Bo and Dennis

[MikeNYC]

Cheech© said:

See, we've never heard Bo unleashed, only under the confines of Otis. When Dennis was there he was a part of the hit machine and the creative process because after all, he was the voice of the very popular tempts. Bo, is not of that era. He has to answer to one guy and get the okay. I think Bo unleashed will be a different story.

With the same outcome...Dennis...by a KNOCKOUT!

[selfishreasons]

MikeNYC said:

Well,I'll tell you,the reason is...the further people look...the less they see. And hear!

They can only see what Otis let's them see. Now, you know that's true.

[Budrocket]

> See, we've never heard Bo unleashed, only under the
> confines of Otis. When Dennis was there he was a part
> of the hit machine and the creative process because after
> all, he was the voice of the very popular tempts. Bo, is not of
> that era. He has to answer to one guy and get the okay. I
> think Bo unleashed will be a different story.

Aside from the obvious question - how do you know what Otis told him to do or not to do - I don't know if singers are necessarily *always* the best judge of what sounds best, there are too many other factors such as what they *like* doing, what makes them feel good, what's easiest, ego, etc. Thom Bell tells a story about working with Phillipe Wynne of the Spinners; when they'd start working on a song, such as "I'll Be Around," Phillipe would riff all over the place & Thom would just let him exhaust himself & get it all out of his system, not recording any of the takes...Phillipe would finally say, "Okay Thom, I'll do it your way," & Thom would reply, "no, not 'my' way, the RIGHT way" (for the song).

Its really hard to be objective about your own stuff...that's what producers are for, & why so few artists are able to successfully (in an artistic or aesthetic sense) produce themselves.

[janebse]

I can think of a lot of singers who want to "do it their way." Now their way may suit some people but not all people. It just depends on how many records you want to sell. They scream, they shout, they make faces. I think the faces are supposed to indicate emotion. It reminds me of authors who use a lot of obscenities believing it will indicate emotion of some sort. Or directors who believe nudity in a love scene indicates love.

I am amazxed that Phillipe Wynne realized Bell's way was better. Most of the time the egoes get in the way, and the singer, the writer, the actor, the director insists on doing it his way...until he sells no books, no records, or gets no acting jobs.

I know many a writer who has become very successful because he has an excellent ediotr. In fact there's a book out now "Foul Matter" that deals with a writer desiring to get this particular excellent editor to work on his books. Thomas Wolfe could write, but he needed his editor, Maxwell Perkins, I believe, to make him graat.

Both Ali Woodson and Theo Peoples have excellent voices, but they love to "do it their way" which may explain why they have never become great successes as solo singers.

[TrueReflection]

janebse said:

I can think of a lot of singers who want to "do it their way." Now their way may suit some people but not all people. It just depends on how many records you want to sell. They scream, they shout, they make faces. I think the faces are supposed to indicate emotion. It reminds me of authors who use a lot of obscenities believing it will indicate emotion of some sort. Or directors who believe nudity in a love scene indicates love.

It's called having SOUL.

[TrueReflection]

Budrocket said:

> Thom Bell tells a story about working with Phillipe Wynne of the Spinners; when they'd start working on a song, such as "I'll Be Around," Phillipe would riff all over the place & Thom would just let him exhaust himself & get it all out of his system, not recording any of the takes...Phillipe would finally say, "Okay Thom, I'll do it your way," & Thom would reply, "no, not 'my' way, the RIGHT way" (for the song).

Philippe did not sing lead on "I'll Be Around" that was Bobbie Smith.

[Budrocket]

Sorry, I was just pulling a title out of the hat without thinking. Say "Rubberband Man," or whatever, the story is still the same.

Thanks for correcting me, though.

[MikeNYC]

janebse said:

I can think of a lot of singers who want to "do it their way." Now their way may suit some people but not all people. It just depends on how many records you want to sell. They scream, they shout, they make faces. I think the faces are supposed to indicate emotion. It reminds me of authors who use a lot of obscenities believing it will indicate emotion of some sort. Or directors who believe nudity in a love scene indicates love.

I am amazxed that Phillipe Wynne realized Bell's way was better. Most of the time the egoes get in the way, and the singer, the writer, the actor, the director insists on doing it his way...until he sells no books, no records, or gets no acting jobs.

I know many a writer who has become very successful because he has an excellent ediotr. In fact there's a book out now "Foul Matter" that deals with a writer desiring to get this particular excellent editor to work on his books. Thomas Wolfe could write, but he needed his editor, Maxwell Perkins, I believe, to make him graat.

Both Ali Woodson and Theo Peoples have excellent voices, but they love to "do it their way" which may explain why they have never become great successes as solo singers.

You know,in away...I kinda agree with Jane on some of this,because Whittfield had a K.I.S.S. system,it meant.."Keep It Simple Stupid" meaning that there was no need for the vocal extremes,riffin' all over the song without keeping in the structure of the song. But I don't know if that's what kept Woodson and Theo from being solo singers,they just weren't that well known to try to be a solo. If they did like Eddie and kept it simple,they would have enjoyed almost as much solo success as Eddie did.

