|
Post by sukkafu on Jan 26, 2003 4:06:25 GMT -5
so maybe it was sickle cell instead of alcohol and maybe it was murder instead of suicide. before he died, the bottom line seemed to be that paul wasn't physically able to go on as a temptation. he probably was very upset with his limitations. melvin might have been upset with his increasingly difficult days but melvin seemed to will himself on.and then pass on. paul may have had a lower thresh hold than melvin.who knows.
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jan 27, 2003 1:30:45 GMT -5
But they stuck with Melvin,didn't stick with Paul !
|
|
|
Post by iratherlikeme on Jan 27, 2003 3:34:44 GMT -5
Mike, how did you know that's what I was thinking? I didn't want to say that, though.
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Jan 27, 2003 3:52:18 GMT -5
i wish they had stuck by paul. i don't know if that would've kept him alive for a long time but you never know- a broken hearted person goes quicker.
|
|
|
Post by iratherlikeme on Jan 27, 2003 7:13:34 GMT -5
OT:In my sociology class, my instructor talked about a book in which the author investigated suicide rates. Like, there was a higher rate of suicide during time of peace than time of war and higher rate of suicide for unmarried people than married people. The link between those was social integration, a togetherness of sorts. During times of war the country's people band together. In marriage, you have someone to lean on if you feel you can't stand by yourself.
What I'm saying is that sometimes when there are suicides, the victims don't feel as if they have anyone to depend on for support. They might have if they'd only ventured to look, but in the moment it took to pull the trigger, they didn't feel that way.
Did that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jan 27, 2003 11:00:40 GMT -5
First I must say I agree with Mike that they should have stuck by Paul. But there was a difference. Paul was unable to sing and dance due to his illness. His illness was much more severe than Melvin's. Melvin could still sing even if he couldn't dance. I don't how many times Paul attempted to perform in a state of drunkeness but I never saw him perform that way. I never saw him perform in anyway that wasn't top notch. Of course I wasn't there all the time. I find it hard to believe that they would have made Paul stop performing if he physically could have gotten up there and done it. I think the decision to stop Paul from performing was as much a doctor's decision as it was anybody in the group deciding. Be that as it may, we don't know if he was ever able to physically go back and perform. Those are the questions. It's not just somebody saying Paul can't do it and we don't want him back. No one can answer the question that if he could they would have let him back in in Richard's place, but I would hope that they would have because he was one of the best.
|
|
|
Post by iratherlikeme on Jan 27, 2003 11:27:31 GMT -5
Well, Aba, I think Mike said it in one of the best possible ways!
;D
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jan 27, 2003 12:34:17 GMT -5
IRLM,
|
|
|
Post by iratherlikeme on Jan 27, 2003 14:52:28 GMT -5
Mike: ;D
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Jan 27, 2003 18:00:34 GMT -5
i guess i'm chopped liver! as you all know, i've been a paul hater and disser since day one. all my posts and threads have proven that! mike, sometimes it seems to me you like to start fires even when there's no fuel! paul was not a second class singer, second rate entertainer, second string quarterback, second hand news. i was talking about SEQUENCING IN A SONG, not ranking in the group or importance or quality! i was referring to why paul was second voice on MAJOR MAJOR hits! not on ''the 3rd remake of rudolph!'' well, sometimes we need to juice up these threads i guess.
|
|
|
Post by earthangel on Jan 27, 2003 18:47:40 GMT -5
Sukka, I know you're not a Paul hater. (If you were I'd have to get you with that stick ;D).
But you know my family thinks that Otis show favoritism. In the scene right before they record "Just My Imagination", and the scene before, Otis makes it clear that they will take the tour rather or not Paul is up to it. But when Melvin gets shot, he insisted on not going to tour Europe. (Until Melvin talked him out of it). Now I know fo sho that this movie is inaccurate in a lot of ways, and this might not have been the case. But was it?
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jan 27, 2003 22:05:33 GMT -5
Earth....I don't know if that scene was real or not but I know they performed without Melvin on a number shows. It seem that maybe during those times they were afraid to do a show without the greatest bass singer in the world. The Temptations sound is defined by the top and the bottom and that usually meant Eddie and Melvin. Up until that point that had not perfomed as a foursome and probably hadn't considered it. Necessity mandated that action. I've seen them perform as a foursome and Dennis can sing bass as well as ALi did on certain performances.
As far as the scene,if you remember Otis said they would go on the tour because Richard could do Paul's parts. They would still be a quintet. Without Melvin...........
To answer your question about favortism, I can see that being the case. Mel and O were the best of friends from the start.
|
|
|
Post by sukkafu on Jan 27, 2003 23:07:13 GMT -5
which is why the miniseries portrayed eddie as poopie's best friend. eddie was like a brother.
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jan 28, 2003 1:06:49 GMT -5
Ain't No Smoke Without Fire! ;D I don't want people to get the wrong idea. There are people who post on this board who were not even born when Paul was a Tempt . I didn't tell you to say "second banana". You could have found another way to say what you wanted to say . Paul was as important to the Temptations as David,Eddie or Dennis. Paul was not hung up on stardom.To the people who saw him perform,he was very much a LEAD SINGER and we were never denied his turn at lead. There has been many things written about Paul and it seems to me that people forgot his talent . Well I'm here to remind them . And will remind them when they need reminding !
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jan 28, 2003 1:08:45 GMT -5
Question: Does anyone question Harry's "illness" ?
|
|