|
Post by citystars on Sept 17, 2010 14:01:49 GMT -5
Hi Common,
I do get what you are saying, however I never did buy into the 'bad' boy image that seems to be attached to DR's legacy. I have read 30 year old articles/interviews where David is eloquent and smart.
As far as O goes, I think he is sleazy and it's really sad to see someone go out of their way to malign those who helped him achieve his success. Let's face it, without David, Paul, Eddie, Melvin and Dennis where would he be?
I just don't understand why he and others are so hellbent on destroying a dead man's reputation. I think it's low and tacky, because DR is not alive to defend himself.
To me, If anyone comes across as arrogrant, disloyal and ungrateful, it is, O and not Ruffin.
|
|
|
Post by Duchess on Sept 17, 2010 15:53:15 GMT -5
Cocaine is a hellva drug, so I believe DR was a f**kin' nightmare to deal with...but then again, so was Marvin Gaye! Because DR was part of a group and not just a solo act, has a lot to do with the way he's portrayed. I believe if DR was never in the Temps but still had success as a solo act, folks wouldn't be sooo hard on him. It's also attitude. DR may have been a humble, respectful cat when he gave interviews or when with the fans, but he just didn't seem like a humble, truly grateful cat in his heart to me. I love DR's voice, and I love his songs, but he is not a dude that I would've wanted to be around for long periods of time (again, that's just me). Forget all the books! Forget all the articles! Forget all the rumors! Forget the Temps' movie....It's all about heart & attitude...it's just a feeling you get about certain people.
|
|
|
Post by citystars on Sept 17, 2010 17:58:59 GMT -5
Hi Duchess,
I get what you are saying too, but I still don't believe and never will believe half of the negative things people have said about David and I am certainly not going to take the word of his ex-band mate who, to me, seems to have an ax to grind and who always appears hellbent on revealing more damaging information about Ruffin while conveniently making himself look like a saint.
What purpose does it serve to now tell this allegedly 'new' David and Tammi story (if it's true) other than to be provocative, sell books and make Ruffin look like a monster and Tammi look foolish and weak. If he was such a loyal band mate as he would like everyone to believe and even if he hated Ruffin, yet respected Tammi, then to me, this story if true, would have been taken to to the grave.
I think O's decision to publicly reveal a 40+ year old story that Tammi may have told to him in confidence, coupled with his willingness to malign his band mates is downright sleazy, shameful and absolutely disgusting and to me reveals the kind of person he truly is.
We can agree to disagree on the articles, but I think they are pertinent because of the ones I have read (dating back to the late 1960s), I have not encountered one where DR trashed any of his band mates (or anyone else for that matter) and that to me says a-lot. As a matter of fact, in some, he explained his version of events and I find what he chooses to reveal very interesting.
City Stars
|
|
Common
Ultimate Ruffness
You Got To Feel It!
Posts: 7,442
|
Post by Common on Sept 17, 2010 19:44:23 GMT -5
Duchess, I agree that cocaine can make people behave badly but not the extent that somebody like O is portraying. I still believe Ruffin is misunderstood. I don't see Ruffin in the way you stated because I think he was much more complex. I think he was torn between alot of things personally and the fame just compounded those issues. Of course, he was probably 'hardheaded' but he didn't have any more 'ego' than half of those Motown stars. Martha Reeves wasn't on 'coke' but she got on BG's nerves constantly. Should she be humble and keep being treated in a manner that she felt was disrespectful to her? I think there were some things at the company, once hits started coming, that made artists feel disrespected and like cogs in the wheel. I feel there were different dynamics and people respond to those dynamics differently.
I tend to agree with citystars that for O to keep rehashing the sleazy, doesn't make him look good either and speaks volumes about his character. It's one thing to say that Ruffin was a pain in the ass, which I think he was too, but O isn't easy either. Forgetting about David, I believe he didn't give a damn about his other groupmates, not even melvin. It's always been about O, who, IMO, has never struck me as 'humble'.
|
|
Common
Ultimate Ruffness
You Got To Feel It!
Posts: 7,442
|
Post by Common on Sept 17, 2010 19:51:44 GMT -5
Hi Duchess, I get what you are saying too, but I still don't believe and never will believe half of the negative things people have said about David and I am certainly not going to take the word of his ex-band mate who, to me, seems to have an ax to grind and who always appears hellbent on revealing more damaging information about Ruffin while conveniently making himself look like a saint. What purpose does it serve to now tell this allegedly 'new' David and Tammi story (if it's true) other than to be provocative, sell books and make Ruffin look like a monster and Tammi look foolish and weak. If he was such a loyal band mate as he would like everyone to believe and even if he hated Ruffin, yet respected Tammi, then to me, this story if true, would have been taken to to the grave. I think O's decision to publicly reveal a 40+ year old story that Tammi may have told to him in confidence, coupled with his willingness to malign his band mates is downright sleazy, shameful and absolutely disgusting and to me reveals the kind of person he truly is. We can agree to disagree on the articles, but I think they are pertinent because of the ones I have read (dating back to the late 1960s), I have not encountered one where DR trashed any of his band mates (or anyone else for that matter) and that to me says a-lot. As a matter of fact, in some, he explained his version of events and I find what he chooses to reveal very interesting. City Stars ITA with your comments about O. It gets to a point when he needs to say 'when'. Must everything be revealed? He didn't do anything to help Tammi from big, bad David so what's the point of him talking about it now? I'm sure alot of other Motown acts have had their share of 'issues' but you don't see them tattling constantly and berating their bandmates, especially dead ones!