[Budrocket]

Not necessarily. Remember that cat from, like, 20 years ago...what's his name...Sam Harris, won Star Search for doing this maniacal version of "Under The Rainbow," riffing all over the place, hitting every blue note there was, zooming from octave to octave like a rabid fruit bat. He was in all the magazines after that & got a major label deal on the strength of his win.

That didn't make him soulful, it just made him a show-off, & he disappeared back into (IMHO) well-deserved semi-obscurity.

I think the best soul singers instinctively know when to play it close to the vest & when to take off, the fine line between tension & release. If you start on 100% there's nowhere left to go but DOWN.

I think maybe gospel singers have a good sense of this as well, because the object is to glorify their faith, not show off, so it's easier for them to reach that balance.

I'd forgotten about Norman Whitfield's K.I.S.S. theory...mind you, another reason for that is Motown was trying to reach wide cross-over appeal, which would be harder to get if the lead singers were all riffin' too much. And maybe that's why their R&B records were arguably the most successful of that era & everyone's still talking about them today, whereas you don't hear quite as much about folks in the Stax/Volt stable...

[Budrocket]

I was responding to the "It's called having SOUL" post, btw...

[TrueReflection]

Budrocket said:

Sorry, I was just pulling a title out of the hat without thinking. Say "Rubberband Man," or whatever, the story is still the same.

Thanks for correcting me, though.

No problem, was not trying to be smart or anything, I just love the Spinners as much as I love the Tempts, cant help it sometimes lol

[TrueReflection]

Budrocket said:

Not necessarily. Remember that cat from, like, 20 years ago...what's his name...Sam Harris, won Star Search for doing this maniacal version of "Under The Rainbow," riffing all over the place, hitting every blue note there was, zooming from octave to octave like a rabid fruit bat. He was in all the magazines after that & got a major label deal on the strength of his win.

That didn't make him soulful, it just made him a show-off, & he disappeared back into (IMHO) well-deserved semi-obscurity.

I think the best soul singers instinctively know when to play it close to the vest & when to take off, the fine line between tension & release. If you start on 100% there's nowhere left to go but DOWN.

I think maybe gospel singers have a good sense of this as well, because the object is to glorify their faith, not show off, so it's easier for them to reach that balance.

I'd forgotten about Norman Whitfield's K.I.S.S. theory...mind you, another reason for that is Motown was trying to reach wide cross-over appeal, which would be harder to get if the lead singers were all riffin' too much. And maybe that's why their R&B records were arguably the most successful of that era & everyone's still talking about them today, whereas you don't hear quite as much about folks in the Stax/Volt stable...

You are right, sometimes the best soul singers do keep it simple. temptsinfo.com/smilies/wtg.gif

[Budrocket]

> No problem, was not trying to be smart or anything,
> I just love the Spinners as much as I love the Tempts,
> cant help it sometimes lol

Nah man, I appreciate you keepin' me straight!

[MikeNYC]

Budrocket said:

Not necessarily. Remember that cat from, like, 20 years ago...what's his name...Sam Harris, won Star Search for doing this maniacal version of "Under The Rainbow," riffing all over the place, hitting every blue note there was, zooming from octave to octave like a rabid fruit bat. He was in all the magazines after that & got a major label deal on the strength of his win.

That didn't make him soulful, it just made him a show-off, & he disappeared back into (IMHO) well-deserved semi-obscurity.

I think the best soul singers instinctively know when to play it close to the vest & when to take off, the fine line between tension & release. If you start on 100% there's nowhere left to go but DOWN.

I think maybe gospel singers have a good sense of this as well, because the object is to glorify their faith, not show off, so it's easier for them to reach that balance.

I'd forgotten about Norman Whitfield's K.I.S.S. theory...mind you, another reason for that is Motown was trying to reach wide cross-over appeal, which would be harder to get if the lead singers were all riffin' too much. And maybe that's why their R&B records were arguably the most successful of that era & everyone's still talking about them today, whereas you don't hear quite as much about folks in the Stax/Volt stable...

I forgot about Sam Harris,whatever happened to him?
I never looked at it like you presented it. At one time Stax/Volt and Motown had it goin' on! Almost neck&neck.

[Melody]

Shout outs to ((((((((((((EVERYBODY))))))) in this thread!!

Hey (((Cheech))))! LOL@I'll squeeze your hand to let you know it's real!!

Hey (((Budrocket)))! That's an interesting story about (((Phillipe))))!

Hey ((((Jane)))! I'm thinking that Phillipe did it (((Thom)))'s way, cause he was tired of doing it without a take!!

Hey (((Mike)))! I think during the early 70s that (((Eddie))) had his solo career, it was easier to get into a solo career. Plus he had Motown behind him at first. Theo may not have a Sucessful solo career, but the man has it going on so that he has gotten radio play at V103 plus the man has got a slot at Coconuts and Rock Records in downtown Chicago. I don't know how he did it, but that's a Great accomplishment for him to smile about - a position with the Four Tops plus a slot a the records stores.

(((Sam))) performed on the PBS Special that the Tempts were on at the end of 2001.

Have a HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYBODY!! TTYAL!