How would you have voted - David in or out?

[smooth]

dc said:

I agree as well about the Grammys. Milli Vanilla won a Grammy to but who remembers them? But Millie Vanilla will not be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And lets be quite frank here; Do you think Cloud 9 deserves a Grammy over "My Girl? To this day "My Girl" is the Tempts most popular and recognized song. But how many black artist ( and especially Motown artist) were getting Grammys in 1964? It was because of song like "My Girl" that bridged the gap for Motown artist to begin receiving grammys. I like "My Girl' but because it's been so overplayed it's prolly the Tempt song I listen to the least. But I can't deny it's impact.

You said I named 5 out of 70,obviously there's more, I know you're smarter than that. I'll admit after Eddie and Paul left things weren't the same they still had chart success, not as much, but they did, they recorded what's considered a classic christmas album without there 3 original lead singers, and on that classic album, recorded Silent Night which will definitely stand the test of time.

Beej, What's interesting is that you used one of my points that I used before when we were discussing a different topic and that is chart positions don't tell the whole story, I see you are learning, I'm impressed

Grammy's do mean something,not everything obviously, but it definitely means something especially for a black act back then.

Milly Vanilly winning one in the era that they did compares nothing to the Tempts winning one in the 60's with all of that racial turmoil,so for the Tempts to do what they did back then says a whole lot. Grammy's being won back then, by black artists mean a whole lot, and definitely the chart positions and the sales, because with all of that racism for the Tempts to have success on the pop charts and for white people to be buying there albums back at a time where some white people wouldn't even buy black people's albums just because they were black says a whole lot.There were artists who didn't even put there picture on the cover of there albums for fear that white people wouldn't buy there records. As hard as it was back then for blacks to win grammy's and to chart well on the pop charts and to have white people buying your albums and you all are talking like them winning and charting well means nothing, suggests to me that you all either forgot or don't have a clue about what being a black acts back in the days was, because if ya'll knew, ya'll wouldn't be saying that it means nothing.That's a shame, downplaying there accomplishments during that racial time.

There material isn't forgettable by any means,Just My Imagination and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the first being there biggest selling love song.I Can't Get Next To You which they sang at the White House. These are as memorable as the songs from the c5 period.Oh yeah and there's also Runaway Child, Psychedelic Shack, I'm Gonna Make You Love Me. Like Otis said everything they were recording was selling over a million.That's classic and quality material, believe it or not. CLoud 9 and My Girl are two different songs there's no way to compare.Some people actually will pick CLoud 9 over My Girl as there favorite song and vice versa.My Girl ain't got nothing to do with Cloud 9 winning a grammy.The Temptations and mainly Dennis,Eddie, and Paul had something to do with that along with the funk brothers and the songwriting team of Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong.

Quality believe it or not is reflected in record sales and chart positons, what planet are you living on? The chart positions of My Girl and JMI, just to name a few, reflect the quality(double number 1's on both charts, that means something. As for Britney Spears she appeals to a new generation of youngsters, me personally i don't think she can sing, but she has a huge fan base, so me not supporting her isn't going to matter.

And I don't think the funk brothers are morons, they know music, there comment might be hard to stomach, but they have a legitimate argument.Me personally after listnening to the tempations and miracles acapellas I don't think that they needed the funk brothers,The tempts harmonies were so tight I don't think they needed the funk brothers or a rhythm section but that's just my opinion, others might disagree.

And those albums with the supremes you speak about topped the charts twice.

And David's name in front of The Temptations isn't reasonable at all, it's a joke,two main reasons why: Eddie Kendricks and group harmony.This a five-man lead group. Diana Ross was singing all the songs, and so was Smokey, the Tempts alternated, the groups were structured differently. You can't compare The Supremes with Tempts or any other group for that matter.

I know the group fired him, I was talking about those other reports about Ruffin standing up to Berry, questioning him supposedly about money and getting the axe because of it.That's the other reason I hear people say he got fired.

[DC]

smooth said:

dc said:

I agree as well about the Grammys. Milli Vanilla won a Grammy to but who remembers them? But Millie Vanilla will not be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And lets be quite frank here; Do you think Cloud 9 deserves a Grammy over "My Girl? To this day "My Girl" is the Tempts most popular and recognized song. But how many black artist ( and especially Motown artist) were getting Grammys in 1964? It was because of song like "My Girl" that bridged the gap for Motown artist to begin receiving grammys. I like "My Girl' but because it's been so overplayed it's prolly the Tempt song I listen to the least. But I can't deny it's impact.

You said I named 5 out of 70,obviously there's more, I know you're smarter than that. I'll admit after Eddie and Paul left things weren't the same they still had chart success, not as much, but they did, they recorded what's considered a classic christmas album without there 3 original lead singers, and on that classic album, recorded Silent Night which will definitely stand the test of time.

Beej, What's interesting is that you used one of my points that I used before when we were discussing a different topic and that is chart positions don't tell the whole story, I see you are learning, I'm impressed

Grammy's do mean something,not everything obviously, but it definitely means something especially for a black act back then.

Milly Vanilly winning one in the era that they did compares nothing to the Tempts winning one in the 60's with all of that racial turmoil,so for the Tempts to do what they did back then says a whole lot. Grammy's being won back then, by black artists mean a whole lot, and definitely the chart positions and the sales, because with all of that racism for the Tempts to have success on the pop charts and for white people to be buying there albums back at a time where some white people wouldn't even buy black people's albums just because they were black says a whole lot.There were artists who didn't even put there picture on the cover of there albums for fear that white people wouldn't buy there records. As hard as it was back then for blacks to win grammy's and to chart well on the pop charts and to have white people buying your albums and you all are talking like them winning and charting well means nothing, suggests to me that you all either forgot or don't have a clue about what being a black acts back in the days was, because if ya'll knew, ya'll wouldn't be saying that it means nothing.That's a shame, downplaying there accomplishments during that racial time.

There material isn't forgettable by any means,Just My Imagination and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the first being there biggest selling love song.I Can't Get Next To You which they sang at the White House. These are as memorable as the songs from the c5 period.Oh yeah and there's also Runaway Child, Psychedelic Shack, I'm Gonna Make You Love Me. Like Otis said everything they were recording was selling over a million.That's classic and quality material, believe it or not. CLoud 9 and My Girl are two different songs there's no way to compare.Some people actually will pick CLoud 9 over My Girl as there favorite song and vice versa.My Girl ain't got nothing to do with Cloud 9 winning a grammy.The Temptations and mainly Dennis,Eddie, and Paul had something to do with that along with the funk brothers and the songwriting team of Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong.

