|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jun 3, 2004 16:15:32 GMT -5
I agree with you Zebop. The problem arises from why was David on Berry's S-List in the first place. He missed shows and in particular one where the boss was in attendance and you can't do that....I don't care how big a star you are. But when you discuss this point it seems to be brought back that if Otis had done what he was supposed to do.....then David would have shown up for the shows. My thing is.........you're under contract.............many of their late performaces had a clause which said they get paid so much if all five of them show up and so much if only four show up. I believe the difference in money was substantial. If you don't have the clout to make a stand one way, then find another. I don't begrudge David's anger over the money situation at all. But his way of going about trying to resolve it didn't work because he wasn't holding the best cards. Berry had a history of doing that to people who either tried to leave Motown or get out of a contract they were in or if they crossed him. And even if he won the lawsuit, it cost him money and time in his career when he was still a hot commodity.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jun 3, 2004 16:54:59 GMT -5
I've not been able to spend much time on the board lately, but had a little time to catch up today. Anna, girl, you know I love ya, but I just don't get your thing with Otis. All of the Temptations were humans, all had their good and bad points. I really don't see anything THAT wrong with that he wrote in his book, it didn't offend me in the least. It did not change the way I looked at any of the Temptations, certainly not David, who seems to be the one you are principally defending. It was a well documented fact that he (David) could be an a$$, many extremely talented people are. I think that Aba is just trying to make you see that Otis' book is just his perspective of things that occurred, as any book like this would be. I certainly found it interesting to read. The movie based on the book contained many things that were added for dramatic effect, not in the book at all. Otis is not evil, not nasty, not a backstabber...Otis is just a man. :comfort:
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jun 3, 2004 17:15:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jun 3, 2004 17:35:08 GMT -5
I've not been able to spend much time on the board lately, but had a little time to catch up today. Anna, girl, you know I love ya, but I just don't get your thing with Otis. All of the Temptations were humans, all had their good and bad points. I really don't see anything THAT wrong with that he wrote in his book, it didn't offend me in the least. It did not change the way I looked at any of the Temptations, certainly not David, who seems to be the one you are principally defending. It was a well documented fact that he (David) could be an a$$, many extremely talented people are. I think that Aba is just trying to make you see that Otis' book is just his perspective of things that occurred, as any book like this would be. I certainly found it interesting to read. The movie based on the book contained many things that were added for dramatic effect, not in the book at all. Otis is not evil, not nasty, not a backstabber...Otis is just a man.  In your opinion! |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jun 3, 2004 17:38:13 GMT -5
Thanks Aba21 for replying to my post. Also thanks thetemptress for the post you made - I thought it was a great post! MikeNYC - I knew my post would draw a reply post from you. Seems to me - we have disagreed with every post I have made. We all have our own opinions and beliefs - and we are certainly entitled to them. You have a great knowledge of the Tempt's and I more than respect that. I am sure we could sit and argue forever on this subject. I would like to stay away from that - IF POSSIBLE! Trying not to argue with you - I really stand behind the part of my post where I remark how great it is that Otis continues to have the "Stamina" that he does to continue to carry out the heavy schedule he has - for someone his age. I stand behind mine,too.Every one of them! |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jun 3, 2004 17:44:42 GMT -5
You know you're right about the bar situation. Do I think its 100% right? NO I DO NOT. Drinkers as well as anybody else should be responsible for their own actions. Do I appreciate the Gov't./law enforcement taking away their responsibility for their actions? NO....because if they can take away the responsibilities they can just as easy take away the rights...which they're doing every day anyways. But (off my soapbox now)...in the case of drinkers, it was an effort to protect the REST of society from drunk drivers, and to make somebody supposedly with their head screwed on straight or not intoxicated be responsible for trying to prevent somebody cuckoo on booze go out and wreak mayhem on innocents. The only thing was said is that Bobby Womack turned David on to drugs. Who can say that he didn't.1) No, that wasn't the only thing that was said and 2) Who can say that he DID? Even bobby can't say that for SURE, only David knew for SURE, and it still makes no difference. What about the Archie Bunker Law? Carroll O'Connor,got justice for his son,Hugh went to court and won. I don't know how you can say Bobby doesn't know for sure. He was there. I'm sure David didn't act like Marion Barry..."How do you use this?" if David did durgs before Bobby gave it to him. The "Archie Bunker" Law didn't apply to a bartender. :nono :laughing |
