbetween.

When I was a kid you couldn't drive past a playground in the spring, summer or fall and not see kids playing hardball (not softball). You rarely if ever see this anymore. We use to play from sun up to slap. (slap meaning slap dark with only the street lights providing light.)

Happy Camper, not one of those kids brought a ticket to that baseball game you attended. They were brought their by their parents like mine took me to games. The proof in the pudding comes when they get older and have to buy the tickets themselves, surveys have shown that most lose interest in the game when they become adults.

I know a high school athlete who was good in football and basketball but much better in baseball. He stopped playing baseball because nobody came to the games. He put his time and effort into basketball because the gyms were always packed.

You can't use exceptions and small percentiles to make a point. If a reunion of Diana Ross, Mary Wilson and Cindy Birdsong was a hot, big ticket item some promoter would have done this yesterday. You simply offer the participants money they can't refuse and get it on. No one has because they're thinking with reason and logic, not passion: Except for the promoters of the failed Diana Ross Tour, but even they bailed after slow ticket sales kept smacking 'em in the face.

By 4 Cents (198.81.26.231) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 11:34 am:

Not True!! A promoter can't make it happen if participants are not willing or asked. ABBA was offered a fortune to re-unite
A FORTUNE and they said no...
they are done being ABBA!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 11:45 am:

Scratcher:
You'd be surprised how many folks "my age" have embraced "the Sound of Young America" and other classic sounds.

Why do you think classic jazz STILL sells - because younger folks are being exposed to it every day and are buying it.

Why do you think legends like Johnny Cash are enjoying a new renaissance? Because a young producer named Rick Rubin saw that the Man In Black still had songs in him - and his recent CDs have been selling.

If I may share this anecdote with all here: two years ago I was in a restaurant & they piped in music from (the now defunct) Jammin 105 FM. When the Delfonics' "Didn't I Blow Your Mind" came on, I heard the guy in the next booth tell his girlfriend, "Wow..I love this song! It's by the Delfonics. I wish (the music industry) would make more music like this - I can't stand the hip-hop s--t." I looked over & asked him his age. He was 23 and grew up listening to his Mom & Dad's records. To think - he was born in 1978 - when soul/R&B was taking a back seat to disco.

The co-workers at my record store dig the classics as well as the new stuff because the classics are "all good" to them. When my 21-year-old clerk asks me what Teena Marie CD should he buy first (I recommended her greatest hits on Motown to get a taste for her music), that tells me that young folks will buy classics once they are exposed to them (and like them).

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 11:55 am:

p.s. I know few acts that play 600-seat "theaters," usually at that stage they're in a nightclub. The Funk Brothers played theaters with 2800 capacity on this past tour.

The bigger theaters like the Fox in Detroit can hold 5,000.

Playing theaters is nothing to sneeze at. It's kind of useless arguing with someone who wants to see things a certain way, no matter what the reality is.

Bottom line: young people discover classic music. The best music is not just "of" its time.

My dad took me to see Benny Goodman -- at Meadow Brook in suburban Detroit -- in the '70s, and it was cool on a totally different level than the rock concerts I was used to.

Here was this older dude who couldn't stand for a long time, he sat mostly, but when they kicked into songs like "Sing, Sing, Sing" -- I understood later when I heard Lester Bangs say "Sing Sing Sing" was the first rock song.

Getting into one form of music almost always leads you back to another, and another ...

I listen online to New Orleans' public radio station, I got into it again when I was there a few weeks ago, and I was blown away the other night by several hours of New Orleans '50s R&B. I heard several songs that clearly influenced later stuff I knew.

One thing leads to another.

By stephanie (66.54.1.38) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 12:34 pm:

Hey you all give Scratch a break!!! I think he knows what he is talking about with the numbers he is right. Sue you are right if the oldies soul acts or rock for that matter are part of a package YES they can fill 2000 seaters but if they are on their OWN it would be a small club.
No offense to our great Marshall Crenshaw but HE knows he cant fill arenas and he has a cult following but because of his reputation he can fill clubs. I wish the Delfonics of the Intruders or the Main Ingredient or Mary Wilson for that matter could fill arenas but it aint gonna happen. Where I kind of disagree with Scratcher but kind of agree is where he says that young people are not embracing old music. Everyone is correct if they have parents or grandparents who are constantly playing the old stuff that is where I disagree with our friend Scratch BUT if they grow up in a household and the stuff is not being played and there is no inflence there than Scratch is right there is no chance of them embracing it because they are not exposed to it....
Stephanie

PS Only on TV are they being exposed unless you live in an area where they have some good oldies stations..

By 2 Cents (198.81.26.231) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 12:47 pm:

Scatcher has tunnel vision..
the audience is out there...no one is saying they need to do Arena size Rock Concerts...
Good music stands the test of time..no one is saying we need to fill Radio City Music Hall...


2 Cents

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 01:16 pm:

Stephanie:
No one is picking on Scratcher - if anyone should gripe about being "picked on" it should be me for the times Scratcher has followed me with his dissertations. But I feel that we're having a rather healthy debate and no one is taking this personally.

I agree with what 2 Cents just said - I've attended the first "Turn Back The Hands Of Time" concerts that took place in 1996 here in NYC where the promoters used the theatre at the Fashion Institute of Technology to hold the events. The results - a packed house every show. The concert event grew so quickly they had to move it to either the Beacon Theatre or the Apollo Theatre and add additional shows the following year. If the TBTHOT shows were at Madison Square Garden, then yes they would've flopped (too big a venue). But the promoters were smart and started small then moved to only slightly larger theatres.

The Tramps Nightclub was the same deal - Steve Weitzman would book folks like Teena Marie, George Clinton, Kid Creole & the Coconuts, Cameo, Larry Graham & Ray Charles. Have them do two shows (Brother Ray would do a week - two shows a night), pack 'em in at $20 to $40 a head and turn 'em away. The nightclub fit about 1,500 people.

This has been done as far as small venues with classic acts and done successfully.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 01:21 pm:

Well said Kevin,

Vickie

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 01:43 pm:

Thanks, Vickie. By the way, I got the tapes in the mail the other week. I'll get to playing them this weekend.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Scratcher (65.132.78.205) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 03:04 pm:

KevGo, if there were more 1,500 seats nightclub oldie acts would have nicer venues to play in, unfortunately if you do some checking (I talk to promoters all the time) there aren't many of those across America. 5,000 seat venues are scarce as well. Nightclubs that hold 600 and less people that the top Motown acts of the '60s use to appear in have al but disappeared except for the Dallas and Houston areas and some other spots in the South.