Quality believe it or not is reflected in record sales and chart positons, what planet are you living on? The chart positions of My Girl and JMI, just to name a few, reflect the quality(double number 1's on both charts, that means something. As for Britney Spears she appeals to a new generation of youngsters, me personally i don't think she can sing, but she has a huge fan base, so me not supporting her isn't going to matter.

And I don't think the funk brothers are morons, they know music, there comment might be hard to stomach, but they have a legitimate argument.Me personally after listnening to the tempations and miracles acapellas I don't think that they needed the funk brothers,The tempts harmonies were so tight I don't think they needed the funk brothers or a rhythm section but that's just my opinion, others might disagree.

And those albums with the supremes you speak about topped the charts twice.

And David's name in front of The Temptations isn't reasonable at all, it's a joke,two main reasons why: Eddie Kendricks and group harmony.This a five-man lead group. Diana Ross was singing all the songs, and so was Smokey, the Tempts alternated, the groups were structured differently. You can't compare The Supremes with Tempts or any other group for that matter.

I know the group fired him, I was talking about those other reports about Ruffin standing up to Berry, questioning him supposedly about money and getting the axe because of it.That's the other reason I hear people say he got fired.

I agree a grammy is a great accomplishment, especially for black artist back then. But a lot of artist that have won grammy's are long forgotten. But artist that are added to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are not. Please understand im not down playing the accomplishments of a grammy at all. But can you honestly say that "Cloud 9" deserved a grammy over "My Girl"? But "My Girl" didn't have a chance for the same reasons you explained about how rough it was for black artist; especially in 64-65. But Im pretty sure if a grammy could be given to "My Girl" it would definitely receive one before "Cloud 9". And "Aint Too Proud To Beg" too for that matter

[Beej]

smooth said:

You said I named 5 out of 70,obviously there's more, I know you're smarter than that.

I was simply replying to what you wrote. You named five big hits from the Dennis Edwards era and implied that they were somehow reflective of the totality of the material being produced between '68-'72. We all know those songs were commercial hits; my point was that the bulk of the Norman Whitfield material at that time -- the non-hits and album fillers -- left much to be desired. There may have been some poignant, relevant and provocative social commentaries coming out of the group at that time, but there was also a hell of a lot of noise and pointless experimentation going on.

Beyond the handful of commercial hits, very little of it is worth remembering.

That's getting off-track, though. My original comment was that I'm glad they gave David the boot before they ventured down that path. Some people love the music from that era...I don't. Quite frankly, those albums make my teeth hurt...too many effects, too much over-the-top gimmickry, too many "message songs," too many ill-conceived covers of other artists' hits, too many overly-complex arrangements, too much emphasis on sensory overload and not enough attention to simple artistry. I wouldn't want to hear David singing that material or see him being used as a prop to boost Diana Ross' career.

smooth said:

Beej, What's interesting is that you used one of my points that I used before when we were discussing a different topic and that is chart positions don't tell the whole story, I see you are learning, I'm impressed.

Apples and oranges.

Chart positions ARE relevant -- highly relevant -- when trying to establish which songs were commercial "hits" and which ones were not. You were using the term "hit" indiscriminately in the other thread to support your views. Here, the point being made is that chart positions do not inherently reflect the QUALITY of the music being produced. All they say is whether a record or single is commercially successful.

Those are two completely different arguments.

There are many quality songs which, for one reason or another, fail to make a big splash commercially. Two perfect examples relating to the Tempts are "The Girl's Alright With Me" and "Don't Look Back." Both were commercial disappointments...the former failing to crack the Hot 100 at all. By your line of reasoning, those songs are of inherently lesser quality than something like "I'll Be In Trouble," a B-side that cracked the Top 40. I don't believe you'll find too many people who agree with that synopsis.

smooth said:

Quality believe it or not is reflected in record sales and chart positons ... The chart positions of My Girl and JMI, just to name a few, reflect the quality (double number 1's on both charts, that means something.) As for Britney Spears she appeals to a new generation of youngsters, me personally i don't think she can sing...

Do you honestly not see the inherent contradiction of those two statements?

First you say that "quality is reflected in record sales and chart positions" -- pointing out that the Tempts scoring two #1 Pop/R&B hits "means something" -- and then assert that a chart-topping artist like Britney Spears can't sing. By your own argument, either her material went multi-platinum and hit #1 because it was exceptional or your logic is seriously flawed.

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Obviously, there's much more to commercial success than talent and quality of material alone. Many gifted artists and great songs have fallen by the wayside with little or no critical acclaim. At the same time, many purveyors of mediocrity have found themselves atop the Billboard charts on the strength of image, hype and little else.

Let's be honest, your original comment was just a clumsy attempt to disparage the quality of David Ruffin's solo material. You got called on it and did what you always do...made a baseless and illogical assertion to try to save face. They're your words, not mine...you're the one stuck with the unenviable task of trying to defend them. I simply point out the flaws in your logic.

smooth said:

As hard as it was back then for blacks to win grammy's and to chart well on the pop charts and to have white people buying your albums and you all are talking like them winning and charting well means nothing, suggests to me that you all either forgot or don't have a clue about what being a black acts back in the days was, because if ya'll knew, ya'll wouldn't be saying that it means nothing.That's a shame, downplaying there accomplishments during that racial time.

What's a shame is your atrocious lack of reading comprehension and reasoning skills.

Once again, you've taken a position against something that no one said. I made no allusions to race whatsoever in my posts and <DC> actually agreed with you with respect to the difficulties faced by black artists in the early '60s...not only here, but a page earlier.

The point that both <DC> and I made -- and which you completely missed -- is that although the Tempts won Grammys for "Cloud Nine" and "Papa Was A Rolling Stone," those songs were by no means their greatest musical contributions up to that point. You implied the awards were an indication that the music produced in the post-Ruffin era was not only superior to that of the C5 era, but "arguably their best work"...which is an astounding comment, in and of itself.

smooth said:

And I don't think the funk brothers are morons, they know music, there comment might be hard to stomach, but they have a legitimate argument.

Well, there were a lot of Funk Brothers over the years. I don't think they all gathered together one day to express a collective opinion in unison, so you must be referring to the thoughts of one or two members.

The reason such a person would be a "card-carrying moron" is because a statement like that completely ignores the fact that Motown acts routinely covered one another's songs...with greatly varying results. The Funk Brothers played on each and every one of them...quite often with very similar, if not identical, musical arrangements.

Obviously, "anyone" couldn't sing those songs and still get a hit.

smooth said:

And those albums with the supremes you speak about topped the charts twice.

