|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 4, 2004 5:59:39 GMT -5
Well I am really confused. It seems to me for months and months we've done nothing but discuss Otis's flaws and bad singing and bad dancing and bad business practices and bad choices in Temptations and bad songs and on and on and on. If anybody mentions the FACTS (documented facts here folks) that David used drugs or that Paul tippled, or whatEVER, (and those things do not seem to be brought up often that I've seen, other than to use them as things that Otis's shouldn't have talked about...) then SOME folks go into a frenzy of "but Otis did this and Otis did that and Otis was the problem and what about Otis?..yada yada yada" or another frenzy of opinions and suppositions (rather than documented facts) of what Otis may or may not have done wrong from whatever circumstantial evidence they can find...but now Mike you're saying that Otis's flaws "was not and is not discussed." I'm sorry, but that just isn't the Truth, Man   |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 4, 2004 20:52:08 GMT -5
Melvin once said that each one of them had a big ego. They all thought they were the most important memeber. Why wouldn't Otis as well? There are people who got through life doing the same things that David's been accused of and you never hear about it. If otis shouldn't have written a book, then Richard shouldn't write one as well. But I disagree on that. The can all tell their view of the story as they saw it and if you read it with that thought in mind you can accept that that is all it is, one man's story. If what Otis says in his book are lies then why the discussion about what he said about the others? Is he only telling lies about the others? Is he in fact telling a truth he shouldn't have told? You tell me? The fact is, no one man is responsible for the tragedies that befell the group. They all had a part in it, with Berry Gordy being the major player in the story.... I am very sorry the others either chose not to write or tell their side of the story but it does not preclude me from wanting to know. I don't think there is a right or wrong way to tell the story. Either tell it or don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Jul 5, 2004 9:27:28 GMT -5
Exactly. Anna, how you can constantly make a big deal about O's book and never say anything about Tony's book is beyond me. Maybe you do and I just tune it out, or maybe you haven't even read Turner's book. If you haven't you should. O's book has NOTHING on what Tony Turner wrote about David and Eddie.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 5, 2004 12:59:43 GMT -5
Mike...To answer you, the parts of Paul's 'personal life' that Otis really divulged were those that pertained to the demise of the classic 5...in Otis's eyes. Otis obviously felt that Paul's alcohol and personal problems had something to do with why he eventually left the group. Why more wasn't said about his sickle cell anemia, I do not know or understand. Kalisa,in order to discuss this you need to know and/or understand why Paul's sickle cell was not talked about. Maybe because alcholism sells more books/movies than sickle cell?  Same reason why that damn picture of Paul with the woman on his lap ,and a drink in his hand was used out of all the pictures of Paul that was available,logic dictates that that photo was the best one? If we're gonna use "logic",let's put it to full time use. Not just to attempt to justify Otis' agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 5, 2004 15:28:05 GMT -5
Kalisa,in order to discuss this you need to know and/or understand why Paul's sickle cell was not talked about. Maybe because alcholism sells more books/movies than sickle cell? Same reason why that damn picture of Paul with the woman on his lap ,and a drink in his hand was used out of all the pictures of Paul that was available,logic dictates that that photo was the best one? If we're gonna use "logic",let's put it to full time use. Not just to attempt to justify Otis' agenda. Mike, well I'm as mystified as anybody as to why nobody but nobody talked about Paul's sickle cell. Nobody thinks it odd that Motown 25 was supposedly in part a fundraiser (maybe not a fundraiser, but how can we forget Lionel Richie and that sickle cell poster-girl?) and NOT ONE MENTION of Paul Williams, a victim of the disease? huh? I don't try to justify Otis's "agenda"...other than to say yes, those things, Paul's illness and alcohol use as well as David's drug use, played a part in the splintering of the Classic 5, which was part of the story Otis was telling. |
|
|
|
Post by janebse on Jul 5, 2004 15:37:29 GMT -5
I have not read a doctor's statement that he was treating Paul for sickle cell anemia. A year or so ago I wrote an article on how Paul could have become an alcoholic and very ill if he carried the sickle cell anemia gene but did not have the disease itself. But that was a projection based on recent medical discoveries, not anything that was known in 1970.
I have only read where Paul's family says he had sickle cell anemia. But they did not clarify whether he actually had the disease or whether he had the sickle cell anemia gene but no disease. Has any one found documentation from a doctor that he treated Paul for sickle cell anemia?