The Funk Brothers played in some theaters, Cleveland for instance, where the seating capacity was as I said. Let's see some facts and figures brought to the table and not just passionate opinions.

Abba is the exception. If you throw some big bucks at Cindy Birdsong and Mary Wilson are you trying to tell me they'll turn it down? Cindy works some 9 to 5 domestic type job now--Give me a break!

I don't have any tunnel vision just reality. Like I said I talk to promoters all the time and the demand for the acts you're talking about, except for package shows (and these are carefully picked) just isn't there FOR THE TYPE OF PLACES AVAILABLE TO PERFORM IN. Forty to sixty years old are not going to get dressed up to go to a show in a dump and where their cars aren't secure. And the good places cost to much except for the sure bets. I REPEAT IF THE DEMAND WAS THERE THE DEAL FOR A WORLDWIDE SUPREMES TOUR WITH DIANA ROSS WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE YESTERDAY.

Again, some of you take isolated incidents and small percentiles to try to make your cases. Because some people some of you know like oldies doesn't mean that's the norm for a younger age demographic.

Also, many of you take this too personally. None of you know how much I "get out." And why get upset when someone corrects an error you posted. I DON'T. I appreciate the correct information and I'm sure most of the people who visit this forum does too. Why let an obvious error go uncorrected because you don't want to "offend" someone. Aren't we all grown here? I've been corrected and never felt the person who corrected me was birddogging my posts. But then paranoia isn't a part of my persona.

By Funkyone D J Dollar BILL (216.221.81.96) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 03:10 pm:

I am a 32 year old who's parents records consisted only of Marching Music,Whistling with Mitch Miller,Gilbert & Sullivan and a couple of James Last records for parties.The coolest record they had was Simon & Garfunkel's-Bridge Over Troubled Water and that was a gift!I somehow managed to find Funk,Soul,Jazz and Blues and I know many others that have done the same.Don't sell the younger generation short.Good music is still good music no matter when it was created,that's why classical music is still around.There are people out there that can see through the hype,have good ears and will search out the best music,that makes a true connection with their souls.There are also the new real musicians that learn from the masters.I have talked to players in their teeens and twenties that know who the legends are and strive to be as good as them.The Bass players know not only Bootsy,but Larry Graham,James Jamerson,Bob Babbit,Marcus Miller,Louis Johnson,Jaco,Rocco,Mingus,etc and some of them don't even play that style of music!Heck I don't even play Bass and I know their styles of playing.While there will always be some that find this music and then treat it as a archeological or anthropological thing,there are others who just feel it,live it and enjoy it.I have been saying from the age of 15 "There is a big difference between popular music and good music"Good music will last forever.It may not turn a profit,but that's not what it was supposed to be about anyways.Some people got to have it..Dollar Bill Y'all

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 03:17 pm:

Scratcher,
First off, you're giving yourself way too much credit, I don't think any of us are offended. Just discussing.

I'm waiting for your "exact information" on the Cleveland theater.

The Detroit Opera House holds 2800, the New York venue held 2700. I'll check on Philly but I'm pretty sure it's in that range as well.

Got any concrete info or just passionate beliefs?

By Scratcher (65.132.78.205) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 03:23 pm:

Sue, I'm not the one. I will not get into any personal debates with you as others have. Check the seating capacity for the Playhouse yourself. I and others have given information taking from sites like MOJO Box Office, which was ignored so why bother.

By Funkyone D J Dollar BILL (216.221.81.96) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 03:26 pm:

I would also personaly pay more to see a classic artist in a smaller venue,especially if they had meet and greets after the show.Why not do more shows in smaller clubs and re connect with the old and new fans?Why not establish residencies for some of these artists where it could become the Soul version of Branson.A strip of clubs in Detroit where you could go any night and know one or more Motown legend was playing at each spot.Do these artists want to be out there performing for the people that love their music or will they only show for a payday?

By Scratcher (65.132.78.205) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 03:32 pm:

Funkyone, that would be occurring right now if the promoters could find adequate clubs. I know a promoter who wanted to put on some shows with Enchantment in some midwest cities but couldn't find any 250 to 500 seat clubs (what he was looking for) to book them in. Most nightclubs are either too small or too large and expensive for the type of shows we're talking about. There are school gyms auditoriums and oldies artists have appeared in those but they aren't ideal spots because you can't serve alcohol.

By Funkyone D J Dollar BILL (216.221.81.96) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 03:42 pm:

What is too small and why?If you could do a 150-300 capacity show,why not?Why not do 2 nights in a row?Heck why not do a week in a row or do it Preservation Hall style and shift the people though?Why not just get out there and play as it would allow them to establish as new base that would come to see a bigger show in a bigger venue.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.205) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 03:52 pm:

150 to 300 seat clubs would be perfect. You could feature artists like they did in the sixties. Have them at the club for two or three nights doing a couple of shows a night and the owner would make money on the attendance, the food and liquor sales. The artists could hawk their latest CDs and sell pictures, etc. You could hobnob with the performers before and after the shows. The problem is finding clubs that size. The club also has to be designed like a show bar. I know clubs with the adequate capacity but the seating is in like two different areas. If you're in the wrong room you can't see the show.

By Funkyone D J Dollar BILL (216.221.81.96) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 04:01 pm:

True about seating,but we are on the same page otherwise.On the flip is the restriction of how much the artists want to get paid,travel expenses,accomidations,promotion,etc.For a Club Owner or a Artist to try and cover their expenses with only 150-300 bodies through the door is rough these days.I am amazed that the "chitlin circuit" and cross country tours could survive!

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 04:10 pm:

Scratcher:
I've seen acts such as Ray Goodman & Brown play in small nightclubs (remember the Red Parrot?) and larger theatres (the Apollo theatre).

I've seen acts like Chuck Mangione pack the Eastman Theatre in Rochester NY and the Ben Light Gymnasium at Ithaca College (NY) - and the concerts were held a month apart from one another.

I've seen Luther Vandross at both Madison Square Garden and the Paramount Theatre next door(now called the Theatre at MSG) in NYC.

Overall, I've witnessed about 100 concerts in my life from the smallest dive in Pittsburgh, PA to the Meadowlands in NJ.

I hardly call my experiences isolated events.

Can't we see any optimism coming from your input?
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Scratcher (65.132.78.205) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 04:37 pm:

KevGo, New York has many small nightclubs adequate for putting on shows. Most cities don't. Does Detroit still have the Chit Chat, 20 Grand, Phelps Lounge, etc. You can ditto that for most cities. New York clubs are also quite expensive to book and most out-of-town promoters avoid them for that reason.