Evidence of widespread and heavy narcotics use in the late-'60s, no doubt.

smooth said:

I know the group fired him, I was talking about those other reports about Ruffin standing up to Berry, questioning him supposedly about money and getting the axe because of it.That's the other reason I hear people say he got fired.

Answering that one would probably take a page all by itself. It is much more involved than just royalties and contract disputes.

As briefly as I can put it, a lot of Motown's top personalities -- not just David -- took notice of the special attention Diana Ross was receiving from Berry Gordy circa 1967. There was a lot of grumbling behind the scenes, but David made it perfectly clear to anybody who would listen that he wasn't about to play second-fiddle to anyone...especially Diana. To say they were not fans of one another is putting it mildly. She had her share of run-ins with other Motown acts, but her relationship with David was particularly icy...mainly because he didn't go for her "diva" behavior and thought nothing of putting her in her place. As always, Diana would go running to Berry and he'd fix everything for her.

My favorite story comes from the 1967 Ed Sullivan show that featured the Tempts and the Supremes together. On the medley where they do each other's hits, Diana reportedly complained to Berry that the Tempts' songs were in the wrong vocal key for her and she was worried she'd look bad when she performed them live on air. Suffice it to say, the entire arrangement was re-worked to suit her higher range. Unfortunately, no one bothered to tell David or Eddie or ask their opinions until everything had already been changed...which thoroughly pissed them both off. Being the singers they were, though, they handled the new arrangement just fine.

When it came time to perform the medley live for TV, the first four songs went just as they had rehearsed. When they got to the finale -- "(I Know) I'm Losing You" -- David got his revenge. Rather than joining her at the front of the stage and trading lines as they had rehearsed, he stayed back with the other Tempts and left her standing there by herself. She had no idea what to ad-lib and looked completely lost...finally turning around to see where he was. David coolly strode to the front of the stage and proceeded to remind everyone whose song it was.

Of course, Diana ran to Berry afterward...but it was a classic David Ruffin moment.

[DC]

beej said:

smooth said:

You said I named 5 out of 70,obviously there's more, I know you're smarter than that.

I was simply replying to what you wrote. You named five big hits from the Dennis Edwards era and implied that they were somehow reflective of the totality of the material being produced between '68-'72. We all know those songs were commercial hits; my point was that the bulk of the Norman Whitfield material at that time -- the non-hits and album fillers -- left much to be desired. There may have been some poignant, relevant and provocative social commentaries coming out of the group at that time, but there was also a hell of a lot of noise and pointless experimentation going on.

Beyond the handful of commercial hits, very little of it is worth remembering.

That's getting off-track, though. My original comment was that I'm glad they gave David the boot before they ventured down that path. Some people love the music from that era...I don't. Quite frankly, those albums make my teeth hurt...too many effects, too much over-the-top gimmickry, too many "message songs," too many ill-conceived covers of other artists' hits, too many overly-complex arrangements, too much emphasis on sensory overload and not enough attention to simple artistry. I wouldn't want to hear David singing that material or see him being used as a prop to boost Diana Ross' career.



Apples and oranges.

Chart positions ARE relevant -- highly relevant -- when trying to establish which songs were commercial "hits" and which ones were not. You were using the term "hit" indiscriminately in the other thread to support your views. Here, the point being made is that chart positions do not inherently reflect the QUALITY of the music being produced. All they say is whether a record or single is commercially successful.

Those are two completely different arguments.

There are many quality songs which, for one reason or another, fail to make a big splash commercially. Two perfect examples relating to the Tempts are "The Girl's Alright With Me" and "Don't Look Back." Both were commercial disappointments...the former failing to crack the Hot 100 at all. By your line of reasoning, those songs are of inherently lesser quality than something like "I'll Be In Trouble," a B-side that cracked the Top 40. I don't believe you'll find too many people who agree with that synopsis.



Do you honestly not see the inherent contradiction of those two statements?

First you say that "quality is reflected in record sales and chart positions" -- pointing out that the Tempts scoring two #1 Pop/R&B hits "means something" -- and then assert that a chart-topping artist like Britney Spears can't sing. By your own argument, either her material went multi-platinum and hit #1 because it was exceptional or your logic is seriously flawed.

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Obviously, there's much more to commercial success than talent and quality of material alone. Many gifted artists and great songs have fallen by the wayside with little or no critical acclaim. At the same time, many purveyors of mediocrity have found themselves atop the Billboard charts on the strength of image, hype and little else.

Let's be honest, your original comment was just a clumsy attempt to disparage the quality of David Ruffin's solo material. You got called on it and did what you always do...made a baseless and illogical assertion to try to save face. They're your words, not mine...you're the one stuck with the unenviable task of trying to defend them. I simply point out the flaws in your logic.



What's a shame is your atrocious lack of reading comprehension and reasoning skills.

Once again, you've taken a position against something that no one said. I made no allusions to race whatsoever in my posts and <DC> actually agreed with you with respect to the difficulties faced by black artists in the early '60s...not only here, but a page earlier.

The point that both <DC> and I made -- and which you completely missed -- is that although the Tempts won Grammys for "Cloud Nine" and "Papa Was A Rolling Stone," those songs were by no means their greatest musical contributions up to that point. You implied the awards were an indication that the music produced in the post-Ruffin era was not only superior to that of the C5 era, but "arguably their best work"...which is an astounding comment, in and of itself.



Well, there were a lot of Funk Brothers over the years. I don't think they all gathered together one day to express a collective opinion in unison, so you must be referring to the thoughts of one or two members.

The reason such a person would be a "card-carrying moron" is because a statement like that completely ignores the fact that Motown acts routinely covered one another's songs...with greatly varying results. The Funk Brothers played on each and every one of them...quite often with very similar, if not identical, musical arrangements.

Obviously, "anyone" couldn't sing those songs and still get a hit.



Evidence of widespread and heavy narcotics use in the late-'60s, no doubt.

smooth said:

I know the group fired him, I was talking about those other reports about Ruffin standing up to Berry, questioning him supposedly about money and getting the axe because of it.That's the other reason I hear people say he got fired.

Answering that one would probably take a page all by itself. It is much more involved than just royalties and contract disputes.

As briefly as I can put it, a lot of Motown's top personalities -- not just David -- took notice of the special attention Diana Ross was receiving from Berry Gordy circa 1967. There was a lot of grumbling behind the scenes, but David made it perfectly clear to anybody who would listen that he wasn't about to play second-fiddle to anyone...especially Diana. To say they were not fans of one another is putting it mildly. She had her share of run-ins with other Motown acts, but her relationship with David was particularly icy...mainly because he didn't go for her "diva" behavior and thought nothing of putting her in her place. As always, Diana would go running to Berry and he'd fix everything for her.

