|
|
Post by Aba21 on Sept 21, 2003 21:31:27 GMT -5
Oh, I agree with you, Aba...see my second post. Was just trying to add a modified perspective from what *I* feel might have been going on with David and the group, from the reading I've done and interviews I've listened to. i just saw your second post.........that was the difference between David and the others....he was not afraid to take a risk whether it was singing or anything else and though some of them may have been ill-advised, the only way to make change to to do something and he did. Now all the powers that controlled his fate in the group had to be scared and so they could not afford to have such an obstinate person in their mist so having him by the ba......er...... screws contractually, it was an easy decision what to do and they used him and Mary Wells as examples to any of the others who fed into that line of thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Sept 21, 2003 21:32:42 GMT -5
Oh, I agree with you, Aba...see my second post. Was just trying to add a modified perspective from what *I* feel might have been going on with David and the group, from the reading I've done and interviews I've listened to. i just saw your second post.........that was the difference between David and the others....he was not afraid to take a risk whether it was singing or anything else and though some of them may have been ill-advised, the only way to make change to to do something and he did. Now all the powers that controlled his fate in the group had to be scared and so they could not afford to have such an obstinate person in their mist so having him by the ba......er...... screws contractually, it was an easy decision what to do and they used him and Mary Wells as examples to any of the others who fed into that line of thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Sept 21, 2003 21:34:27 GMT -5
i just saw your second post.........that was the difference between David and the others....he was not afraid to take a risk whether it was singing or anything else and though some of them may have been ill-advised, the only way to make change to to do something and he did. Now all the powers that controlled his fate in the group had to be scared and so they could not afford to have such an obstinate person in their mist so having him by the ba......er...... screws contractually, it was an easy decision what to do and they used him and Mary Wells as examples to any of the others who fed into that line of thinking. My thoughts EXACTLY...thank you  . I think he possibly hoped that the others in the group would follow his lead, but as you said, they were scared of what might happen to them if they did. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Sept 21, 2003 21:59:02 GMT -5
Kalisa the other jobs you speak of aren't Entertainment or Professional Sports where the possibility of going somewhere else to work doing the same thing is available if you quit. Had i quit my team I would have had no other options in the US to ply my specialty to make the money I was looking for. That's what i meant...David had no barganing chip in that way. What was he gonna do?........say I quit and am going to sing with the Spinners.....i think not.........so in that regard only he had no where to go and though he may have been willing to risk it all.....the others were scared of what might occur if it didn't work. Didn't Baseball go on strike? Didn't the NBA go on strike? What about the Screen Actors Guild? Aren't they Sports & Entertainment?  Trying to better yourself is never a step down.....the strong give up and move on...the weak give up and stay! Do What You Wanna Do....But ,Be What You Are! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Sept 21, 2003 22:04:36 GMT -5
Didn't Baseball go on strike? Didn't the NBA go on strike? What about the Screen Actors Guild? Aren't they Sports & Entertainment? Trying to better yourself is never a step down.....the strong give up and move on...the weak give up and stay! Do What You Wanna Do....But ,Be What You Are! ;D they went on strike because they were not afraid to because they had other options that would pay them the big bucks......baseball in Japan........basketball in Italy. But before then our sport had never had a strike for that reason alone. No one wanted to give up what they were making for an uncertain future. |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Sept 21, 2003 22:07:45 GMT -5
they went on strike because they were not afraid to because they had other options that would pay them the big bucks......baseball in Japan........basketball in Italy. But before then our sport had never had a strike for that reason alone. No one wanted to give up what they were making for an uncertain future. Isn't there also a point to be made about strength in numbers? or maybe "safety in numbers"? The NBA or the SAG isn't Kobe Bryant or Sally Field going on strike alone... |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Sept 21, 2003 22:11:18 GMT -5
Isn't there also a point to be made about strength in numbers? or maybe "safety in numbers"? The NBA or the SAG isn't Kobe Bryant or Sally Field going on strike alone... the reason why it is so hard to get those numbers is because the pay scale is so unbalanced and Sally and Kobe can withstand a prolonged strike financially, whereas bench players and character acters cannot. The risk is being taken ususally by those who can't afford the risk otherwise they wouldn't be thinking of striking in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Sept 21, 2003 22:13:31 GMT -5
the reason why it is so hard to get those numbers is because the pay scale is so unbalanced and Sally and Kobe can withstand a prolonged strike financially, whereas bench players and character acters cannot. The risk is being taken ususally by those who can't afford the risk otherwise they wouldn't be thinking of striking in the first place. I'm just trying to say to Mike that David Ruffin going on strike alone, without his groupmates joining the effort, wouldn't/didn't/couldn't have the effect of the whole group...the Biggest Group in the World...sticking together to make their point. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Sept 21, 2003 22:50:04 GMT -5
I'm just trying to say to Mike that David Ruffin going on strike alone, without his groupmates joining the effort, wouldn't/didn't/couldn't have the effect of the whole group...the Biggest Group in the World...sticking together to make their point. You don't have to tell me that...I know that....why do you think Eddie thought Otis was a butt-kisser? Eddie wanted to go on strike...for more money and better songs...for the G.R.O.U.P. not just for himself! |
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Sept 21, 2003 23:47:30 GMT -5
Maybe Otis was kissing butt for the group. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Sept 22, 2003 10:45:20 GMT -5
Maybe Otis was kissing butt for the group. ;D I do not agree at all with that point of view. Otis had a though position as the "speaker" of the group, but somehow he loved the easy way out of problems, it appears. See, Holland, Dozier, and Holland went on strike around the same time as David caused his trouble. They were denied $ 22 Million!!! for work they had delivered. Can you imagine, how much money that was back in the sixties? (I remember converting dollars into DM at a rate of 4:1). And David said in one of his interviews that the group members got $ 500 each for an evening when they actually made $10 000. Otis knew that, too and he and the group could have supported David -- Berry would have had bad cards then. I don't think, he would have wanted to see them leave at that point of time. Otis could have negotiated a better deal for the group by showing Berry that the group was united, than by letting David go. I think, he simply lacked the backbone to rise against the giant. (It's easier to lay some girl and bragg about it!) As I said, I wasn't there, and in retrospect everyting looks sooo easy. But still, there were more options available to the group then kicking David out. In addition, I believe that the anger about the treatment David and the others received from Motown contributed much to David's drug problem. Genna writes in her book that around the time when things escalated at Motown, David's violent behavior at home and his drug abuse got out of hand, if I remember correctly. In the book about Marvin Gaye's "What's going on" Marvin also tries a kind of a strike; he, of course, has less problems because he's married to Berry's sister. In Marvin's case, it was the artistic freedom that Motown stifled. Marvin could sit out the time; David could not. AK |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Sept 22, 2003 11:35:07 GMT -5
Maybe Otis was kissing butt for the group. ;D Poor girl....one day..she will wake up! :bonk: |
|
|
|
Post by jusme on Sept 22, 2003 18:36:12 GMT -5
Poor girl....one day..she will wake up!  LOL!!! That's very funny... Angel :angel: |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Sept 23, 2003 12:44:58 GMT -5
LOL!!! That's very funny... Angel  Truth be told....I think it's extremely SAD ! |
|
|
|
Post by AnnaKonda on Sept 23, 2003 14:07:32 GMT -5
Yes Mike, it is very sad. And I only wish that David would have lived to tell the story his way. I would have started a defense fund for him -- because Otis and Berry would have sued their a...s off about the matter. I'm sure of that. AK  |
|
. I think he possibly hoped that the others in the group would follow his lead, but as you said, they were scared of what might happen to them if they did.