Small towns like Rochester don't have major pro sports teams and other big name entertainment coming to town competing for discretionary dollars and PRIME dates like bigger cities do. Some of the best shows I've seen then and now has been in small towns. They get the artists that often the big city promoters don't want to take a chance on.

Luther Vandross is a much bigger artist than Enchantment and some others, which were who I was talking about in relation to playing small 150 to 600 seat clubs. Enchantment wouldn't sell enough tickets for a theater gig or the Garden by themself. I'm talking about promoters who want to book the oldies act alone in a night club or small venue setting with a couple of local acts to supplement the show.

By Scratcher (65.132.78.205) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 04:48 pm:

Isn't Chuck Mangione from Rochester? That's probably why the promoter felt safe about booking him in a theater there.

I here the Michael Stanley Band use to sell out the old Cleveland Colliseum in their hometown. But nobody in their right minds would book them in a place that large anywhere else.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 05:20 pm:

Scratcher:
Yes, Mr. Mangione is from Rochester but you miss my point.

I've seen my share of shows in large & small venues and what worked (and what didn't)as far as promotion and venue size is concerned. I still feel that there is room for acts depending on the size of the venue and what type of shows are being offered.

Forever optimistic,
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Sue (63.85.105.20) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 06:56 pm:

Scratcher,
A simple web search brings up these numbers -- the Detroit Opera House I already knew, that capacity is 2800.

The Hammerstein Ballroom, it turns out, is bigger than I thought, it holds 3,000. The Palace Theater in Cleveland holds 2710, to be exact.

Where are these 600 seat theaters? Why do you prefer opinion to facts?

By douglasm (68.113.13.31) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 07:03 pm:

I hate to interject this at this point.....
but Vickie, Christie McVee was not an original member of Fleetwood Mac.
Now if Peter Green started a group......

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 07:13 pm:

thanks
Douglasm

she's pretty damm close...

my point was that she does not NEED to say she is of them or was one of them..
she is Chistine McVie....we know where she came from..
just as we know where Mary & Diana came from...

WOW! this thread is no longer about Mary having the Supreme's name...

I am glad that The Supremes name is safe with Mary..

ok back to my day...

Ta, la, la, la, la, la, la, la,

By Vickie (198.81.26.231) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 07:16 pm:

Scratcher,
150-300 seats is very, very small.
that is the average size of our sitcom audiences at Warner Bros...
much too small for a concert....that's almost as small as some coffee house performances I have been to - accoustic and poetry readings ect...

By Scratcher (65.132.77.79) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 07:54 pm:

Vickie the nightclubs that secondary (for lack of a better word) soul acts of the sixties appeared in, in most major cities were where about that size. 250 to 400 seat clubs where groups like the Contours, the Marvelettes and the Vibratons headlined at. Acts like the Temptations, the Miracles, Supremes, Marvin Gaye, the Four Tops and Stevie appeared in clubs that were larger. Phelps Lounge in Detroit couldn't have held more than 400 people if that many.

A nice 150 to 300 seat club for an act like Enchantment (we're not not talking major or hit acts) would draw a cover charge of about $25 to $30.00. When you include drinks and food and paraphrenalia sales it could work. Understand the groups or artist is not bringing a big band, just a rhythm section and maybe a horn.

You might be unaware but many clubs, including some in Vegas, pay acts according to how they draw. I don't know the exact name of the deal but it's very prevalent now. It's almost a broker type arrangement where the artist buys the dates for a particular room and hope to make the money back by drawing a lot of people.

I'm going to check with the Palace, Sue. I May be wrong. I've been in the place and it doesn't look that big. Playhouse Square consists of three or four theatres and often the capacity is given for all. That figure, however, is much more than the figure you gave though, so you may be right. Usually when shows don't draw capacity crowds they rope or close some sections. Was the balcony of the Palace open at the Funk's show?

By Sue (64.12.97.7) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 08:24 pm:

I got the Palace specs right from the Playhouse website, and no, the total capacity is not 2710 for ALL the theaters. It's 10,000 for all the theaters. Check it out.

It's probably better not to guess these things.

By Scratcher (65.132.77.79) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 08:43 pm:

Sue, I said in my post that the figure you gave was not the figure for all the theaters. I said sometimes they give the capacity for all of the theaters in one lump number.

Did you read this?: "I've been in the place and it doesn't look that big. Playhouse Square consists of three or four theatres and often the capacity is given for all.That figure, however, is much more than the figure you gave though, so you may be right."

This is really not a big deal and I was really talking about the theaters that the movie played and got it mixed up with the concerts.

What were the attendance figures for the Funk Brothers shows? Offhand, I would say it was a stretch to have the concerts in venues that seat 3,000 people. But again, they really had no choice. It'll be interesting knowing if it was successful. Playhouse Square is not the cheapest place to promote an event.

By Sue (64.12.97.7) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 08:57 pm:

So uh, when you said the Palace capacity was 600, and that "most" theaters have a 600 or less capacity ...that means you were incorrect?

By STUBASS (152.163.252.68) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 09:25 pm:

SPEAKING OF "LARGE ACTS" AT SMALL VENUES...I SAW TINA TURNER AT DB'S IN DEARBORN...BACK IN ABOUT 1981!!!...JUST TINA ALONG WITH 1 MALE AND 2 FEMALE BACKGROUND SINGERS/DANCERS!!!...SHORTLY THEREAFTER...TINA HIT *BIG* WITH THE WHOLE "PRIVATE DANCER/WHATS LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT" SCENE!!!...WENT FROM DB'S TO 20-THOUSAND SEAT CONCERT VENUES!!!...STU

By STUBASS (152.163.252.68) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 09:27 pm:

ALSO SAW LOU RAWLS...AT A TINY CLUB NEAR THE WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS...BACK IN ABOUT 1973. LOU MUST HAVE OWED THE CLUB OWNER A FAVOR!!!...HARDLY ANY PUBLICITY...HALF FILLED ROOM!!!...I TOOK ABOUT 10 CO-WORKERS WITH ME...AND THERE WEREN'T *THAT* MANY MORE PEOPLE THERE!!!...STU

By Funkyone D J Dollar BILL (216.221.81.96) on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 10:38 pm:

What's the capacity of The Bitter End in NYC?How about the Lennox Lounge's back room?If all the big names could play the small rooms back in the day,why is it such a big problem now?I can think of only two things that would stop a artist from being willing to play small rooms again,money or ego.That's not meant to disrespect any of my favorite artists,but if you can go out every Monday and see Clyde Stubblefield every Monday at The King Club with special guests dropping in all the time,that tells me that he loves playing his drums and just wants to be out there doing his thing for the love of the music.Idealistic as it sounds,if you love playing music,you should be out there doing it whether it be for 50 people or 5000.It's when you show the love for your craft that the other rewards will follow.Stu did Lou and Tina still put on a 110 % show those nights you saw them?I think probably more so than a stadium because you become disconnected from the faces in the crowd of thousands.Some of the best,most emotional shows I have ever seen have been in small clubs,bars,speakeasy,after-hours,blind pig type venues.When most of my friends were dreaming of flashy clubs,I was picturing brick walls,curls of blue smoke drifting through the spotlight and music from the heart and soul.Now we are too busy sifting out green M&M's and dealing with artists who forget or don't know how to work a room.Back to basics I say.