My favorite story comes from the 1967 Ed Sullivan show that featured the Tempts and the Supremes together. On the medley where they do each other's hits, Diana reportedly complained to Berry that the Tempts' songs were in the wrong vocal key for her and she was worried she'd look bad when she performed them live on air. Suffice it to say, the entire arrangement was re-worked to suit her higher range. Unfortunately, no one bothered to tell David or Eddie or ask their opinions until everything had already been changed...which thoroughly pissed them both off. Being the singers they were, though, they handled the new arrangement just fine.

When it came time to perform the medley live for TV, the first four songs went just as they had rehearsed. When they got to the finale -- "(I Know) I'm Losing You" -- David got his revenge. Rather than joining her at the front of the stage and trading lines as they had rehearsed, he stayed back with the other Tempts and left her standing there by herself. She had no idea what to ad-lib and looked completely lost...finally turning around to see where he was. David coolly strode to the front of the stage and proceeded to remind everyone whose song it was.

Of course, Diana ran to Berry afterward...but it was a classic David Ruffin moment.

Wow Beej, I didn't know all of that took place in that Sullivan performance. I knew about Diana getting Berry Gordy to raise the key, but thats all. I didn't know that David was suppose to be down there with Diana when they sang "Losing You". It seemed like it was all part of the show. And when Ruffin came from the back and sang he looked at Diana as if she was the woman he was signing it to. It was almost like David and Diana were in a relationship the way he was singing and looking at her. But I def think David's scream was unexpected. When he screamed it seems like Diana didn't know what to do. Def seemed like it was improv. If you go back and watch she muttered some words after he screamed it sounded like she was lost.

But you really can't tell their was tension on the set. I guess it shows how consummate professionals can handle these situations. I do remember seeing a photo on a Motown special that showed Diana and David talking to each other at this performance. I guess this might of been what they were discussing. Good info Beej.

[smooth]

beej said:

smooth said:

You said I named 5 out of 70,obviously there's more, I know you're smarter than that.

I was simply replying to what you wrote. You named five big hits from the Dennis Edwards era and implied that they were somehow reflective of the totality of the material being produced between '68-'72. We all know those songs were commercial hits; my point was that the bulk of the Norman Whitfield material at that time -- the non-hits and album fillers -- left much to be desired. There may have been some poignant, relevant and provocative social commentaries coming out of the group at that time, but there was also a hell of a lot of noise and pointless experimentation going on.

Beyond the handful of commercial hits, very little of it is worth remembering.

That's getting off-track, though. My original comment was that I'm glad they gave David the boot before they ventured down that path. Some people love the music from that era...I don't. Quite frankly, those albums make my teeth hurt...too many effects, too much over-the-top gimmickry, too many "message songs," too many ill-conceived covers of other artists' hits, too many overly-complex arrangements, too much emphasis on sensory overload and not enough attention to simple artistry. I wouldn't want to hear David singing that material or see him being used as a prop to boost Diana Ross' career.



Apples and oranges.

Chart positions ARE relevant -- highly relevant -- when trying to establish which songs were commercial "hits" and which ones were not. You were using the term "hit" indiscriminately in the other thread to support your views. Here, the point being made is that chart positions do not inherently reflect the QUALITY of the music being produced. All they say is whether a record or single is commercially successful.

Those are two completely different arguments.

There are many quality songs which, for one reason or another, fail to make a big splash commercially. Two perfect examples relating to the Tempts are "The Girl's Alright With Me" and "Don't Look Back." Both were commercial disappointments...the former failing to crack the Hot 100 at all. By your line of reasoning, those songs are of inherently lesser quality than something like "I'll Be In Trouble," a B-side that cracked the Top 40. I don't believe you'll find too many people who agree with that synopsis.



Do you honestly not see the inherent contradiction of those two statements?

First you say that "quality is reflected in record sales and chart positions" -- pointing out that the Tempts scoring two #1 Pop/R&B hits "means something" -- and then assert that a chart-topping artist like Britney Spears can't sing. By your own argument, either her material went multi-platinum and hit #1 because it was exceptional or your logic is seriously flawed.

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Obviously, there's much more to commercial success than talent and quality of material alone. Many gifted artists and great songs have fallen by the wayside with little or no critical acclaim. At the same time, many purveyors of mediocrity have found themselves atop the Billboard charts on the strength of image, hype and little else.

Let's be honest, your original comment was just a clumsy attempt to disparage the quality of David Ruffin's solo material. You got called on it and did what you always do...made a baseless and illogical assertion to try to save face. They're your words, not mine...you're the one stuck with the unenviable task of trying to defend them. I simply point out the flaws in your logic.



What's a shame is your atrocious lack of reading comprehension and reasoning skills.

Once again, you've taken a position against something that no one said. I made no allusions to race whatsoever in my posts and <DC> actually agreed with you with respect to the difficulties faced by black artists in the early '60s...not only here, but a page earlier.

The point that both <DC> and I made -- and which you completely missed -- is that although the Tempts won Grammys for "Cloud Nine" and "Papa Was A Rolling Stone," those songs were by no means their greatest musical contributions up to that point. You implied the awards were an indication that the music produced in the post-Ruffin era was not only superior to that of the C5 era, but "arguably their best work"...which is an astounding comment, in and of itself.



Well, there were a lot of Funk Brothers over the years. I don't think they all gathered together one day to express a collective opinion in unison, so you must be referring to the thoughts of one or two members.

The reason such a person would be a "card-carrying moron" is because a statement like that completely ignores the fact that Motown acts routinely covered one another's songs...with greatly varying results. The Funk Brothers played on each and every one of them...quite often with very similar, if not identical, musical arrangements.

Obviously, "anyone" couldn't sing those songs and still get a hit.



Evidence of widespread and heavy narcotics use in the late-'60s, no doubt.

smooth said:

I know the group fired him, I was talking about those other reports about Ruffin standing up to Berry, questioning him supposedly about money and getting the axe because of it.That's the other reason I hear people say he got fired.

Answering that one would probably take a page all by itself. It is much more involved than just royalties and contract disputes.

As briefly as I can put it, a lot of Motown's top personalities -- not just David -- took notice of the special attention Diana Ross was receiving from Berry Gordy circa 1967. There was a lot of grumbling behind the scenes, but David made it perfectly clear to anybody who would listen that he wasn't about to play second-fiddle to anyone...especially Diana. To say they were not fans of one another is putting it mildly. She had her share of run-ins with other Motown acts, but her relationship with David was particularly icy...mainly because he didn't go for her "diva" behavior and thought nothing of putting her in her place. As always, Diana would go running to Berry and he'd fix everything for her.

