Eddie Kendricks live at the club kabana?

[Kev_Day]

I have just recieved my copy and was possibly the most excited man in england,phoned my dad to come straight round BUT when we played the cd it is the worst recording i've heard,have any of you guys brought it,if so was it as bad? The problem is i cannot just take it back its to far to swim LOL.

[Ivory Fair]

LOL! Yeah Kev, that WOULD be a long swim for you. I'm sorry you don't like the CD. Perhaps you might find someone online who'd be willing to buy it? You could do it though eBay or half.com so it would be more or less a safe transaction?

Also, I hope you don't mind me moving this topic to the "solo Tempts" thread. Do you guys think that's wrong/annoying for me to do? Feedback welcome.

[Kev_Day]

Ivory,you seem to be the boss so i'm not going to argue with you.The cd seems great but,its just the quality,its a shame really.

[Ivory Fair]

Ha ha!  Well, you can ask anyone around and they'll tell you that I'm not really the boss, I just THINK I am. LOL!

Isn't that right Kalisa?  

Anyway Ken, "You have mail!"

[sukkafu]

HEY KEV BABAY,  I GUESS IN THIS CASE ENGLAND STANDS FOR Eddie's Not Good Listening- A Nasty Disc ;D

[Kev_Day]

Hey sukkafu,thats very good lol. ;D

[maria]

Doe's anyone have EJK live at the Club Kabana?

[janebse]

Yes, I do. As far as I know it is still available. I don't think it was professionally made by a recording studio.

The CD proves my thought that Eddie (and all the Tempts) were great as Temptations but not as solo singers. And Eddie had the best track record of having hits and selling records of any former Tempt. My reason for saying this in regard to Eddie, whose voice I love, is that he is basically shy and reserved and not the kind of person with magnetism to captivate an audience all by himself. When he was with the Tempts, it was completely different. He was captivating. He just didn't know how to be captivating by himself. And I think this shows up on this CD. He appears to only come alive when he calls Paul and David on the stage. But they are not an answer either because no one has rehearsed or planned what he is to do, and it's all sort of a mish mash. For a joke Paul sings the "Just My Imagination" which is so definitely Eddie's kind of song. David just kind of fools around.

[janebse]

Oops, I forgot to mention that I am talking about Eddie's stage prescence on that CD. I never thought he was comfortable on the stage by himself. However, the other times I saw Eddie on the stage he was always with others.

[maria]

janebse said:

Oops, I forgot to mention that I am talking about Eddie's stage presences on that CD. I never thought he was comfortable on the stage by himself. However, the other times I saw Eddie on the stage he was always with others.

Janebse do you know where I can get this CD? It's hard for me to imagine Eddie's stage presence by listening to a CD, but I sure would like to try. I have seen the short clip of "Keep On Trucking" and he looks to be comfortable. Maybe by this time he had become more relaxed. If I am not mistaken The Live at the Kabana was his first performance solo. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Beej]

janebse said:

The CD proves my thought that Eddie (and all the Tempts) were great as Temptations but not as solo singers.

...in your opinion.

Very few artists have the ability to capture the same magic live that they create in the studio without having all the same production and orchestral elements available. It's an unreasonable expectation to think an audio recording of a live show is going to somehow paint the same picture for the listener that it did for those in attendance.

The C5 Temptations, themselves, couldn't even pull it off. The Temptations Live! album is, audibly, an unmitigated mess from beginning to end. Of course, the crowd gathered at the Roostertail that evening probably thought it was a great show. There are things that happen in the moment -- and in that atmosphere -- that audience members tend to overlook or miss completely, though. On vinyl or tape or CD, those bad notes, awkward arrangements and extemporaneous outbursts stand out and detract from the overall production.

With respect to this particular Eddie Kendricks performance, an amateur audio recording of one live show doesn't tell us anything about his solo career or his ability to "captivate" a crowd. It just says you had to be there to truly enjoy it.

janebse said:

My reason for saying this in regard to Eddie, whose voice I love, is that he is basically shy and reserved and not the kind of person with magnetism to captivate an audience all by himself. When he was with the Tempts, it was completely different. He was captivating. He just didn't know how to be captivating by himself.

I couldn't disagree more. I find Eddie's stage presence with the Temptations to be rigid, stiff and impersonal. Singing lead, he would generally just stand there and either snap his fingers or pull at his jacket. He was never the showman that David or Paul was. He didn't interact with the audience or feed off their energy; he just went through the motions and did his part.

With Eddie, it was his voice that got your attention...not his antics. Between the hackneyed dance routines and the canned background vocals, the Tempts' staged TV appearances -- with few exceptions -- were so contrived and artificial that the lead vocals were really the only thing that separated a good performance from a mediocre one.