By 2 Cents Again (198.81.26.231) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 02:04 am:

FunkONe DJ that is a very good question..
if they played smaller clubs back then, why can't they play them now..
why is it a topic at all for them to fill a stadium or some huge venue....

How many seats are in BB KIngs or House of Blues?

By stephanie (66.54.1.38) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 08:18 am:

I think BB Kings seats about 400 peole 2 cents and Mary Wilson plays there all of the time its one of the better clubs in NY..Im telling you its profitable to play these small clubs big name or no big name...
Stephanie

By Funkyone D J Dollar BILL (216.221.81.96) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 09:50 am:

At $20 for 5 wings and for the length of the average show vs the cover charge,I can imagine it's very profitable for B.B. Kings.What Scratcher said is true though when he said not every city has a B.B. King's or House of Blues.That's why I used The Bitter End and the Lenox Lounge as examples.The back room of the Lenox holds 50 people at best and not only hosted a who's who of jazz in the day,now has live entertainment 5 nights a week.Friday's feature a $15 cover plus 1 drink per set.That alone generates at least $2000 in the smallest room.You could easily charge double or more with a known artist for a gig like that and make a killing on merchandise.Multiply that to a average of $50 per person including drinks and a 150 capacity club and you're up to $7500 for a night.How much are these artists asking for?Have they priced themselves out of the market in a "we have to fill a stadium or it's not worth our time" mentality?What every city does have are bars and clubs of various sizes that have live bands almost every day of the week.These artists could be making some decent money and getting out there and playing.If we say there is no market,are we saying that there's not even 150 people in your city that would pay a premium to see a legend in a small venue and have a chance to meet them and buy their merchandise?Imagine the excitement in your town and the guaranteed free coverage by the local press when a living legend comes to perform up close,personal and interactive.

By stephanie (66.54.1.38) on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 02:34 pm:

From what I know when Johnnie Taylor was playing the chitlin circuit (may he rest in peace)someone told me after he paid his band he was getting 2000.00 a night.........thats not bad 10,000 a week to sing on a stage for 2 hours and you are not having a hit record every year!!! People like him and Little Milton and BB King and these blues people play at least 150 dates a year!!!

I think these guys are making good money if they have health insurance they will be fine!!!
Stephanie

By Andy Skurow (152.163.252.68) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 09:37 am:

Getting back to the original topic, Mary's rights to the name has significance in other ways. Remember, Mary lost her lawsuits because the judge said she had no right to stop other groups. Now Karen Raagland (who was never a Supreme) is counter suing Mary for thousands of dollars in damages. Mary's rights to the name would enable her to effectively stop Karen and other groups who have absolutely no connection to the group. Sadly, up to this point any of us probably could have started our own Supremes group and gotten away with it.

As for Former Ladies of The Supremes, I have no problem with them touring as Former Ladies of the Supremes, as long as it says Former Ladies of the Supremes. I was very upset and disappointed to see that the prefix was left off their CDs, because it is misleading to the general public. The same way I wouldn't want a CD with Mary and two backup singers to be called The Supremes. Everyone is responsible for how they are promoted, and no one can really turn the other cheek. Otis tours as the Temptations and Dennis tours as Dennis Edwards and The Temptations Revue. As far as I know, Dennis is responsible if a venue doesn't book it exactly that way. I think that's reasonable.

As someone who loves both Mary's voice and Scherrie's I think this would work for both of them if they came to the same agreement.

Andy

By DATRUTH (66.99.15.77) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 09:51 am:

The name ONLY belongs to Mary Wilson!!
NO agreement with Scherrie and Lynda ever!
Let them get their own name!

By douglasm (68.113.13.31) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 11:30 am:

OK, so at this moment who actually OWNS the right to the name Supremes (or Marvelettes, or Miracles, et.al.)?

By 2 Cents (198.81.26.231) on Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 12:17 pm:

Right on Da Truth!

By b-town (207.8.188.200) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:18 am:

I am happy that Mary has the name of The Supremes. However (I agree with Andy Skurow)I see nothing wrong with Sherrie and Lynda, Cindy or Jean adding Former Ladies of the Supremes to the Billing. It's the truth. They contributed to the legacy, and the public can decide if they want to see them or not, as long as they don't say "The Supremes" (unless they're with Mary). It would be nice to see the Mary Jean Cindy combo again, while we are blessed to still have these lovely young ladies amoung us.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:11 am:

Andy:
Thank you for chiming in on the topic and getting things back on track. Your comments placed the topic in perspective.
Regards,
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Promises Kept (12.227.139.195) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 11:38 am:

I wonder how upset the girls would become if they had to change from FLOS to "Former Ladies of the 70's Supremes"??? It would equate to the same thing (the act), BUT the title would cause even more pause for potential audience. I would tend to think this would make Lynda upset....as she would rather be tied to the originals (and now Ross) than known for a specific time period. Interesting.........

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 12:06 pm:

Promises Kept:
If being associated with a certain time period as opposed to being called a Supreme upsets Lynda Lawrence then too bad. She came in during tail-spin of the group's run (1974-77) - she was not a founding member like Mary, Diane(a) and Florence were. Lynda needs to heed the late Eddie Kendricks' advice of "need(ing) a change of mind" and get over it. Hell, she sang on the group's last Top 40 hit "I'm Gonna Let My Heart Do The Walking" - which helped launch the disco revolution. She should be happy with that.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Wondering (169.139.180.100) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 12:27 pm:

I thought Lynda was long gone when they did Let
My Heart Do The Walkin'--Did she just sing on it?
That's when Cindy had left for the 2nd time and
Susaye came in.