My favorite story comes from the 1967 Ed Sullivan show that featured the Tempts and the Supremes together. On the medley where they do each other's hits, Diana reportedly complained to Berry that the Tempts' songs were in the wrong vocal key for her and she was worried she'd look bad when she performed them live on air. Suffice it to say, the entire arrangement was re-worked to suit her higher range. Unfortunately, no one bothered to tell David or Eddie or ask their opinions until everything had already been changed...which thoroughly pissed them both off. Being the singers they were, though, they handled the new arrangement just fine.

When it came time to perform the medley live for TV, the first four songs went just as they had rehearsed. When they got to the finale -- "(I Know) I'm Losing You" -- David got his revenge. Rather than joining her at the front of the stage and trading lines as they had rehearsed, he stayed back with the other Tempts and left her standing there by herself. She had no idea what to ad-lib and looked completely lost...finally turning around to see where he was. David coolly strode to the front of the stage and proceeded to remind everyone whose song it was.

Of course, Diana ran to Berry afterward...but it was a classic David Ruffin moment.

Actually my comprehension and reasoning skills are much superior than yours, but anyway, I never said you made a reference to race, but you did downplay the importance of chart positions and you made it sound like them winning a grammy didn't mean that much either. And DC agreed with me after I already typed my post, but before I typed my post he made it sound as if grammy's didn't mean that much.

How can you say that the Tempts and Motown's first grammy and the Tempts winning there second grammy isn't arguably there greatest musical accomplishment, there are some people who like the Dennis Edwards era tempts better than the c5 era tempts, it's just a matter of opinion.Winning motown's first grammy is a huge accomplishment and in terms of music it is historical.

And in the other thread mentioning Get Ready charting at number 1 or You're My Everything charting at number 3,Please Return Your Love To Me at number 4 or mentioning there albums charting at number 1 is using the term hit indiscriminately, how so?

Again,you must learn to comprehend, I said chart positions don't tell the whole story. Songs like The Girl's Alright With Me and Don't Look Back can be more popular than I'll Be In Trouble. Me personally I prefer those two over I'll Be In Trouble. And in another thread I used the example of Get Ready which didn't chart as well as It's Growing on the pop charts,but it's still more popular than It's Growing.

Those non-fillers left much to be desired for you and maybe others but not everybody, you can't speak for everybody,those love songs are arguablly good.But it's a matter of opinion.

My logic isn't flawed you genius,listen, just because I don't think she can sing doesn't mean she's not a quality artist, everybody is not going to support her or every other artist out there for that matter. That's just my opinion. She has a fan base and that fan base believes in her voice, so they will put her at the number 1 position. I hate to be the first one to break it to you, but there are many people who don't think she can sing, but obviously there are millions who disagree, because they continue to buy her albums.

And since my logic isn't flawed, we all know she went multi-platinum because she has a huge fan base.

No $h_t SHerlock, of course there's more to commercial success than talent and quality of material, I've said that in previous threads, and I said it in this thread. Please think for yourself and stop stealing my words of wisdom. I see you like to use my points, and then turn around and say that my logic is flawed and that I make no sense. When its clear I make a whole lot of sense because you keep recycling my points.

I don't have to disparage the quality of his solo material, it doens't need any help in that department.

And with the way the Funk Brothers played, it didn't matter who sang the songs. Would it have been as successful as the original artist, who knows, but it would've been a hit.

Perfect example
I Heard It Through the Grapevine:
Gladys Knight and The Pips sang it first, R&B #1 and Pop #2
Marvin Gaye sang it second,R&B #1 and Pop #1

What you got to say now?

[smooth]

dc said:

smooth said:

You said I named 5 out of 70,obviously there's more, I know you're smarter than that. I'll admit after Eddie and Paul left things weren't the same they still had chart success, not as much, but they did, they recorded what's considered a classic christmas album without there 3 original lead singers, and on that classic album, recorded Silent Night which will definitely stand the test of time.

Beej, What's interesting is that you used one of my points that I used before when we were discussing a different topic and that is chart positions don't tell the whole story, I see you are learning, I'm impressed

Grammy's do mean something,not everything obviously, but it definitely means something especially for a black act back then.

Milly Vanilly winning one in the era that they did compares nothing to the Tempts winning one in the 60's with all of that racial turmoil,so for the Tempts to do what they did back then says a whole lot. Grammy's being won back then, by black artists mean a whole lot, and definitely the chart positions and the sales, because with all of that racism for the Tempts to have success on the pop charts and for white people to be buying there albums back at a time where some white people wouldn't even buy black people's albums just because they were black says a whole lot.There were artists who didn't even put there picture on the cover of there albums for fear that white people wouldn't buy there records. As hard as it was back then for blacks to win grammy's and to chart well on the pop charts and to have white people buying your albums and you all are talking like them winning and charting well means nothing, suggests to me that you all either forgot or don't have a clue about what being a black acts back in the days was, because if ya'll knew, ya'll wouldn't be saying that it means nothing.That's a shame, downplaying there accomplishments during that racial time.

There material isn't forgettable by any means,Just My Imagination and Papa Was A Rolling Stone, the first being there biggest selling love song.I Can't Get Next To You which they sang at the White House. These are as memorable as the songs from the c5 period.Oh yeah and there's also Runaway Child, Psychedelic Shack, I'm Gonna Make You Love Me. Like Otis said everything they were recording was selling over a million.That's classic and quality material, believe it or not. CLoud 9 and My Girl are two different songs there's no way to compare.Some people actually will pick CLoud 9 over My Girl as there favorite song and vice versa.My Girl ain't got nothing to do with Cloud 9 winning a grammy.The Temptations and mainly Dennis,Eddie, and Paul had something to do with that along with the funk brothers and the songwriting team of Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong.

Quality believe it or not is reflected in record sales and chart positons, what planet are you living on? The chart positions of My Girl and JMI, just to name a few, reflect the quality(double number 1's on both charts, that means something. As for Britney Spears she appeals to a new generation of youngsters, me personally i don't think she can sing, but she has a huge fan base, so me not supporting her isn't going to matter.

And I don't think the funk brothers are morons, they know music, there comment might be hard to stomach, but they have a legitimate argument.Me personally after listnening to the tempations and miracles acapellas I don't think that they needed the funk brothers,The tempts harmonies were so tight I don't think they needed the funk brothers or a rhythm section but that's just my opinion, others might disagree.

And those albums with the supremes you speak about topped the charts twice.

