The Temptations: Band Members

In 1965 The Temptations hit the big time with what they call their national anthem "My Girl". David Ruffin was on lead vocals and backing him up were Otis Williams, Paul Williams, Melvin Franklin and Eddie Kendricks.

One has to go back to 1968 to find the last time that particular line up of the group performed together and the death of Paul Williams in 1973 ensured we'd never see this line up again.

40 years after we'd last seen that line up I went to see The Temptations in concert myself. I was asked how someone my age had heard of The Temptations, mostly by people who were too young themselves to remember them in their 60s heyday. Another reaction I got though was that these weren't the real Temptations, more like a tribute act.

By this point Otis Williams was the only member of the "My Girl" line up who was still alive and he was part of this new line up I was going to see. David Ruffin left in 1968 and Eddie Kendricks and Paul Williams left in 1971 whilst Melvin Franklin remained with the group until his death in 1995.

The question is if the lineup of The Temptations I saw in 2008 wasn't the real Temptations then when did the real Temptations cease to exist?

I think we'd all agree it wasn't 1968 when David Ruffin left given the number of big hits they were still having and the fact his replacement Dennis Edwards was considered an important enough member to be part of their induction to the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame.

Some may say 1971 when they were down to just 2 original members but then that would be saying "Papa Was A Rolling Stone", one of their biggest hits wasn't by the real Temptations.

Maybe it was 1995 when they went down to just 1 original member. Then again current member Ron Tyson joined in 1983 and sang on their 80s comeback record "Treat Her Like A Lady", so that would be saying he was a real Temptation for the first 12 years but not in the 31 years since. In fact he was in the group with Otis and Melvin for longer than any of the other "My Girl" line up members were.

OK I get it, the line up in 2008 wasn't ideal. Whilst Otis Williams was always considered the group leader, from a singing perspective if you had to pick a member from the "My Girl" line up to be missing from the stage then he would be it.

Similarly whilst Melvin Franklin was a very talented bass singer he rarely took the lead which rightly or wrongly is what the audience are usually interested in. Without David Ruffin, Eddie Kendricks, Paul Williams or Dennis Edwards in the group it can be likened to a rock band with only the drummer from their heyday remaining.

Also in 2008 Dennis Edwards, Richard Street and Damon Harris were all still alive so it was still possible to be just 1 member short of the "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" line up. All 3 have since passed away so this is no longer possible.

All of this aside the fact is The Temptations have never been consistent in their line ups. The "My Girl" line up lasted just 4 years as did the "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" line up. The line up I saw in 2008 lasted 8 years and is currently the longest the group has ever gone with the same line up.

Ron Tyson has now been in the group for 43 years, longer than anyone but Otis Williams. Terry Weeks has been in it for 29 years, just 5 years less than Melvin Franklin was. You'd think after this amount of time they'd be considered proper Temptations now.

For some no Eddie Kendricks means no Temptations and if that's what they think then fair enough. The current line up though is the official continuation of the group so your choice is accept this line up and enjoy the show or accept you're never going to see The Temptations in concert.

Unpopular Opinion: David Bowie

This is the first in an occasional series of posts where I talk about music I seem to be in the minority for liking or disliking.

I begin with perhaps the most unpopular opinion I have. David Bowie is one of the most successful artists the world has ever seen. Some say when The Beatles called it a day he was the one to fill the gap they left behind. Yet I honestly don't see the appeal.

My music memories begin in 1987 and this was the year David Bowie released his "Never Let Me Down" album. The album was a flop and I have no recollection of the singles from it. This started a 6 year hiatus for David Bowie the artist and as such as we entered the 90s I'd still never heard of him.

When I became a Queen fan following the death of Freddie Mercury in 1991 I finally became aware of David Bowie thanks to "Under Pressure". My first impression of David Bowie was a positive one.

By the time of his comeback in 1993 I'd become more aware of David Bowie the person at least though not sure I knew too much of his music. Whilst my peers would give me stick for liking Queen mainly because they were old hate, David Bowie was considered one of the pioneers you should respect.

I don't recall too many people heaping praise on his 1993 singles and they were a bit of a non-entity for me. When Nirvana covered "The Man Who Sold The World" later on in the year this was seen as a David Bowie song you should like, and indeed it's not bad.

A lot of praise I was hearing for David Bowie in general was how he pushed the boundaries with his image rather than how groundbreaking his music was. I'd seen the pictures and knew of the Ziggy Stardust persona, I could imagine how strange that might have been in the 70s but don't necessarily see it as a good thing.