By stephanie (66.54.1.38) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 12:28 pm:

Lynda didnt sing on Let My heart Do the Walking
That was Scherrie and Mary and Cindy (they overdubbed Susaye) so Susaye was on that record too. Lynda was on Bad Weather and the Jimmy Webb album.

Her (Lynda's) picture was on the Floy Joy album because Cindy left the group and was pregnant but
on the album its Cindys voice.........just to let you know Kev. Im not on expert on a lot of things but on the Supremes I am...
Stephanie

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 02:14 pm:

Stephanie:
I never said you weren't an expert on many things. You should know that I respect all who participate here in this Forum. Also, I have been mistaken before and not afraid to admit it.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By Promises Kept (12.227.139.195) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 03:27 pm:

Thanks Kev..........I guess my concept was, "if" Mary gets the name, and she lets SLF use it, but they must make the distinction from FLOS to FLOSS or "Former Ladies of the Seventies Supremes" (lol, that "little" change could have a big impact on their CD sales and member audience. It's like going from "Former Ladies of THE group" to "Former Ladies of a Sub-group". I could see Mary doing this just to direct more attention to her act.

By stephanie (66.54.1.38) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 04:23 pm:

Oh Kev
The only reason I said that is I didnt want you to think I was coming off as being pompous when I corrected you thats all. I know (and this is not you) sometimes when things are said on a board some people may not know how to take it. Believe me I have learned a lot more from you then you will even learn from me on this forum..
Stephanie

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 04:39 pm:

Stephanie:
Don't sell yourself short. I've learned a lot from your posts as well.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By MamaKnows (192.94.73.1) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 08:00 pm:

no way..let the others invent a new name..
NO MARY WILSON, NO SUPREMES
only Mary Wilson deserves the name

By Marv (205.188.209.109) on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 10:47 pm:

I agree with MamaKnows. They (The FLOS) should get their own name and build a reputation. It always disturbed me a bit knowing that people like Lynda Lawrence walked away from the Supremes and the name just when Mary needed her to stay and help fight to get the Supremes back on top. Instead she tried to persuade Mary to leave Motown and the name Supremes behind in 1973.

Let Lynda , Scherrie and Freddy Poole come up with their own name. They could call themselves the "Honey Bees" or something, I don't know. LOL.

By MotownForever (205.188.209.109) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 08:40 am:

Didn't Jean also suggest to Mary that they leave Motown? If I recall correctly, Mary was opposed to the idea because if they left Motown, they would've had to get a new name since Motown had full (or part) ownership of the name.

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Tuesday, May 20, 2003 - 11:05 am:

Yes, MotownForever, according to Mary's book,
Jean wanted to leave Motown and didn't care
if they couldn't keep the name.

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 06:47 am:

Hooray for Mary!

By Drake (152.163.252.68) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 06:12 pm:

Hello group,

I was just talking to a Motown executive, and they said that the Motown Alumni Association, along with Mary herself has persued Motown in getting Mary to use the name. Mary has been working on this situation for years, with no help from Motown, but the source let me see an email from Billy Wilson of the Motown Alumni Association, and they also let me see something from Mary's camp on this issue. I am so excited about this. Go's to show you what working together will do for you.

Go Mary ....GO! You deserve all you are getting. And I want to thank the MAA for helping to make all this possible. The letter I seen when straight to the president of Motown, and apparently they paid attention! I wish I know Mary or Mr. Wilson to tell them personally how much this is appreciated from fans.

Drake

By rockfan (65.238.154.122) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 07:34 pm:

Does anyone have any idea of what exactly Mary will do with the name.....like reforming the group? Or, just use it in her solo act?

By Vandelron (24.44.20.172) on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 09:35 pm:

Drake--so is it official per Mary having the rights now?Ive seen mention of her recently and both articles said Mary Wilson of the Supermes as opposed to formerly of the Supremes which use to be stated--maybe not a coincidence.

By Marv (64.12.97.7) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 01:27 am:

I always felt that No Mary Wilson, then NO Supremes. I mean it's always been Mary Wilson and whatever two women that happen to be singing with her at the time. Florence and Diana along with Mary were the originals. Mary has been the one to keep The Supremes legacy alive and out in the public for all these years and it is only right that she has the name outright. It makes me feel very good that there is still some fairness in world. I say good for you Mary Wilson!!!

Peace

By rockfan (65.238.58.91) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 08:08 am:

Mary Wilson is coming to Akron, Ohio to a new outdoor amphitheater in August. The billing is The Supremes starring Mary Wilson. Which Supremes would these be?

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 08:39 am:

They're any Supremes Mary chooses for that or any tour.

By Michael/cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 11:09 am:

Marv:

I am in total agreement my friend.

Rockfan:

Mary has used The Supremes starring Mary Wilson in the past, although up to this point the legal name she can use is The Supremes' Mary Wilson. Basically Motown stays away from bothering Mary because of the bad publicity it would engender and Mary knows that. Mary has toured with two lovely ladies for several years now and I assume that is who will appear with her. Although with Jean Terrell starting to surface more and more, we can only hope for a Jean, Mary, Cindy reuniting. I once asked Mary whether she would ever consider doing that and her reply was "I don't see why we couldn't get together and do our hits at some point. After all we did quite well" Oh baby!!!!!!

By stephanie (66.54.1.38) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 12:24 pm:

Motown should leave Mary alone after all the crap they put her through (Im talking post Diana Ross)
I think that Mary Wilson should be able to use the name Supremes anytime she wants to. I think that since Berry is retired now and things are on the down low they should give Mary the name and call it a day so she can stop these bogus groups from running around.

stephanie

By Lagunabeach (65.238.58.146) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 03:08 pm:

Yes, Mary, Jean and Cindy re-union would be phenominal. I hope Mary would consider this now. She could still do her solo stuff as well as this. Two acts! More bookings....more money and mighty happy fans!

By Marv (205.188.209.109) on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 07:46 pm:

Mary Wilson does a "2 in 1" type show now. Her background ladies do help to invoke the spirit of The Supremes from their glory days with bits of the original choreography and tight backing harmonies. Then you have Mary Wilson the soloist and her non-supremes songs. Mary can tour with any two singers and you will get a "Supreme Performance". I know of what I speak, I've witnessed it for myself many times over the years.

By Andrew (195.93.50.10) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 01:39 pm:

I'm glad Mary Wilson has finally got her props,after all she has been through over the years to keep the name and the legacy alive. She deserves the name,since it is still a valuable commodity in itself. However, what she intends to do with it is another issue. The ownership of the name is strictly business-keep the bogus groups away, since no one desrves to pay good money to see fakes perform.