And David's name in front of The Temptations isn't reasonable at all, it's a joke,two main reasons why: Eddie Kendricks and group harmony.This a five-man lead group. Diana Ross was singing all the songs, and so was Smokey, the Tempts alternated, the groups were structured differently. You can't compare The Supremes with Tempts or any other group for that matter.

I know the group fired him, I was talking about those other reports about Ruffin standing up to Berry, questioning him supposedly about money and getting the axe because of it.That's the other reason I hear people say he got fired.

I agree a grammy is a great accomplishment, especially for black artist back then. But a lot of artist that have won grammy's are long forgotten. But artist that are added to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are not. Please understand im not down playing the accomplishments of a grammy at all. But can you honestly say that "Cloud 9" deserved a grammy over "My Girl"? But "My Girl" didn't have a chance for the same reasons you explained about how rough it was for black artist; especially in 64-65. But Im pretty sure if a grammy could be given to "My Girl" it would definitely receive one before "Cloud 9". And "Aint Too Proud To Beg" too for that matter

Well see that's debatable on which song should receive a grammy, some people prefer CLoud 9 over My Girl and vice versa.It's a matter of opinion, one is a love song and one isn't.Not to get too much into race but CLoud 9 hits home harder in the black community, I think, because that's a story of so many families in the inner city.Like me personally when i hear CLoud 9 i can relate to a little bit of the song, not the whole song, but a little, so with that being said I would have to lean towards Cloud 9, because it deals with the harsh realities of life,as opposed to My Girl which is about one's girl, which is great also by the way, but it's just a matter of opinion.But whichever would win I would be satisfied, but I would pick CLoud 9 over Ain't Too Proud To beg, it would be a harder choice to pick it over My Girl though. And the thing about Cloud 9 is the switching of the leads, the bum-bum's, it's a more of an up-tempo song, me personally the intro of the song, you know the funk brothers doing there thing, and then you throw Edwards into the mix sounding like a preacher and the switching of the leads, that's the song to me out of the 3,but again that's just my opinion.

Not to stray off topic, but it's probably too late for that, but I prefer the c5 era material, but the songs with Dennis are great in a diifferent way, because they deal with another form of reality, and I don't view that material as inferior to the c5's material, for the simple fact that everything isn't always peaches and cream and I think it's good that The Tempts don't just have strictly love songs, because that would make them one-dimensional, and in my view those socially conscious songs and political songs which speak about race and life in the city, and being black and proud, were right on time, and I'm glad the Tempts went in that direction for a certain time, it kept there material fresh and they couldn't get old because they changed up there style, they adapted,and thank the Lord for Motown and The Tempts. It feels great to hear songs like CLoud 9,Ball of Confusion, and Message From A Black Man come from The Baddest Group in Existence.

[Beej]

smooth said:

...but you did downplay the importance of chart positions...

In the context of the argument you were attempting to make in this particular thread, yes. As we've established, though, "context" is a foreign concept to you. I already went over this. Whether you choose to not understand or are simply that dense, explaining it again won't achieve anything.

smooth said:

And DC agreed with me after I already typed my post, but before I typed my post he made it sound as if grammy's didn't mean that much.

Perhaps, you'd like to try that again...

dc said:

And lets be quite frank here; Do you think Cloud 9 deserves a Grammy over "My Girl? To this day "My Girl" is the Tempts most popular and recognized song. But how many black artist ( and especially Motown artist) were getting Grammys in 1964? It was because of song like "My Girl" that bridged the gap for Motown artist to begin receiving grammys.

smooth said:

Milly Vanilly winning one in the era that they did compares nothing to the Tempts winning one in the 60's with all of that racial turmoil,so for the Tempts to do what they did back then says a whole lot.

Notice the timestamps.

There was no mention of the difficulties faced by black artists with regard to receiving their just recognition in the early-1960s -- by you or anyone else in this thread -- until <DC> expressed his feelings about the historical relevance of a song like "My Girl" in helping change the way the establishment viewed minority producers, singers and songwriters. In fact, you even mentioned Milli Vanilli in your reply as a direct reference to his post.

The ONLY reference you made to the Tempts' Grammys in this thread prior to <DC>'s post was here:

smooth said:

But the interesting thing is the Tempts won a grammy without there biggest star for CLoud Nine, had a major hit and won 2 grammy's for Papa Was A Rolling Stone without David and Eddie, and had their biggest selling love song in Just My Imagination without Ruffin there biggest star, and they had there biggest selling album ever in Phoenix Rising without David or Eddie.

Your point is clear. You were citing the Tempts' Grammy awards as an indication that the group achieved commercial success and recognition without the services of David and/or Eddie. There's no allusion to the snub of black artists in the early-'60s, nor any reference to the Tempts' "Cloud Nine" Grammy as a ground-breaking achievement for black artists whatsoever.

Do you even read what people write? Or, are you in such a hurry to argue that you just start typing before you've even digested what you're replying to?

smooth said:

How can you say that the Tempts and Motown's first grammy and the Tempts winning there second grammy isn't arguably there greatest musical accomplishment.

Considering I didn't say that, it's a senseless question.

What you're referencing is my reply to this...

smooth said:

But [the music produced between 1969 and 1972] is arguably there best work.

There's a very big difference between "arguably their best work" and "greatest musical accomplishment" in the context they were used. The former speaks to the quality of the material produced and the latter speaks to commercial achievement. You've already shown that you don't understand the difference between the two in this thread, so there's really no point in going over it again.

smooth said:

And in the other thread mentioning Get Ready charting at number 1 or You're My Everything charting at number 3,Please Return Your Love To Me at number 4 or mentioning there albums charting at number 1 is using the term hit indiscriminately, how so?

Typical <smooth> reply.

My reference was to your claim that "Dream Come True," "The Girl's Alright With Me" and "I've Been Good To You" were examples of Eddie-led "hits" despite the fact that none of them cracked the Billboard Hot 100...that's how. You've shown a tendency to throw the term around aimlessly...especially if you think it helps your argument. That's not how it works.

smooth said:

And...we all know [Britney Spears] went multi-platinum because she has a huge fan base.

A huge following based primarily on what...an appreciation for her exceptional vocal abilities or a sea of preteen girls who fell for the creative marketing of a phony image? If you claim the former, you're either deaf or a buffoon; if you claim the latter, you're making my point for me. Again, you implied that there is a direct correlation between chart success and quality of music. If you're now admitting that some people (actually, a lot of people) experience chart success or attain substantial commercial success without having the musical ability or critical acclaim to warrant either, you're agreeing with me and contradicting your own argument.

smooth said:

I don't have to disparage the quality of [David Ruffin's] solo material, it doens't need any help in that department.