Into the late 90s the David Bowie I was seeing was an old duffer trying to be down with the kids. He teamed up with the Pet Shop Boys on "Hallo Spaceboy" and then did the drum & bass record "Little Wonder" which I thought was crap.

I can't place a point in time on this but I recall a TV advert for some greatest hits compilation of his and there was a clip of "Space Oddity" and "Starman". Both songs sounded quite good from the clips but after hearing in full they're not bad but not as good as the clips suggest.

At the same time this is as good as it gets when it comes to his music. He does have catchy numbers such as "Let's Dance" but I've always found that one irritating. The majority of his music is neither catchy or interesting in my opinion, it just sort of exists. It's almost like it's the image that does the talking and the music is secondary.

Yet the best song he's ever written is one he gave away to someone else. I'm talking about "All The Young Dudes" by Mott The Hoople. He knew how to write a good song then, but most of what he did write just isn't my cup of tea.

Music & Politics

On this blog I've given a lot of opinions to the extent you may have a good idea what I make think about some of the music I'm yet to comment on.

What you won't know from reading this blog alone are my political views. Why would you? this is a blog about music and the party I plan to vote for at the next election bears no relevance.

The big story in the music world at the moment is that rapper Macklemore has given a political speech whilst supporting Ed Sheeran in concert which has caused a stir. He's been removed from the Ed Sheeran tour as a result and now every support act has pulled out of the tour in support of Macklemore. Meanwhile Ed Sheeran has lost a fraction of his Instagram followers.

Musicians like the rest of us have their own political views, some are quite vocal about them whilst others stay quiet. At the end of the day though they're musicians not political commentators. 

It could be argued that the rave scene was political but the message here was quite clear. It was people from all walks of life uniting against the government because they wanted a party. Nobody was saying which way to vote, or which side to take in a war between 2 foreign countries.

These days though some of the DJs from back in the day are doing just that. Look at some of their social media pages and you'll find very little about music and a lot of airing their political views. Then there's the bickering between DJs at different ends of the political spectrum.

Peace, love and unity sounds great in theory but at the end of the day we all have different views and opinions political or otherwise. The reality is that when you gather thousands of people together at a music event the only thing that unites everybody there is the music.

That's the power of music, it alone unites people. Start preaching things that have nothing to do with music and you will inevitably divide them.

At the end of the day I go to a music event for the music. I've been at gigs where between the music the act I'm seeing gives a view or opinion and whether I agree or not I think just shut up and get on with the music.

RIP Top 40 Rap

I have a music quiz coming up. I'm confident I'll get most if not all 20th century questions correct but will struggle with the modern stuff. To help prepare I went to the current Top 40 on the Official Charts website where you can listen to a 30 second clip of each Top 40 hit.

It goes without saying that it was all terrible but one thing I noticed was there was no rap music.

In the last decade of so I've considered rap to be the silver lining in the Top 40. For the most part it's been the most prolific genre in the Top 40 to the point when I did my Top 40 Leaderboard posts I'd take a look at what percentage of the Top 40 new entries in the year so far were rap.

Not that I was a huge fan of the rap music that was getting into the Top 40 but more a case of it being after my time that anything else.

When you think of the main genres in the charts in years gone by there was always a mix of credible music and commercial fodder. Dance fans weren't into 2 Unlimited, rap fans weren't into Will Smith, R&B fans weren't into Destiny's Child etc. 

Somewhere along the way it was just your modern equivalents of 2 Unlimited or Destiny's Child charting from the dance and R&B worlds getting into the Top 40 but rap wise it went beyond your modern equivalent of Will Smith.

You had for example D-Block Europe who clocked up 30 Top 40 hits in the space of 5 years. Admittedly I couldn't name one of those hits top of my head and what I heard of them sounded rather boring but to their credit they didn't sound commercial in the slightest. 

Then again maybe I'm just old and out of touch. Maybe they were part of the problem of rap becoming too commercial and now we're seeing the inevitable backlash.

What is the music of the moment now then?

Based on the evidence I've just head I'm not really sure. Seemed to be mostly females with annoying voices so whatever genre that is.

Curse of the 6

One thing I learned when watching the Top of the Pops documentary before they started the reruns was that 1976 was widely considered to be a low point for music.

Watching the reruns starting in 1976 I could understand why. Brotherhood of Man were number one week after week with the god awful "Save Your Kisses For Me" and there were some long forgotten songs on the show that were laughably bad.