I think it would be a good idea for Mary to get together with Cindy Birdsong and Jean Terrell and do a reunion tour in 2004/05 since a lot of people would pay to see them. Despite the debacle of the RTL TOUR, that concept would never have worked since people associate Diana's history with the late Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson and Cindy Birdsong.No Mary or Cindy, No Tour its as simple as that.People want to see them,not substitutes, no matter how talented those substitutes may be.Mary has kept the legacy alive for so long-she is the Supremes.Diana messed up with the tour because she allowed her ego to get in the way of sound commonsense and good business judgement when it came tothe tour.

Despite Diana being the voice of the Supremes in the 60's only because she was given all the leads.There is still a lot of fans out there who support the 70's Supremes,Jean Mary and Cindy.If they had the support of Motown at the time, they could of achived so much more, you only have to listen to the track "The day will come Between Sunday And Monday to understand where the group were headng in terms of musical style. Jean's voice took the group to another level.So much more soulful.

Now the ball is in Mary's court.She can only learn from Diana's mistakes regarding any possible tour of Supremes and put together a package that includes herself Jean and Cindy if this proves to be a viable concept and give the fans what they want! Although everyone would like to see Diana Mary and Cindy,that is a long way off. Still we can only hope.I have had the opportunity to see Mary, Jean Terrell, Scherrie Payne and Lynda Lawrence over here in London, but I would pay again to see Mary Jean and Cindy any day of the week.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 02:23 pm:

Amen, Andrew.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By littlevoice (65.238.154.118) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:24 pm:

I think there are so many people who would love to see Jean, Mary and Cindy again. Those years were truly magical and I feel so lucky to have lived through them and got to see that line-up. The best in my opinion. Classy....and Jeans voice just soared. Mary and Cindy blended beautifully. I read a thread here where someone said Cindy was working a domestic job 9-5. Yikes. I hope that's not true. Come on Mary....let's get her employed behind that mike again!

By littler voice (198.81.26.231) on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:39 pm:

No Supreme should have to work 9-5
well, not one named Cindy , Jean , or Mary anyway.

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 12:58 pm:

I do think the problem with the Return to Love
tour was the ticket prices. They were drawing
about 5 or 6 thousand at each venue (at least
they did in Tampa and Miami), but the expense
demaned about 10,000. There was a 30-piece
orchestra, a troupe of 10 dancers, and I
don't remember how many background singers--
3 or 4. It was a GREAT show! Again, the
price of the tickets probably hurt the draw
more than the negative publicity. Diana by
herself will draw at least 5 or 6 thousand.

By John Barry Sheffield (195.92.168.166) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 01:27 pm:

OK I may be going a little off topic here but we have talked a lot about venues, once more THE FOUR TOPS and THE TEMPTATIONS are back in ENGLAND UK this September............ but they are doing major arena's and it is just not them. Last time I watched them at The Manchester Evening News Arena, which is a 20,000 capacity, and they cut in in half and had about 8,000 in. Recently I went to see DIONNE WARWICK at The Lowry in Manchester about 1800 capacity, it was so intimate and the sound so much better. But I suppose Theares does not bill the bills these days!

For me The Supremes are JEAN TERRELL as that was my era........ but what a show it would be to have them back together again!

John

By Michael/cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 01:55 pm:

Randy:

I saw the Return to Love Tour in New York and I think it was a great "Diana Ross" show, not a great "Supremes show." With the extra background singers and Diana never being too long next to Scherrie and Lynda it seemed... well...odd. This is just my opinion. After seeing the show, I thought that Mary and Cindy made the right decision.

I had the great fortune of seeing Diana Ross and the Supremes 27 times over their years together and the shows were uniformly incredible. Although Diana was the star of the group, Mary and Florence/Cindy had an important place in the show. They would never now be relegated to the positions that Scherrie and Lynda had in the RTL show and shouldn't be. I felt sorry for them especially Scherrie (the Payne Killer) for she was a lead singer of the Supremes with great chops. Arguments will continue ad nauseaum about this tour but all will agree it was a disaster. I believe that if Diana, Mary and Cindy got together, went retro, and did the look and routines of old, they would have sold out. Imagine a Supremes overture (with the audience applauding every hit song they recognize) and then the strains of "Strangers in Paradise," with Diana making her entrance to an ovation and then after the first verse, Mary and Cindy walking out to an ovation singing harmonies as they they just reach their microphones. I guess we will never know...

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 02:48 pm:

Back then, I viewed the RTL promos on Oprah and Today.
On Oprah, Scherrie and Lynda barely spoke from first row seats (defintely not onstage with Oprah and Diana).
The Today Show concert wasn't a supreme event, at least not to me where I was asked to spend $250 at a future concert. Scherrie and Lynda barely shared the stage with Diana.
The $250 price tag, lack of team work and bizarre ads featuring DSL videos meshed with DMF vidoes/pictures is what turned some/many people off RTL.
Another minus was Mary's and Cindy's absence.

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 03:02 pm:

Oh, I agree, it was NOT like the old shows. But it
WAS a good show. Yes, it was Diana and they
resembled the Supremes very little. In fact,
on Lynda's & Scherrie's solo #s their mics were
turned down lower than Diana's had been. Also,
I thought their dresses for their solos looked
kind of drab and not well-fitted. But it WAS
a good show! And, as I previously stated, Diana
will draw 5 or 6 thousand on her own.

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 06:18 am:

If Diana can draw 6 thousand on her own, then why did she "suddenly need" Supremes?
She didn't "need" them 1967-1999. Why was 2000 so special?
hehehehehe

By b-town (207.8.188.200) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 09:45 am:

The Supremes at Return to Love added a little spice to Diana's solo show. The concert in Philly was quite good. I would have liked to have heard Stone Love and Floy Joy and a couple of 70's Supremes classics. Diana's solo set was not as strong as with all the ladies on stage. The show would have sold out if the ticket prices were lower. Even with Mary and Cindy in the lineup $250 is still too much to charge for tickets to an arena show. It was not because of the line up, it was the ticket prices, just too much money period.

By Davie Gordon (193.122.21.42) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 10:37 am:

$250 !! - does Diana Ross think everybody has
a millionaire Norwegian spouse ?

I wouldn't pay that much to see her if she was
booked to play my living room ( I wouldn't have room for the half dozen backup singers and the
troop of Busby Berkeley dancers anyway - they'd
never fit in the kitchen.)