I suggest you look up "disparage" in a dictionary before attempting to use it in a sentence again. While you're at it, look up "there," "their," "they're," "to," "too," "who's" and "whose." Using them properly would make reading your posts slightly less mind-numbing for the rest of us.

You'll be awfully hard-pressed to find anyone in the music industry -- in particular, the soul and R&B genres -- who has taken an objective look at David's solo work and found his vocals to be anything less than outstanding. You'll have an even harder time finding a David Ruffin fan who -- unlike you -- is familiar with the totality of his work to denigrate his solo material.

Then again, you think chart success is indicative of quality, so...

smooth said:

And with the way the Funk Brothers played, it didn't matter who sang the songs. Would it have been as successful as the original artist, who knows, but it would've been a hit.

Perfect example
I Heard It Through the Grapevine:
Gladys Knight and The Pips sang it first, R&B #1 and Pop #2
Marvin Gaye sang it second,R&B #1 and Pop #1

What you got to say now?

I say typical <smooth> reply...highlight the exception to the norm and pretend that it's somehow representative of the majority of the songs that were released by more than one Motown act. Ignoring reality -- and, in general, anything that disagrees with you -- is your specialty .

Actually, the original argument was that anyone could've sung a Ruffin-led Temptations hit and attained the same result -- as you were attempting to downplay the importance of David Ruffin's lead vocals to the group's success -- but we can play this game, too.

The list of songs released by multiple Motown artists -- all of which featured the Funk Brothers -- that resulted in a commercial flop for either one act or all those who recorded them is substantially longer than the list of songs that were hits for more than one Motown artist...but feel free to continue arguing.

smooth said:

When its clear I make a whole lot of sense because you keep recycling my points.

If by "recycling" you mean "shooting full of holes and exposing the complete idiocy of," then YES...I just "recycled" the hell out of another one of these messes you call posts.


And before you reply with, yet, another one of these gems that either ignores or completely misconstrues what was actually written, perhaps you could finish arguing with yourself...

smooth said:

And David's name in front of The Temptations isn't reasonable at all, it's a joke...

smooth said:

Maybe it was reasonable being that most of The Temptations success can be attributed mainly to David Ruffin,as opposed to groups like the Chi-lites,Take 6, and Boyz II Men who's harmonies were the main reason for there success. So yeah I guess it was reasonable.

smooth said:

Actually my comprehension and reasoning skills are much superior than yours...

Obviously.

[smooth]

I was using the black artists in the 60's as an example,and that's it. And it sounds like you're dense and a baffoon,because I said if you have a huge fan base you can still sell records, because your fan base believes that you can sing, if you ask her fans they will tell you that she can sing.

I mentioned the difficulties faced by black artists in the 60's to prove a point, that grammy's do mean something,I thought that would be clear, but I forgot who I was talking too.

You have downplayed chart positions before, that's a fact, now either you are in denial or you're just that stupid. If I'm not mistaken you said that chart positions don't reflect the quality of the music, and that is downplaying the importance of it, know matter how you look at it.Chart positions do reflect the quality of the music.

I mentioned Milli Vanilli cause DC mentioned them first that's why I even mentioned them.

And I cited the grammy for Cloud Nine and Papa Was a Rolling Stone and the success of Just My Imagination because you said that you were glad David left so he wouldn't have to sing that garbage that they recorded after he left, and by citing these accomplishments that's saying that those recordings weren't garbage.You also said that, that material was forgettable, I disagreed and stated why, are you stuck on stupid, or are you just playing dumb. You have no clue what you're talking about do you?

And also in order to have commercial success, the quality of the music must be good, so your best work and your best accomplishment go hand in hand. The quality of Cloud 9 and Papa Was A Rolling Stone was great, and because of this they received a grammy which is a musical accomplishment.

I already know what disparage means, and I'm sorry if i'm not a geek like you, I do make mistakes, but if I'm not mistaken that word means to diminish or belittle.

Okay is this better, I don't have to belittle the quality of David Ruffin's solo material.I hope that's better.LOL

Actually I am familiar with Ruffin's work, believe it or not,it doesn't matter to me whether you believe me or not.
And if you're not making the charts you're not making it big and if you're not selling, you're not making money, cause then who is coming to your concerts if they aren't buying your music, so the quality is reflected in the chart positions.

I've never downplayed the importance of Ruffin's lead vocals, he had more number 1 hits on lead that any of the other original Tempts, I've always given him his credit, I'm just not on his jock like you. And I never said that whoever sang his song would've achieved just the same result, I said a hit, I didn't say it would reach the same chart success or greater. I said the possibility was there(I believed I used the correct word "there" in this sentence).Try again

The Tempts sang Too Busy Thinking About My Baby first.
Then Marvin Gaye sang it, and it went to number 1.

And in regard to me arguing with myself, I was talking about the subject at hand,I was replying to what somebody else said, and it was whether or not it was reasonable for Ruffin to have his name in front of the group, that isn't arguing you genius, that's stating an opinion. It's like you're fishing for a disagreement.

And about my comprehension skills and reasoning skills I was talking to you.

I'm not trying to argue with you, you're the one who's trying to argue, cause as soon as I reply to somebody else here comes beeg, disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing.

And you did say that the grammy's for CLoud 9 and Papa Was A Rolling Stone weren't there greatest musical contributions. It looks like you're back pedaling faster than a boxer that's about to get knocked out. And these songs after the c5 era are arguably their best work and arguably their greatest musical accomplishments.

[Beej]

LOL...

Okay, now I see your point of view.

[MissTara]

;D

[maria]

beej said:

LOL...

Okay, now I see your point of view.

SHAME ON YOU BEEJ, THAT'S DOWN RIGHT MEAN

[Aba21]

While reading through all this I find some interesting points, but the reason David was fired was because he didn't show up rehersals and shows. People who came to see the Temptations not only came to see David but to see Eddie and Paul as well. If you look back you will see that the most popular Temptation at live events back then was Melvin. Having seen nearly all the incarnations of the group over the years, none compare to the David or Dennis lead groups. People paid to see five Temptations, not four and as much as I love David I would have had to let him go as well. Egos aside, you could not have named them David Ruffin and the Temptations simply because he was not the only lead. He had his run as did Eddie and Dennis and to some degree Paul before David joined the group. I think that when David's turn came they were well on their way to becoming an established big-time group and his leads pushed them over the top. But make no mistake about it, during their live performances, he sang no more than Eddie or Paul and Melvin and even Otis who sang a song or two at the live shows. People think you are somehow denegrating David and his abilities by not agreeing to rename the group or if you choose the side to let him go for his indiscretions. Remember what he did offstage did not get him fired because they all had their vices. Not showing up got him fired, voted out, released, quit or any other term David defenders may want to use. I'm sure his questioning Berry about the "Cooking the Books" didn't work in his favor as well.

