|
|
Post by EddiesLuv on Jul 28, 2004 12:51:09 GMT -5
I have been around them a lot but I don't suppose to really know what any other their personal relationships were. I do know how Melvin felt about each of them cause he told me............But I would be lying if I said I knew all the ins and outs of any of their relationships. ;D Right. You answered the question yesterday. You never put forth that you knew the ins and outs of their relationships. At least I didn't get that impression. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 28, 2004 13:34:32 GMT -5
How was it not necessary? If Paul had a drinking problem and that problem led to his departure from the group, how was that not relevant?  What was O supposed to write? "Well, so one day we just up and decided that Paul shouldn't be in the group anymore ......... and then we went to Cleveland........" Why was it necessary to write about it ? Who put a gun to his head to write anything at all? He could have used that attack space to let the real fans,not the ones who want to know individual personal stuff,why the group didn't sign with Kenny Gamble,he was not as candid with that as he was with Paul's alledged "Problem". Did O have a short term memory defect? What was said to make Eddie & David cuss Jay out that made Otis finally agree that they were right? I don't know about you,but people who really care and respect the group ,I think would have found that more interesting,than Otis' rendition of 99 bottles. Even still,he said that Paul's real problem was his health. Didn't you read that in Otis' book? Not even a pair of socks could distract from that. Which to those who really care about the group, the drinking issue is just as distracting as the socks was to the Donnie Simpson interview. It was brought up to conceal what was really being said. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jul 28, 2004 13:34:45 GMT -5
I honestly cannot understand why this thread still has life. Otis was in the group and has every right to tell the story of the group from his perspective. At the time the book was written, the world knew that Paul Williams had had a drinking problem and allegedly shot himself. At the time the book was written, the world knew that David Ruffin had problems with drugs, he had already been arrested a few times for possession. The world knew that there had to be some turmoil within the group, because at the time the first book was published, there had been many, many personnel changes. Otis was writing the book, but I'm sure Patricia Romanowski had some background knowledge on the group and helped Otis stay on topic. <I understand that this is the hardest part of being a writer who helps a non-writer do a biography.>
Otis was telling the story of the group from his point of view. He cannot unwrite the book because Mike and Anna don't like what he had to say, so what is the purpose of beating this topic to death? Nothing will change because of it, no one is going to not like the music they made because Otis told his side and Dennis, Eddie, and David did not. What are y'all trying to accomplish by going around and around about this? I'm about to fall out of my chair... :faint:
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 28, 2004 13:45:35 GMT -5
I honestly cannot understand why this thread still has life. Otis was in the group and has every right to tell the story of the group from his perspective. At the time the book was written, the world knew that Paul Williams had had a drinking problem and allegedly shot himself. At the time the book was written, the world knew that David Ruffin had problems with drugs, he had already been arrested a few times for possession. The world knew that there had to be some turmoil within the group, because at the time the first book was published, there had been many, many personnel changes. Otis was writing the book, but I'm sure Patricia Romanowski had some background knowledge on the group and helped Otis stay on topic. <I understand that this is the hardest part of being a writer who helps a non-writer do a biography.> Otis was telling the story of the group from his point of view. He cannot unwrite the book because Mike and Anna don't like what he had to say, so what is the purpose of beating this topic to death? Nothing will change because of it, no one is going to not like the music they made because Otis told his side and Dennis, Eddie, and David did not. What are y'all trying to accomplish by going around and around about this? I'm about to fall out of my chair...  I don't agree,it's plain to see that some felt it a good discussion topic,which it is. I don't think it was started for any other reason,if you know of another reason,let me know. Another thing,it's not just Anna and myself,we're just the only two that have enough heart to say what we feel and not really care who agrees,or not. ;D You say that Otis had a right to write about the group. I say he had no right exploiting Paul the way that he did.My feelings are not gonna change,and I just wonder why some deem it so important,or more important than the music? Why not write about how a lead was chosen? What determined which songs went on the lp,and which didn't? Why didn't the Reunion lp have a better plan,with better material? Are you gonna tell me it was due to Paul's alledged "Problems"? I hope not.  |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 28, 2004 14:02:50 GMT -5
I don't agree,it's plain to see that some felt it a good discussion topic,which it is. I don't think it was started for any other reason,if you know of another reason,let me know. Another thing,it's not just Anna and myself,we're just the only two that have enough heart to say what we feel and not really care who agrees,or not. ;D You say that Otis had a right to write about the group. I say he had no right exploiting Paul the way that he did.My feelings are not gonna change,and I just wonder why some deem it so important,or more important than the music? Why not write about how a lead was chosen? What determined which songs went on the lp,and which didn't? Why didn't the Reunion lp have a better plan,with better material? Are you gonna tell me it was due to Paul's alledged "Problems"? I hope not. Mike, again, what was he supposed to write about Paul's departure from the group? (To paraphrase Ivory) "One day we woke up and all of us decided that Paul, the "Soul of the Temptations", the original choreographer, the one True Temptation, was out of the group...and then we went to Cleveland" ... would that have been more appropriate in your eyes? |