Somebody ought to tell her what the word "hubris"
means - but I doubt she'd listen.

Davie

By b-town (207.8.188.200) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 10:43 am:

One thing. It wasn't just Diana charging the $250 ticket prices for the Return to Love Tour. One must question wether those promoters Knew what they was doin'?

By Randy Russi (169.139.180.100) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 10:56 am:

$250 were the top ticket prices. I can't remember
what the other prices were, but I certainly
didn't pay $250!!!! I think I paid about $120 or
maybe even less--like $80. I can't remember, but
I WAS on the 10th row in Tampa. They moved people
up as seats in certain prices didn't sell. I think
only the first row in Tampa paid $250.

By douglasm (68.113.13.31) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 11:04 am:

Heck....
....i'm still having trouble with the idea of $35 plus ticketmaster charges for binocular seats to see Smokey Robinson at a local casino.....

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 11:08 am:

Randy:
As much as I like Diana's music, ain't no way on God's green earth would I pay even $80.00 to see her doing a solo gig, let alone a tour that was a disaster from the git-go.

The tix prices were definitely set by the promoters who were aiming way too high because they arrogantly thought that people would pay that much (or that little in their eyes) to see this "reunion" tour. They wanted to make a lot of money and pay Mary & Cindy very little - resulting in both parties giving them the "hell,no - we won't go" on this tour.

I would rather pay $40.00 standing at the bar to see Mary Wilson at B.B. King's Club here in NYC
than to pay double watching Linda Lawrence trying to out-class Diana.


Kevin Goins - KevGo

By B-town (207.8.188.200) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 01:04 pm:

Can't nobody outclass Diana. I saw the Former Ladies in concert at an Atlantic City Casino. Lynda Lawerence, Freddi Poole,(nothing Supreme about her) and Scherrie Payne. The girls can sing, but they had no charisma. They were supremely boring. Same lineup as Return to Love minus Diva Diana. Ms.Ross' presence makes all the difference.

By MamaKnows (66.99.13.253) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 02:45 pm:

Yes the lineup was one of many reasons the tour bombed!

NO MARY WILSON, NO SUPREMES!!

By Vandelron (24.44.20.172) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 09:11 pm:

Mama does know. Cindy and Mary have that charisma. I -and many others- would pay top dollar to see Mary, CIndy and Diana. RTL failed because no Mary and no CIndy. Why is that so hard to accept?Regular people called into NY radio stations at that time outraged per RTL and no Mary. Ticket prices were NOT the issue.

By ronni (65.238.140.44) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 11:03 pm:

Amen! To see Diana, Mary and Cindy once again would be almost too much! No group approached that! Though, Mary, Cindy and Jean comes a close second and would put me front row center! When?

By Vandelron (24.44.20.172) on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 11:36 pm:

Info posted on "Supremes Reunion" topic per Mary request for support per the name Supremes.

By luvthesupremes (205.188.209.109) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 05:09 pm:

This was posted on Mary's webiste. It's fabulous.

AN OPEN LETTER FROM MARY WILSON ABOUT THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE SUPREMES NAME AND LEGACY

First of all, I want to thank everyone for buying and enjoying the recent �The Supremes: The 70s Anthology,� which Universal/Motown put out. It was a wonderful project, and I had so much fun organizing it with Harry Weinger and Andy Skurow. I spent almost a year reminiscing and reviewing the good old days. As you can tell, this package was not just thrown together. I reviewed each song and made suggestions to Harry and Andy, and what didn�t represent each group member fairly, they changed.


Unfortunately, I was not able to be in Los Angeles for the CD signing party. I certainly wanted to support the project 100%. But, the signing party that was planned in LA was done unofficially by fans; not by Universal/Motown, and there was not a lot of advance publicity for it. So, when the date was chosen, I was unavailable due to some prior projects. I am currently in litigation with 2 members of the 70s Supremes-Lynda Laurence and Scherrie Payne-and I did not feel comfortable being in that environment. It was a very difficult position for me to be in-wanting to be there to support the project, yet feeling that I really couldn�t be there to enjoy the moment.


THE TOUR


I know there is a lot of buzz now about a proposed 70s Supremes tour. Basically, for me, it is not what I want to do at this time in my life. I have carved out my own career and goals. The only 2 Supremes I would want to do a reunion tour with right now are the Original Supremes. Obviously, Flo cannot be a part of any such reunion. But I would be happy to reunite with Diane and Cindy. If that comes about, I would entertain a 70s Supremes tour. But, for me, the 60s Supremes reunion must come first.


Until everyone stops laying claim to the Original Supremes legacy and status, I really cannot do it. Everyone must know her place in the lineage. Yes, there were 70s Supremes. But now they are claiming a history and legacy that Flo, Diane and I created, which they must understand if they want me to embrace them.


My suggestion to them is that they choose their own name and use their wonderful talents in that way, and stop claiming the legacy of The Supremes-Florence Ballard, Diana Ross and Mary Wilson. Until they do that, I cannot be a part of anything they do. It would be great if they could come up with their own name. Maybe that is something the fans can help with. Then they can certainly sing the 70s Supremes songs, which they recorded and were a part of.


Susaye Greene wrote the most beautiful letter explaining her reasons for not wanting to participate in a tour, and explaining all of this. I suggest that you read it on her Yahoo Message Board. It explains truthfully the situation and The Supremes� legacy. Like Susaye, I am all about truth.


So, until the various legal issues outlined below are resolved, I simply cannot be a part of any 70s Supremes reunion. My life is mine to choose what course I will take. I have given 44 years to The Supremes. This last quarter of my life I want to live as true and honest to my own beliefs as I choose. This is not a career choice; it is a life/personal choice.


THE STATUS OF LITIGATION

Many of you may not know that I applied for the trademark �The Supremes� in the U.K. in 1995. Almost immediately, Lynda and Scherrie disputed my application. They claimed that they have a greater claim to �The Supremes� mark, because they have toured extensively in the U.K. for the past 10 years, and have released at least 9 CDs using �The Supremes� mane. As you know, most of these CDs were re-recordings of original Supremes songs from the 1960s. Several of the CDs have even used pictures of the Original Supremes-Mary Wilson, Diana Ross and Florence Ballard-on the covers.