It was a time when early 70s movements such as glam rock were fizzling out but punk was yet to come along and bring music into a new era. It wasn't all doom and gloom though, bands like ELO were releasing great records but there were a number of Top of the Pops episodes where the only decent song was the ELO one.

Thinking about it though it wasn't just 1976 where music took a downturn. In fact it started a trend of music taking a downturn in years ending with 6.

1986

Many consider the big four of 80s pop to be Duran Duran, Spandau Ballet, Culture Club and Wham! but by 1986 all four had their best days behind them.

Wham! went their separate ways in 1986 and whether you liked them or not this left a gap in the pop world. Culture Club and Spandau Ballet meanwhile had seen their popularity dwindle. Both had been absent from the charts in 1985 and the longevity of their 1986 hits suggests they were yesterdays news by 1986. Duran Duran did manage to make the Top 10 with their only 1986 hit "Notorious" but this was a turning point of making the Top 10 most of the time to failing to reach the Top 10 most of the time.

In the synth pop world you had the likes of OMD and Ultravox having their final hits of the 80s which had nowhere near the impact their early 80s hits had.

Whilst the music that was big in the early 80s was no more it was also a time before the Stock Aitken & Waterman dominance of the late 80s had kicked in.

Topping the charts were novelty records such as "The Chicken Song" by Spitting Image and "Every Loser Wins" by Eastenders actor Nick Berry. There were also universally hated songs such as "Lady In Red" by Chris De Burgh and "I Want To Wake Up With You" by Boris Gardner.

1996

Admittedly this is more a personally view than a universal one. Don't get me wrong there were a lot of good things about 1996 but it was nowhere near as good as 1995 which was the best year I lived through.

Historically it had been the norm for a record to enter the lower reaches of the charts and then climb its way to number one. By the end of 1994 just 38 records had gone straight to number one. In 1996 alone 19 of the 24 number ones that year went straight in. In fact simply going up in the charts had become a bit of a rarity.

The ultimate low for me in 1996 was one of the records that did climb to number one, the Spice Girls debut. It's not just the Spicemania that came with it. There's the long lasting damage it did to pop music. They proved you could sell any old rubbish with the right marketing so that's exactly what people did thereafter.

2006

One of the positives of records entering the charts at their peak before quickly exiting the charts was the increase in quantity of Top 40 hits giving you more to choose from.

By 2006 though the landscape had changed. People were downloading records instead of buying CD singles and this got factored into the charts, something the charts have arguably never recovered from.

As a consequence we went from 598 new entries in the Top 40 in 2005 to 465 in 2006. Still a decent number but was the beginning of a downward trend and only leaving room in the Top 40 for the commercial fodder and not the good stuff.

The most significant event of 2006 though was the end of Top of the Pops. Viewership had already been in decline but the move to Sunday nights was the final nail in the coffin. For me personally I'd gone from always knowing what was number one to rarely knowing.

2016

By 2016 downloading was old hat, streaming was the way people were consuming music. The inclusion of streaming in the charts lowered the quantity of Top 40 hits even further.

In 2016 there were just 168 new entries in the Top 40 which at the time of writing is the lowest there's been in a single year in the Top 40 era.

It wasn't just the small quantity of new entries overall, it was also the large quantity of new entries from individual artists. Historically 4 new entries in a year from a single artist was considered a lot. In 2016 Drake had 8 and Beyonce and The Weeknd had 7 meaning even less variety.

One of Drakes records spend 15 weeks at number one but barely anyone noticed. Many people don't even know the song in question and whilst I have heard it I couldn't hum it.

2026

There's still time for music to turn the corner this year but I wouldn't hold my breath.

We're comfortably over halfway through the year and it's still not clear exactly what 2026 music is. A big factor here is that for 23 weeks this year a song that first charted in mid-2025 has been number one and it's a song I've never knowingly heard.

It's still possible that this year will have the fewest new entries in the Top 40 era. The highest new entry (not re-entry) this week is "9-5" by Dolly Parton, a song that's 46 years old that didn't chart the first time round.

We've also had "Human Nature" by Michael Jackson charting for the first time. Not only does this not put new music in a good light but it's also ruining chart history because the well known songs that never charted are now charting.

Celebrity Popmaster TV

After it seeming Popmaster TV was ending it's now back for a new series and kicked off with a celebrity special. All 5 celebrities who took part were in the music business so you'd assume they'd have good knowledge but I think it's fair to say none of them covered themselves in glory.

The first contestant to be eliminated was Carol Decker from T'Pau. Although she only got 1 question correct in the first round (none got more than 2) I had her down as one to make it to the final round after the first round. However her weakness seemed to be not being quick enough on the buzzer in the second round.