|
|
|
Post by Duchess on Sept 17, 2010 20:06:38 GMT -5
Everybody has "issues" and crosses to bear, that doesn't automatically give a person license to act a fool. This book hints around DR being molested by his father, which IF TRUE, would explain a lot. I personally don't think DR's so-called super conceited "ego" was genuine. It seems to me that all his alleged bluster about how great he was and how he made the Temps was just a way to mask his insecurity (Marvin used to do the same thing). DR seemed like a sad, lost, confused man who just wanted to be loved but didn't know how to receive love without trying to sabotage it. I definitely don't think DR was evil, but he had a lot of demons that he seemed content to live with and not really want to change.
Humility to me is not hanging your head down and letting people run all over you. Humility to me means being grateful for your blessings and knowing when to let someone else be in the spotlight.
|
|
Common
Ultimate Ruffness
You Got To Feel It!
Posts: 7,442
|
Post by Common on Sept 17, 2010 20:35:41 GMT -5
Everybody has "issues" and crosses to bear, that doesn't automatically give a person license to act a fool. This book hints around DR being molested by his father, which IF TRUE, would explain a lot. I personally don't think DR's so-called super conceited "ego" was genuine. It seems to me that all his alleged bluster about how great he was and how he made the Temps was just a way to mask his insecurity (Marvin used to do the same thing). DR seemed like a sad, lost, confused man who just wanted to be loved but didn't know how to receive love without trying to sabotage it. I definitely don't think DR was evil, but he had a lot of demons that he seemed content to live with and not really want to change. Humility to me is not hanging your head down and letting people run all over you. Humility to me means being grateful for your blessings and knowing when to let someone else be in the spotlight. I agree with you that a person's issues doesn't mean they can act a fool but at the same time, haven't we all done stupid things as a young person? We tend to forget that these folks were young and that they did a lot of things that weren't right. Must we continually hold that against them? We can't go back and change it so what's the point to keep rehashing it? I agree that David had alot of insecurities and I think he had a lot of trauma in his early life. But it's because of those traumas, it made him the person he became and he didn't nor did he have the tools to show him that things didn't have to be that way. I also don't think he could have lived up to what folks demanded of him. I also don't' think he was content to live with his demons which is why his life was in constant turmoil. I do believe he was searching for some measure of peace but he didn't know how to attain it. I know I'm in the minority with this statement but I think Ruffin had some mental issues. But that's just me. Honestly, I think David had some level of humility. Maybe not in the way folks would think he wasn't, but I think he knew what he had. He just kept listening to the wrong people who meant him no good. I never got the feeling like David wasn't humble or grateful. But your take is gives food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Davidfan on Mar 4, 2011 18:28:12 GMT -5
I think a big part of it is that the Motown Era is one of those times, That people would like to re-live (or re-create if they missed it) much like the hippie 60's or gangster 30's. It's a moment in time people either cherished or have gradure dreams of ... and if you're gonna re-create something, Why not take some of the best (IE - David, TT, and the Supremes)? People harldy every talk about or write about The Contours ... While David and all the other 'well knowns' are talked about vividly. Not to mention that he knew how to party (So he get's noticed and people write about him, unlike Otis who had to write about himself to get noticed). I think it is mostly a matter of people wanting to see fame and live it to act out their inner wants (Same reason people ACTUALLY pay attention to Paris Hilton ) ... It is ingrained in human nature to want the best, or idolize those who have it. Other people ( ) just want to BE the image of what they have created, and can't function outside of it. You can throw rumors and stories, and even fact out there, and noone can question it if there is no one to deny. Whereas there is nothing wrong with discussing a person of celebrity who you either see as a role model, person of historical importantce, or you have known ... There is something wrong with trying to BE them, and there is really something wrong if the only way one can think of to keep their memory alive is through rumor and slander as opposed to looking at the good. Books written in the 3rd (or even 4th) person are usally a scrapbook of rumor that most people can't deny, and this is how 'facts' get started and mis-information is spread. At the very basis of my DR based arsenal I have the core of what is my David knowledge, that is: The singing, The preformer that is clearly stage comfortable, and the friend ... Who was good enough for Eddie and Dennis till the end, Other then that as far as I know ... Everything is speculation.
|
|