So far the only medical documentation I have read is that doctors treated Paul for alcoholism and/or depression.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 5, 2004 17:55:29 GMT -5
Whoa...the Temptations story was not Otis's (and Pauls, and Davids and Eddies and Melvins and Dennis's etc etc etc)) to tell? We will have to disagree on that one. The Temptations is the man's life's work, it certainly is at least in part his story to tell. And if he felt that certain problems that the other members had led directly to their leaving the group, he certainly had the right to express that. Thats real. That's logical. And it was already out there. It isn't logical for him to write a book with a. no cusswords LOL (we had this discussion a couple years ago) and b. no dirty laundry. For one thing, a. isn't real and b. is neither real nor logical, given that the Temptations, the Classic 5 or HOF 6, did NOT stay together. There was obviously dirty laundry that lead to the breakups or departures. Now, we can discuss Otis's dirty laundry (if we know what it is), but I do want to know what impact it had on the break up of the group. That is what the book is about. Once,again,do you know that Paul didn't find out about his illness and that's what brought about the alledged alcohol problem? Can you say that was NOT the case? No,the story of Paul's personal life was not for Otis to talk about. He had no right in doing so.Lack of class.That's as real as real can get. I didn't see Smokey telling about the other Miracle's personal business,Martha didn't do it to the Vandellas& Gladys didn't treat the Pips like that,why did Otis have to trash the others. Now ,since you said something about logic....why did Otis say in his revised book that now that Eddie & David are gone he's gonna say somethings that he didn't say before,if trashing them was NOT his intent? Can you,or someone answer that one? Are you gonna tell me that's not in the revised edition? Since everyone is ashamed to post the exact page and /or reprint what I'm talking about...I guess that you think that was ok to do? And I beg to differ that it was already "out there". Where was it put"out there"and when? While he was alive,or when he was dead? LOGIC? I would think that knowing that the Temptations were a R&B group was "out there" more that Paul's alledged problems. Are you saying that Gladys'Smokey's & Martha's books were not real because they didn't trash their groupmates?You say the it wasn't logical for Otis to write a book with no cusswords and no dirty laundry,please explain in reguard to the other books that I mentioned? I thought that those books were very "logical" and the author's showed class in their work. Before I go on,I need this question answered. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 5, 2004 18:03:39 GMT -5
I'm not trying to gloss over whether Otis was right or wrong in what he spilled, but really most of the dirt he put out there in his book had to do with why the group broke up, in his view. And it was stuff that was already out there. There was other dirt that didn't find its way into the book, maybe partly at least because it didn't have to do with why the members left. I'm not saying that you are,just like you're not saying that I'm not being "logical" in my opposition to the book/movie. I just don't see where remembering a story where he knocked on Eddie & David's door in 1964 have to do with anything,and not saying why good friend Kenny Gamble was not willing to work with any set of Temptations but the real Tempts...Eddie,David,Dennis,Otis & Melvin? I would think that would be of more interest than telling some crap that had nothing to do with the good and welfare of the Tempts? That is,if we are still on logic road. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 5, 2004 18:10:42 GMT -5
Well I am really confused. It seems to me for months and months we've done nothing but discuss Otis's flaws and bad singing and bad dancing and bad business practices and bad choices in Temptations and bad songs and on and on and on. If anybody mentions the FACTS (documented facts here folks) that David used drugs or that Paul tippled, or whatEVER, (and those things do not seem to be brought up often that I've seen, other than to use them as things that Otis's shouldn't have talked about...) then SOME folks go into a frenzy of "but Otis did this and Otis did that and Otis was the problem and what about Otis?..yada yada yada" or another frenzy of opinions and suppositions (rather than documented facts) of what Otis may or may not have done wrong from whatever circumstantial evidence they can find...but now Mike you're saying that Otis's flaws "was not and is not discussed." I'm sorry, but that just isn't the Truth, Man Kalisa,can you show me a documented FACT that Paul was a alcoholic? Or can you show me that he was even treated for alcoholism? I know that ,using logic,you can't dismiss my questions as "yada,yada,yada". That's not using "logic".And,yes what is wrong with bringing up ,or asking why nobody is saying anything about Otis' faults? Thinking that he has none is not the way Mr. Spock would define "logic".Why? Simple..that not logical,or real. ;D Sorry, but that is the truth!  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 5, 2004 18:16:55 GMT -5
Exactly. Anna, how you can constantly make a big deal about O's book and never say anything about Tony's book is beyond me. Maybe you do and I just tune it out, or maybe you haven't even read Turner's book. If you haven't you should. O's book has NOTHING on what Tony Turner wrote about David and Eddie. For the same reason that you make a big deal about Tony's book and excuse the crap in Otis'. It can't be because Tony didn't tell you where he gets his hair done? Maybe he told you and we just tuned it out. ;D Most can see where Tony was coming from. Otis,where was he coming from? At least Tony had enough respect not to write a revised edition and say that now that David & Eddie were dead,he can add things that he was not man enough to say while they were alive.He didn't join Otis in spitting on their graves. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 5, 2004 18:24:29 GMT -5
[quote author=kalisa2 link=board=news&thread=1088652790&start=61#4 date=1088820554
Are you really saying that Paul's children wouldn't at some time have come across these articles that were written well before Otis published his book? Do you think it realistic that his wife or some other family member wouldn't have clippings of those articles?