To make a long story short, my U.K. trademark application was rejected, because Lynda and Scherrie successfully convinced the U.K. Trademark Appointed Person that they have a greater claim to the mark-based on 10 years of unauthorized use of the name. Of course, I appealed that decision. My appeal was denied, because the U.K. Trademark Office feels that I applied for the mark in �bad faith.� To add insult to injury, Lynda and Scherrie have now applied for the trademark. And, to make matters worse, I have been ordered by the U.K. courts to pay Lynda and Scherrie and Lynda 1,400 pounds in legal fees. How is it possible that Lynda-a person who came into The Supremes in the 70s and walked out after 1 year, and Scherrie-who was in The Supremes only during its last 3 years-can have more rights to the group name than an original, founding member of The Supremes-the member who managed the group and handled its business and financial affairs throughout the 70s, and who has lived her entire life as a Supreme?


The other serious issue I am facing now is Kaaren Ragland�s Sounds of The Supremes suit seeking $400,000 in damages from me. In 1997, I filed suit seeking to prevent Former Ladies of The Supremes and Sounds of The Supremes from being billed simply as, �The Supremes.� In 1999, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that my suit was without basis, because Universal/Motown-and not Mary Wilson-owns �The Supremes� trademark in the U.S. Kaaren Ragland�s counterclaim states that I interfered with her Sounds of The Supremes business by sending letters to various talent buyers stating that �Sounds of The Supremes� is not �The Supremes� and should not be billed as such. While my lawyer did send out letters to 2 buyers, Sounds of The Supremes played those dates anyway. We did submit to negotiations with an arbitrator, in an attempt to come up with a settlement in this case. However, Sounds of The Supremes is insisting that I pay the $400,000 or going to trial. Again, how is it possible that a former backup singer for me in the 70s and 80s-who was NEVER a member of The Supremes-can have more claims to the name than an original, founding member?


So, now you have Former Ladies of The Supremes and Sounds of The Supremes out there claiming to be �The Supremes� in the U.S. and U.K. This has hurt my income, and it confuses the public. In fact, my agent just returned from a trade show in Europe, where he discovered several groups of �Supremes� being represented for talent buyers. Every time he contacts a talent buyer in the U.K. about booking me for a tour, the response is, �Oh, we just had The Supremes here last week. We can�t use Mary at this time.�


During the 1960s, there were 3 icons that changed the social tenor of the music world-The Beatles, Elvis Presley and The Supremes. And, when you think of The Supremes, only 3 names come to mind for most people-Diana, Mary and Flo. How is it that the legal system can award the rights to use the name to those who did not create the legacy? Today, with at least 6 different groups of Supremes out there, �The Supremes� name has become worse than The Drifters and The Coasters. I have spent the past 20 years-and literally millions of dollars-championing this fight for my rights and to protect the legacy and heritage that Flo, Diane and I created. But it is about more than just my rights. Countless other legendary performers from the 1950s and 60s are having their identities and legacies stolen by bogus groups; such as The Marvelettes, The Coasters, The Drifters, The Platters and The Shirelles. Through my work with an organization called F.A.M.E. (Friends Against Musical Exploitation of Artists), we, others, and myself are working to provide recognition and legislation that will protect the legacies of these National Treasures.


In closing, I can no longer afford to fight these issues alone. It is time for Universal/Motown and the entire entertainment industry as a whole to get behind this struggle to ensure that the legendary vocal groups of the 1950s, 60s and 70s are upheld as National Treasures.


Thank you for your continued support and for the love you show to me and to the heritage of The Supremes. I know that I may lose many of you by speaking out on these issues. However, I have remained silent for years because I truly believe that Jean and Scherrie are among the greatest singers out there. That�s why I fought Berry Gordy to keep Jean in the 70s line up, and why I left the group to Scherrie when I left in 1977. Unfortunately, neither she nor Susaye took up the mantle. Again, I carried on and fulfilled the dates left on our itinerary, so that The Supremes wouldn�t be sued. I didn�t try to stop Jean, Scherrie and Lynda when they first went out as The FLOS (Former Ladies of The Supremes), because they were former members of the 70s Supremes. However, now they-as well as Sounds of The Supremes-- go out with ladies who were never members of the 70s Supremes, simply as �The Supremes.�

Touch,

Mary Wilson

By douglasm (68.113.13.31) on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 07:19 pm:

Someone answer a simple complex question for me.....
.....when someone owns the rights to a name, what does it mean? Do they have control over the use of the name from that date forward, for re-issues, or what? IE, what are the actual ramifications of accquiring the name "Supremes" by Mary besides not allowing bogus "Supremes" from touring....

By Vandelron (24.44.20.172) on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 11:49 am:

Good questions. My hunch is it may vary situation to situation and Mary and Universal may work that out though I have no idea if negotiations are really going on. It now looks to me that they arent or have boken down.(PS This is really groundbreaking stuff as Congress has dilly dallied with this for years much to the expense of the real Difters,Marvelettes, Coasters etc).

By Michael/cleoharvey (160.79.83.208) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 12:15 pm:

Vandelron:

One thing I can say about Mary Wilson is that she is like a hungry dog with a bone about this subject and she will not give up. Any headway that she can make legally will help a lot of groups who are unable to fight because they do not have the friends and resources that she does. She once told me that she has spent 2.5 million dollars over the years trying to establish her priority in the Supremes name.

By Marv (152.163.252.68) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 10:39 pm:

You have to admire this woman's determination and spirit. I use to feel bad about groups like The Drifters,Coasters and Platters never once thinking that one day this could happen to one of the greatest American Singing Groups of all time The Supremes. This would never happen to say The Beatles, Stones or Eagles. We must support Mary Wilson in her cause.

By : (198.81.26.231) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 11:17 pm:

Ditto Marv....

By Vandelron (24.44.20.172) on Monday, June 02, 2003 - 11:45 pm:

They did throw big money at Mary($3,000,000)and Cindy--500,000-900,0000-?)and they said NO-RTL. Mary would not allow Former Ladies of the 70s Supremes as Freddi Poole was not a 70s Supreme. She has said it was ok when Jean was in Flos but not after that with others who haven't been Supremes.

By ..... (207.241.96.10) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 07:21 am:

Why would Mary want to tour with Diana? Wouldn't that be a repeat of 1967-1969?

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Tuesday, June 03, 2003 - 11:36 am:

Hey Folks:
Since this thread is getting a bit long, let's close this one out and continue on MARY WILSON GETTING RIGHTS TO SUPREMES NAME PART TWO.
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By THE 70s SUPREMES FAN (24.30.98.236) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:16 pm:

I'm not saying that MARY should not get the name SUPREMES.I'm saying that MARY should not have the right to stop former ladies of THE SUPREMES from working. p.s SHERRIE PAYNE IS SUPREME.