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jul 28, 2004 14:03:26 GMT -5
I don't agree,it's plain to see that some felt it a good discussion topic,which it is. I don't think it was started for any other reason,if you know of another reason,let me know. Another thing,it's not just Anna and myself,we're just the only two that have enough heart to say what we feel and not really care who agrees,or not. ;D You say that Otis had a right to write about the group. I say he had no right exploiting Paul the way that he did.My feelings are not gonna change,and I just wonder why some deem it so important,or more important than the music? Why not write about how a lead was chosen? What determined which songs went on the lp,and which didn't? Why didn't the Reunion lp have a better plan,with better material? Are you gonna tell me it was due to Paul's alledged "Problems"? I hope not. It may be a good discussion topic, but that is just because everyone has an opinion on it. I don't feel that Otis exploited Paul's problems...the book was not called "The Temptations and the Problems of Paul Williams." Paul's problems, as well as those of all the rest of the group members, are part of the Temptations' story. The story of the Temptations cannot be told at least touching them. The group was seriously impacted by the departures of David, Dennis, Paul, and Eddie, so it HAD to be at least mentioned. Now I understand that you have a problem with him telling it, you have made that abundantly clear. But as a fan of the group, I personally wanted to know the story of the GROUP, not just Otis Williams, so I got what I wanted out of the book. But I also understand that Richard's book may have a different view on things, at least I hope it does, but no person has perfect recall and tells a story without adding some personal subjectivity. That is just human nature. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 28, 2004 14:03:34 GMT -5
Mike: Paul touched on why he would be out. They even had a picture of his business partner Winnie Brown.I really don't want to discuss this, just pointing out I find it a little inconsistent that you, Mike, come unglued at Otis for mislabelling a picture of Paul with his wife, but have no problem with a picture of his "business partner" appearing in a national magazine in conjunction with Paul. Certainly his wife knew of the deeper connection and everybody else does too...though it wasn't portrayed in the movie in any way. Just commenting...I don't want to go into it because it has nothing to do with the Group. I'm sorry that you don't want to discuss this,so after I let you know the answer to your post,we don't have to go back there,unless you want to. I'm not afraid to,but I'm not gonna let this go by. There is nothing inconsistant in the way I feel about the picture of Paul in Otis' book. If you thought about it,you would not have asked the question,but since you did...here goes. It was not common knowledge that Paul had an affair with that woman,she was not presented to the public as a "friend". Her name was printed and she was a business partner. Second,he had a check in his hand and not a drink. Third,can you honestly say that they were having an affair at the time the photo was taken and published? I can't say that they were at the time,I can't say that they weren't. Who can? I think that we can both agree that it was Paul's business and not ours. It had nothing to do with the group if they were sleeping together or not. That's why I say it wasn't Otis' business,either...hell he was busy himself. I would have had the same reaction if Paul wrote a book and told about Otis & Flo,or Otis & Patti,or a picture of the look on Otis' face when that woman's husband was banging on the door because Otis had that man's wife in his room and afraid to open the door. Or better yet,if Paul disclosed the name of the famous Brittish actress that Otis was seeing,but somehow forgot to mention her name. Or,did he say that out of respect for her reputation...he was not gonna mention who she was? I think that you need to reread the book,or do I have to do a Donnie Simpson("I GOT THE BOOK..IT'S IN THE BOOK) on you? LOL! :laughing |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 28, 2004 14:52:00 GMT -5
Mike, again, what was he supposed to write about Paul's departure from the group? (To paraphrase Ivory) "One day we woke up and all of us decided that Paul, the "Soul of the Temptations", the original choreographer, the one True Temptation, was out of the group...and then we went to Cleveland" ... would that have been more appropriate in your eyes? Why not,it worked for the real topics,like the meeting that the group had with Jay that made Eddie cuss Jay out<OR THE GAMBLE & HUFF THING? Write that the man left due to health reasons,unless you feel that wouldn't sell books? Is that more important? Not to me,and not to anybody that really cares about the group! Maybe if you don't paraphrase anyone I can get a feel of what YOU think,and not anyone else. Somehow I don't feel that the two are coming from the same direction. I could be wrong,I can't see the socks! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 28, 2004 15:08:41 GMT -5
It sure wasn't me commenting on sox, but yes I agree that Paul's problems had a place in the story and history of the Temptations. If the book wasn't supposed to make money, why publish it? Please. I don't feel he "exploited" anybody, he told the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Jul 28, 2004 17:05:36 GMT -5
Yes.