That's why I view their performances of "Ol' Man River" on the Mike Douglas Show and "Swanee" on the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour as being special. In both cases, you're hearing all five Tempts singing live...a rarity for their TV appearances. In both cases, they're essentially standing still while they're singing. It doesn't take away from the presentation whatsoever because the incredible vocals are what hold your attention.

If anything, I'd say Eddie was more comfortable and playful on stage as a solo artist than he ever was with the Tempts. He was free to be himself and interact with the band or the audience on his terms, as he saw fit. By the time he went solo, he had seen and done it all...no longer a wide-eyed kid being told where to stand, how to move or when to speak.

Was it different? Of course. A Temptations show was an elaborate, well-rehearsed stage production. A David Ruffin or an Eddie Kendricks show was, by comparison, an intimate, informal get-together. You can't possibly expect to get the same feel from one that you do from the other. That doesn't make them lesser as artists, however. Nor, does it make them less capable of holding an audience's attention.

I sincerely doubt anyone ever went home from a David Ruffin or Eddie Kendricks show feeling cheated.

[AnnaK]

beej said:

I couldn't disagree more. I find Eddie's stage presence with the Temptations to be rigid, stiff and impersonal. Singing lead, he would generally just stand there and either snap his fingers or pull at his jacket. He was never the showman that David or Paul was. He didn't interact with the audience or feed off their energy; he just went through the motions and did his part.

With Eddie, it was his voice that got your attention...not his antics. Between the hackneyed dance routines and the canned background vocals, the Tempts' staged TV appearances -- with few exceptions -- were so contrived and artificial that the lead vocals were really the only thing that separated a good performance from a mediocre one.

Wow! That is quite direct. But I do agree. Not only did Eddie look "stiff" and overly formal at some performances, but David did also.
In my opinion, the rigid orchestration (is this the right word?) of their moves and gestures just didn't agree with the enthusiasm they felt. That's why David's splits and microphone acrobatics elicited the excitement they did. JMO In a way the audience enjoyed the perfectionism they were presented with. But that perfectionism came at a cost -- suppressed spontaneity.

AK

[eyehearttempts]

raggedy said:

beej said:

I couldn't disagree more. I find Eddie's stage presence with the Temptations to be rigid, stiff and impersonal. Singing lead, he would generally just stand there and either snap his fingers or pull at his jacket. He was never the showman that David or Paul was. He didn't interact with the audience or feed off their energy; he just went through the motions and did his part.

With Eddie, it was his voice that got your attention...not his antics. Between the hackneyed dance routines and the canned background vocals, the Tempts' staged TV appearances -- with few exceptions -- were so contrived and artificial that the lead vocals were really the only thing that separated a good performance from a mediocre one.

Wow! That is quite direct. But I do agree. Not only did Eddie look "stiff" and overly formal at some performances, but David did also.
In my opinion, the rigid orchestration (is this the right word?) of their moves and gestures just didn't agree with the enthusiasm they felt. That's why David's splits and microphone acrobatics elicited the excitement they did. JMO In a way the audience enjoyed the perfectionism they were presented with. But that perfectionism came at a cost -- suppressed spontaneity.

AK

Welcome to the board!

[maria]

I couldn't disagree more. I find Eddie's stage presence with the Temptations to be rigid, stiff and impersonal. Singing lead, he would generally just stand there and either snap his fingers or pull at his jacket. He was never the showman that David or Paul was. He didn't interact with the audience or feed off their energy; he just went through the motions and did his part.

With Eddie, it was his voice that got your attention...not his antics. Between the hackneyed dance routines and the canned background vocals, the Tempts' staged TV appearances -- with few exceptions -- were so contrived and artificial that the lead vocals were really the only thing that separated a good performance from a mediocre one.
I could not have said it better myself And it is so obvious when you look at any performance with Eddie when he was with the Temptations.

[janebse]

It's all in how you look at things. I am talking about a basically shy, reserved person who loved to sing. But, oh, how the audiences, particularly the women, loved Eddie's voice.

Eddie reminds me of Marvin Gaye. Both said they could not dance. Gaye said he "snapped his fingers so everyone would think he was cool." And Gaye surely was.

As for doing the splits on stage, that would never be my definition of a good singer or dancer. I would agree with Cholly Atkins that those who did that were "wild men" on stage, not dancers or singers. But everyone has his own taste.

Maria, if you give me your address I could send you a copy of the CD with Eddie at the Club Kabana. And then you could judge for yourself. Of course, you would not see him on the stage, but you would hear the amount of applause by the audience, perhaps you could sense whether Eddie was excited to be before an audience, and any other audio factors you might consider important and decide for yourself. Melvin was always a favorite with the audience. He had such an infectious smile.