[/quote]
Again,I'm saying that it was not Otis'business to tell that story. Who said that all this stuff was put out there before Otis published his book? I'm saying that Mary Williams should be the one to decide how and when her& Paul's children find out,or be exposed to these things,not you,I nor Otis Williams. Are we clear on this? It was NOT Otis' place.
|
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 5, 2004 19:30:55 GMT -5
Again,I'm saying that it was not Otis'business to tell that story. Who said that all this stuff was put out there before Otis published his book? I'm saying that Mary Williams should be the one to decide how and when her& Paul's children find out,or be exposed to these things,not you,I nor Otis Williams. Are we clear on this? It was NOT Otis' place. ok, well the bottom line to ME is, if it wasn't Otis's place to tell it, then it sure wasn't anymore Eddie's place to tell it, so why is Otis worse than Eddie for telling it? |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 5, 2004 19:35:40 GMT -5
Kalisa,can you show me a documented FACT that Paul was a alcoholic? Or can you show me that he was even treated for alcoholism? I know that ,using logic,you can't dismiss my questions as "yada,yada,yada". That's not using "logic".And,yes what is wrong with bringing up ,or asking why nobody is saying anything about Otis' faults? Thinking that he has none is not the way Mr. Spock would define "logic".Why? Simple..that not logical,or real. ;D Sorry, but that is the truth! Alcoholic is a strong term, and one best used by someone who diagnosed him as that...not me. But his best friend said "He drank and ran around"...and that he had "seen him drunk". Two mentions of alcohol abuse in one article in referencing his performances gives it more importance than mere social once-in-a-while drinking...it was a problem. The friends who said he downed 2 fifths of cognac a day...this is problem drinking, not social get-together drinking. Alcoholism? I don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not a doctor. Could he stop once he started? I don't know. Did his personality change? I don't know. Do you know otherwise? Tony Turner said Paul wasn't a nice drunk. |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 5, 2004 19:48:12 GMT -5
Once,again,do you know that Paul didn't find out about his illness and that's what brought about the alledged alcohol problem? Can you say that was NOT the case?. I certainly can't say this was not the case...but don't know what it has to do with the discussion at hand? Did OTIS know he had the disease or gene or whatever? Even still, the fact is, according to Paul's best friend, Paul drank and Paul's drinking was a problem and affected performances. Otis isn't smokey nor martha nor gladys. He chose to tell his story the way he chose to tell it, and yes it was in part his story, as what the other people in the group did that affected the temptations certainly affected him. Most of the personal business he told had to do with problems that affected their performances as Temptations, at least in his view. Mike...read the opening article of this thread, which was "out there" in 1973, a full 15 years before Otis's book was published. The information was out there...why do you deny it? It was put out there by his best friend, so obviously was not a huge secret. Once more, I will say it ("it" being Pauls alcohol use/abuse and deterioration of performance) was part and parcel of the story of the Temptations, not just his private life, and as such was most certainly as much Otis's story to tell as anybody's, since it affect his life and livelihood also. Some of the other gossipy tales...maybe not, I don't know. But I know we all want to read the dirt, and if we don't want to read it about our personal favorites we sure want to read it about our UN-favorites (who in turn may be somebody elses favorites.) |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 5, 2004 19:57:05 GMT -5
And I will also say one more time, and this isn't directed at you in particular, Mike, but in general... A lot of this commentary on Otis seems to be (IMO) more rationalization for not liking the man than based on fact and logic. Otherwise explain why Otis gets the blame for things but none is cast on Melvin for some of the later business decisions that had to be either participated in by Melvin or condoned by him ("Melvin had a more pleasing personality so it was ok" doesn't cut it for objectivity) or why it is worse for Otis to write something in his book than for Eddie to say it in a newspaper article immediately following Paul's death...again, its ok for Eddie because we "like" Eddie better, is that it?
If you think it was classless for Otis to put it in his book, it was also classless for Eddie to say it in print... at a time when Paul's family had to be in deep mourning. That's just the way it is.
Also...one more time...if you have dirt about Otis you want to discuss, and it hasn't been discussed ad nauseum already, bring it on!! PLEASE!! Don't keep saying 'nobody will discuss Otis's faults and flaws" cuz that just isn't the case. BUT...don't stop anybody else from bringing up the other member's alleged woman abuse, child abuse, animal abuse, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, womanizing etc etc etc. If Otis also is alleged to have done these things...show us!
|
|