Next was Shaun Ryder who came across as someone who knows what they know and doesn't care about anything else. A question I was surprised he got wrong though was naming the guest vocalist on "Getting Away With It" by Electronic. They were label mates of the Happy Mondays and this came out when the Happy Mondays were breaking through into the mainstream.

Next was Patsy Kensit who I thought was lucky to get as far as she did. She came across as someone who didn't really have much interest in music and seemed the least knowledgeable of them. However the tiebreak question that eliminated her seemed a little unfair.

The contestant who correctly answered the tiebreak question was Kelle Bryan from Eternal. The question was which member of Boyzone has the surname Duffy. Eternal and Boyzone no doubt crossed paths many times in the 90s, in fact a Boyzone member was married to an Eternal member at the time so this would have been a really easy question for Kelle.

Kelle didn't score a single point in the final round. Normally on the radio version at least Ken would give the contestant help on the final question so they don't score zero. This time he couldn't do that though because the winning contestant, Dougie Vipond from Deacon Blue only scored 3 points.

Then I thought should any of this be a surprise?

In the early 90s on the TV show "Don't Forget Your Toothbrush" a musician guest would go head to head with their biggest fan to answer questions about themselves. If I remember correctly it would often be the fan who'd win.

I guess being knowledgeable about music doesn't mean you're any good at making music and being good at the drums doesn't require knowing a bit of pop trivia. 

Blue Dot Fever

I've heard the term "Blue Dot Fever" been mentioned a few times recently. I thought it was either some sort of illness or a term youngsters use these days which I won't understand.

Turns out it's neither. It's actually musicians cancelling tours or concerts because they've not sold enough tickets. The blue dots refer to the available seats on the venue maps on the ticketing websites.

I'm possibly contributing to this because I don't go to concerts nearly as much as I used to. I've not suddenly stopped liking it but the reality is it ain't what it used to be.

25 years ago the experience was something along these lines. You'd go to a box office with a £20 note to hand over. In return you were given a ticket to a concert of your choice and maybe a bit of change. On the day itself you'd take your ticket and a £20 note and arrive at opening time. At this point you showed your ticket to get inside and then use your £20 note to buy a few beers and soak up the atmosphere before watching whoever you chose to see. You'd leave the venue with some change in your pocket and if you had a good enough time you'd buy some merchandise, a poster perhaps with your change.

Somewhere along the way the drinks prices went up and the quality of the beer went down. As far as I remember the beer prices at concert venues 25 years ago were similar to those in the pub. If they were more expensive it wasn't by enough to make me notice. I do remember the first place I spent more than £5 for a pint was at a gig.

As a result the experience changed to have several beers from the shop first then arriving at the gig later. The ticket was no longer for the whole evening, it was for the time the act you wanted to see was on stage.

OK there came a point when I decided to no longer drink at a concert, the price of a beer at The O2 (currently £9.50 if the internet is to be believed) reached the point of me vowing to never buy a drink there again.

The wider issue that affects everyone though is the price of the tickets themselves and the fact that in some cases they're not actually tickets. Any venue that requires me to download an app rather than send me and actual ticket (e-tickets acceptable) doesn't deserve my custom.

You hear about dynamic pricing which is only ever going to put people off. Set a price and I'll decide whether it's worth paying or not. 

The fact of the matter is that bands like Oasis are so popular they can get away with expensive tickets, dynamic pricing etc. but very few music acts are that popular.

A quick scan of the listings at London venues tells me that there's no must see concerts happening in the near future but there are a few in the would be nice category and the prices here actually aren't too bad for the most part.

I did however stumble across Saint Etienne at Shepherds Bush Empire. This venue is at the smaller end of the major London venues and a ticket here will set you back around £75.

I've seen Saint Etienne in concert a few times and for the most part enjoyed them. When I heard they were calling it a day I thought it would be nice to see them one last time but I've seen them enough times for it to be fine if I don't. At £75 I'm certainly not going.

It looks like the last time I saw them in concert was in 2017 which cost £27.50. I would expect the price to go up a little bit in 9 years but not almost 3 times as much. Even the price of a pint in The O2 hasn't gone up by that much.

Lets say the people who spend £20 to go to a gig years ago are now willing to pay £100 a ticket. Back then if you had £100 to spend on tickets you could go to 5 gigs. Put the price up to £100 that person isn't suddenly going to have £500 to spend. They have to pick 1 gig and the other 4 music acts miss out on their custom.