I thought it was a very entertaining movie. PERIOD. The simple fact that it was a movie lead me to believe that it may not have been a 100% actual rendition of the "facts."
No, and I thought most reasonable people would feel the same way. And then I came here........
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Jul 28, 2004 17:56:33 GMT -5
It wasn't at you my dear ........ I was messing with Anna, my girl who I joke with all the time (and she with me.) We're friends, we do that. No, not at the moment. If I wanted to regulate your comment I would have deleted it. I was saying you can't say what kind of a friend Otis was to Eddie any more than you can say what kind of friend Kalisa is to me. Only those involved in the relationship in question can say about what they feel about one another. See above. Aba's been around Otis, Eddie and Paul? This is news to me. If I'm calling someone "lovely" who could it be BUT you?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Jul 28, 2004 17:58:45 GMT -5
Because all of US don't! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by EddiesLuv on Jul 28, 2004 18:28:56 GMT -5
No, not at the moment. If I wanted to regulate your comment I would have deleted it. [b/]
Okay. Its your board.
I was saying you can't say what kind of a friend Otis was to Eddie any more than you can say what kind of friend Kalisa is to me. Only those involved in the relationship in question can say about what they feel about one another.
I didn't say what kind of friend Eddie and Otis were to each other. I just asked ABA if Otis and Paul were friends. I'm sure somebody knows other than the two of them. As far as you and Kalisa go, you're right I don't know and would never say it.
Aba's been around Otis, Eddie and Paul? This is news to me.
That's between you and Aba. Maybe he's been holding out on you, lol. Seriously, I didn't know what he knew or didn't know until HE told me. That's why I asked him the question and not you or anybody else.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 28, 2004 18:59:41 GMT -5
"Otis was telling the story of the group from his point of view. He cannot unwrite the book because Mike and Anna don't like what he had to say ..." Don't say that McRibs! He's already modified his first version of the story. In my opinion, poor Otis did more harm to his own reputation than to anyone else's, though. There seems to be something to the old proverb that says that everyone loves treason, but nobody loves the traitor. I am sorry that's how I feel about the book and the movie. I also feel that Paul's death was not a suicide, although there are reasons pointing in either direction "Something's rotten in the state of Denmark ..." |
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jul 28, 2004 19:33:45 GMT -5
[quote author=AnnaKonda link=board=news&thread=1088652790&start=313#20 date=1091059181 He's already modified his first version of the story. I also feel that Paul's death was not a suicide, although there are reasons pointing in either direction "Something's rotten in the state of Denmark ..."[/quote] Anna, first of all, modifying a book doesn't quite equate to unwriting it. He added a chapter or two to update it, but I don't think he took back what he wrote about Paul. Next, to the best of my knowledge, Otis was not investigating Paul's suicide, he simply told what happened to him. I imagine that if a second, more indepth investigation reveals that he was murdered, Otis may need to do yet another revision. You cannot blame Otis for that. I concede that Otis was a bit cutthroat in his business dealings, but I think you are giving him way too much credit with the multitude of things that you blame him for. Paul's death and the circumstances surrounding it are still somewhat of a mystery. NO ONE knows exactly what happened and probably never will. |
|