|
|
|
Post by Temptress on Jun 3, 2004 19:03:03 GMT -5
I've not been able to spend much time on the board lately, but had a little time to catch up today. Anna, girl, you know I love ya, but I just don't get your thing with Otis. All of the Temptations were humans, all had their good and bad points. I really don't see anything THAT wrong with that he wrote in his book, it didn't offend me in the least. It did not change the way I looked at any of the Temptations, certainly not David, who seems to be the one you are principally defending. It was a well documented fact that he (David) could be an a$$, many extremely talented people are. I think that Aba is just trying to make you see that Otis' book is just his perspective of things that occurred, as any book like this would be. I certainly found it interesting to read. The movie based on the book contained many things that were added for dramatic effect, not in the book at all. Otis is not evil, not nasty, not a backstabber...Otis is just a man. I agree.  |
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jun 3, 2004 19:59:44 GMT -5
Uh--Mike? Are you saying Otis is not a man? He is large, bald woman? WOW! You really are an insider! :laughing
|
|
Elbridge
Tempt Fanatic
Elbridge "Al" Bryant
Posts: 28
|
Post by Elbridge on Jun 4, 2004 2:16:01 GMT -5
Uh--Mike? Are you saying Otis is not a man? He is large, bald woman? WOW! You really are an insider!  Well, I've heard he looks great in a lemon chiffon gown and matching stilletto heels.... Oh....um....ooops! Ed |
|
|
|
Post by Davidfan on Jun 7, 2004 19:02:53 GMT -5
Well, I've heard he looks great in a lemon chiffon gown and matching stilletto heels.... Oh....um....ooops! Ed ;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D Ed comes in with the humor again! ... But you still haven't told me how to spell SPLET yet ... lol ;D;D;D;D;D;D;D |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jun 7, 2004 23:11:56 GMT -5
Now Aba, I know you don't like to hear that  But could it be that David missed the shows because he knew that Berry was cheating him. I belive Genna said something to that extent in her book. |
|
Elbridge
Tempt Fanatic
Elbridge "Al" Bryant
Posts: 28
|
Post by Elbridge on Jun 8, 2004 1:37:31 GMT -5
Kalisa, please note that I too am speaking hypothetically. Melvin did refrain from bashing his friends (whether he did so in private, I don't know). But the fact that Otis presented himself as he did in his book and some interviews makes him look like a backstabber, and most people (that I know) automatically blame a person with a personality perceived as little likable for any grievance surrounding such a person. That's all I am saying. I totally understand how you feel, Anna. Having said that, I don't blame anybody for anything based on perception. That book was shadowed by Patricia Romanowski. The movie was based on that shadowing. That just isn't enough for me. There really is more to a person than words on a page. Interviews can be edited to "cut to the chase" and, as a result, valuable words can be removed for the advancement of the almighty sound byte. The only way one can know a person well enough to like or dislike them is to actually meet them. A perception of a person based on media portrayal just isn't enough, IMHO...  Ed |
|
Elbridge
Tempt Fanatic
Elbridge "Al" Bryant
Posts: 28
|
Post by Elbridge on Jun 8, 2004 1:44:40 GMT -5
Ok time for me to voice another opinion on david suing motown ... I think that becuz he sued ... They didn't release alot of his solo work ... But now EMI owns MOTOWN and they are releasing (as we all know now) DAVID on june 25th of this year ... Does anyone think that had to do with David suit that they held back while motown was unde Barry's control? And if so ... do you think that Eddie and Paul's solo work will be following to the store shelves like david's did? ;D In the interest of accuracy, EMI doesn't own Motown. They own Jobete. Motown is owned by Universal. Shutting up now.. Ed |
|
Elbridge
Tempt Fanatic
Elbridge "Al" Bryant
Posts: 28
|
Post by Elbridge on Jun 8, 2004 1:45:58 GMT -5
;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D;D Ed comes in with the humor again! ... But you still haven't told me how to spell SPLET yet ... lol ;D;D;D;D;D;D;D ROFL!! Like a dog with a bone.... It's "spelled", not "spelt" or, in this case, "Splet". LOL! Ed |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jun 8, 2004 9:51:45 GMT -5
I totally understand how you feel, Anna. Having said that, I don't blame anybody for anything based on perception. That book was shadowed by Patricia Romanowski. The movie was based on that shadowing. That just isn't enough for me. There really is more to a person than words on a page. Interviews can be edited to "cut to the chase" and, as a result, valuable words can be removed for the advancement of the almighty sound byte. The only way one can know a person well enough to like or dislike them is to actually meet them. A perception of a person based on media portrayal just isn't enough, IMHO... Ed I agree, Ed -- one shouldn't believe the all bad as well as the all good portrayal of someone in the public. On the other hand, if many different sources, including interviews given by the person, underpin one's first impression of him/her, I don't pretend to be able to be impartial any longer. Sorry, if I am a flawed person myself because of such a behavior -- just can't help it ;D |
|