[DC]

aba21 said:

While reading through all this I find some interesting points, but the reason David was fired was because he didn't show up rehersals and shows. People who came to see the Temptations not only came to see David but to see Eddie and Paul as well. If you look back you will see that the most popular Temptation at live events back then was Melvin. Having seen nearly all the incarnations of the group over the years, none compare to the David or Dennis lead groups. People paid to see five Temptations, not four and as much as I love David I would have had to let him go as well. Egos aside, you could not have named them David Ruffin and the Temptations simply because he was not the only lead. He had his run as did Eddie and Dennis and to some degree Paul before David joined the group. I think that when David's turn came they were well on their way to becoming an established big-time group and his leads pushed them over the top. But make no mistake about it, during their live performances, he sang no more than Eddie or Paul and Melvin and even Otis who sang a song or two at the live shows. People think you are somehow denegrating David and his abilities by not agreeing to rename the group or if you choose the side to let him go for his indiscretions. Remember what he did offstage did not get him fired because they all had their vices. Not showing up got him fired, voted out, released, quit or any other term David defenders may want to use. I'm sure his questioning Berry about the "Cooking the Books" didn't work in his favor as well.

I absolutely agree. You can't miss rehearsals and/or shows and expect to be in a group. But I just don't like when people try to denigrate his talent as a solo artist. He truly had one of the greatest voices ever and gave 100% on every song. But he didn't have the promotion; period. Do you really think Diana Ross(no disrespect to her, she's definitely a legend) was even on the same planet as Ruff as a vocalist or performer? No way, but her music was always promoted thats the bottom line.

But David (and the rest of the Tempts and fans) had to realize that the C5 were special. They had a unique chemistry that can never be duplicated again. Theres no guarantee you're going to make it in this business, so when you find something that works you stick with it. I understand David might have been cut from a different cloth because he was a solo performer before he joined the Tempts but you can't let that go to your head because you can be (and he was replaced). Now did any other lead singer in the Tempts have the impact David had? Absolutely not. But he was still replaced. But once again his solo material is incredible and truly shows how talented he was. Motown just didn't promote him.

[Aba21]

dc said:

aba21 said:

While reading through all this I find some interesting points, but the reason David was fired was because he didn't show up rehersals and shows. People who came to see the Temptations not only came to see David but to see Eddie and Paul as well. If you look back you will see that the most popular Temptation at live events back then was Melvin. Having seen nearly all the incarnations of the group over the years, none compare to the David or Dennis lead groups. People paid to see five Temptations, not four and as much as I love David I would have had to let him go as well. Egos aside, you could not have named them David Ruffin and the Temptations simply because he was not the only lead. He had his run as did Eddie and Dennis and to some degree Paul before David joined the group. I think that when David's turn came they were well on their way to becoming an established big-time group and his leads pushed them over the top. But make no mistake about it, during their live performances, he sang no more than Eddie or Paul and Melvin and even Otis who sang a song or two at the live shows. People think you are somehow denegrating David and his abilities by not agreeing to rename the group or if you choose the side to let him go for his indiscretions. Remember what he did offstage did not get him fired because they all had their vices. Not showing up got him fired, voted out, released, quit or any other term David defenders may want to use. I'm sure his questioning Berry about the "Cooking the Books" didn't work in his favor as well.

I absolutely agree. You can't miss rehearsals and/or shows and expect to be in a group. But I just don't like when people try to denigrate his talent as a solo artist. He truly had one of the greatest voices ever and gave 100% on every song. But he didn't have the promotion; period. Do you really think Diana Ross(no disrespect to her, she's definitely a legend) was even on the same planet as Ruff as a vocalist or performer? No way, but her music was always promoted thats the bottom line.

But David (and the rest of the Tempts and fans) had to realize that the C5 were special. They had a unique chemistry that can never be duplicated again. Theres no guarantee you're going to make it in this business, so when you find something that works you stick with it. I understand David might have been cut from a different cloth because he was a solo performer before he joined the Tempts but you can't let that go to your head because you can be (and he was replaced). Now did any other lead singer in the Tempts have the impact David had? Absolutely not. But he was still replaced. But once again his solo material is incredible and truly shows how talented he was. Motown just didn't promote him.

Not to say others in the group never missed a day at work, but he was the star. I doubt very seriously that Otis missing work and David missing work had the same impact. However, it is what it is. If you are a member of a team, you play as a team, you win as a team and you lose as a team. If you no longer want to be part of a team then its time for you to go or for you to quit.

David's solo work was very good. And you're right he was not promoted. But he also was difficult to work with during this time. He still missed recording sessions and shows. But his lack of promotion was a direct result of how Berry felt about his actions in the group. You cannot miss a show that the Boss is sitting in the front row at not expect there to be some kind of repercusion.

As good as he was solo, he was better in the group. Same can be said of Eddie, IMO.

[tman2429]

I have often wondered if david and others really knew how the fans viewed The Temptations. What I mean is that when I was comming up, we loved the Temptations. We knew David was outstanding but we loved the Temptations. We loved all Five. We did not want any of them to leave the group. Including Otis. We saw them a five individuals that made up one. We had our favorites but we loved them all. They were the baddest, coolest, suavest singingest, dancingest, dressinges guys around. We never dreamed of them being separate. However, we never thought that David was so good that The Temptations should have been David Ruffin and the Temptations. If that were true, it could have been Paul Williams and the Temptations, or Eddie And the Temptations. in the same vein as harold Melvin and the Blue Notes it could have Been Otis Williams and the Tempations or Melvin. No, it was the Tempations. It was the Image. it was the Uniqueness. Thats how myself and the people I came up with saw it. Five Tall T's. I don't think that David knew how important he was to the group and how special the group was. It's hard for me to see not wanting to be in a group like that. Not wanting to rehearse with a group like that. To be part of the best there ever was or at that time. Since he did not understand or see it that way, I would have had to agree to let him go. What we had was much more than he could see. As for his solo career. He had hits. in the business, you can be a drug addict, A wife abuser, A cheat, and so on and you still can have hit records. I no there is a limit but I don't think David crossed it because He still had potential to bring in money. I Think that people did not know how to write for him. Most of his solo stuff was terrible. He could always sing as is evidence by his last album with Eddie. He still had the goods but when he left the Tempts his material was not all that great. When he got someting good it was a hit. Now if you don't have hits and you have a bad attitude and work ethics you are not going to last long. The points I make are My opinions and maybe not facts.

T.