Tags
Motown M 1085 (A), November 1965
b/w Twinkle Twinkle Little Me
(Written by Isabelle Freeman and Harvey Fuqua)
It’s tempting to track the story of Motown via the story of the Supremes; by now firmly esconced as the company’s flagship act, the biggest-selling artist on the biggest-selling label in America, in 1965/66 the ladies were pushed far beyond normal limits of productivity, becoming the company’s most prolific act too. That productivity isn’t merely confined to them pumping out album after album (though there’s certainly a lot of that), it extended to 45s as well: this is one of an astonishing 22 – TWENTY-TWO – Supremes sides for us to consider here on Motown Junkies for the 12 months between February 1965 and February 1966. It’s a wonder they ever got any sleep.
Some of the material they cut was pop manna for the ages; some of it was crudely-shaped filler designed to bulk out side-project albums of covers; and some of it was shameless square peg/round hole opportunism, Motown simply press-ganging the Supremes into fronting whatever random profile-raising thing they’d signed up for, needing famous faces for an employment rights PSA or a cheapie film soundtrack theme. Or a Christmas tie-in novelty single, perhaps.
I’m not really sure how to take this. Motown didn’t have much of a Christmas tradition as 1965 drew to a close (an abortive attempt at pushing a Miracles LP of holiday-themed tunes back in ’63 had fizzled out in unspectacular fashion, and the less said about Ray Oddis’ execrable Randy The Newspaper Boy the better), and it seems 50/50 as to whether Motown’s motivation was in going back to the Yuletide market was benign or cynical. Is this meant as a little treat – a gift for Supremes fans, a glorified fan club record à la Beatles, Merry Christmas from your new favourite group? Or is it less laudable, a craven attempt by Motown to wedge the door open and get back into a crowded (and hitherto largely untapped) source of extra dollars with a particularly shoddy offering?
LOGS ON THE FIRE, GIFTS BY THE TREE, YOU KNOW THE DRILL
As shoddy offerings go, this has to be among the shoddiest. Some of the problem is conceptual; it’s an attempt to write a modern carol, and modern carols are a complete crap-shoot at the best of times. In the US, I’d imagine it’s a problem particularly bound up with the vagaries of contemporary Christian music, getting in just the right amount of Jesus so as not to scare off either the devout or the disenchanted. In the UK, where the cultural influence of modern Christian music of any kind is negligible at best, we nonetheless have a rich tradition of pop/rock Christmas singles which have become standards in their own right, almost all of them defiantly secular – think Slade, Wizzard, Paul McCartney and Shakin’ Stevens, with Shane and Kirsty’s sozzled chantey now becoming a belated addition to the canon (slowly nudging out the once-ubiquitous and obviously-religious contribution by Cliff Richard).
I don’t know what the situation is in the USA, but here in Britain, these songs are inescapable throughout December, played on every TV music channel and commercial radio station on heavy rotation (and I do mean heavy, as in up to twice an hour apiece on some backwater video channels!), and the commercial rewards for writing a new Christmas standard somehow getting into that pantheon of, um, greats – even for just a couple of years – are rich pickings indeed. As a result, each Christmas we’re inundated with attempts of varying lameness from all quarters. Which brings me back to Children’s Christmas Song.
So, part of the trouble with this is conceptual, as I said – writing a modern carol, pitching it right, is difficult, and Children’s Christmas Song is a failure on that score by pretty much any measure. It’s the sort of tune which might, had it been written twenty-five or fifty or a hundred years earlier, have stood a shot at making it into the grade-school caroler’s canon, but only as a result of lack of competition. Even then, it’s doubtful it would have stuck around; it’s clunky and cloying, musically undeveloped, its rhymes jarring and forced, its chorus a bland and seemingly-endless series of droning, hokey platitudes. Certainly it’s aptly-titled, as this is most certainly a song for children to sing – you absolutely can’t picture a crowd of adult carol-singers on your doorstep pelting out the central refrain:
Ding-dong, ding-dong, hear the bell
Ringing out the first Noël…
But even a bad carol might still have made for a nice Supremes Christmas single. Instead, the shaky concept and autopilot writing is only part of the problem; the record is also marred by a bad, bad idea in its execution, an idea which would have killed any choice of song for this festive Supremes 45, no matter how bulletproof the original carol might have been. Like so many of the bad Motown ideas we’ve seen during the eight years we’ve covered in the course of this blog, it’s an idea which probably sounded really good on paper, but which should have been stopped and rejected as soon as it was tried out for real.
I’M BAD, I’M BAD (REALLY, REALLY BAD)
And so it comes to pass that Diana Ross (in a virtual solo turn – indeed, without checking, I’m not playing this again, but I think she’s the only Supreme actually on this “Supremes” 45), already in her element playing mother hen, showing a lot of the natural care and love she’d later bring to her underrated role in The Wiz, gives us the basic idea of the tune – “basic” is right, as sophisticated tunes go this one’s right up there with The Wheels On The Bus – and then patiently gathers a choir of young children around her to open up their books and sing along to “a story about the first Christmas”.
I say “a choir of young children” – actually, it’s Motown founder Berry Gordy’s children (who are individually namechecked on the record). And I say “sing along”, but actually none of them can sing one whit.
It’s a sweet idea, and one which – like the aforementioned Randy The Newspaper Boy – gives me brief pause before sticking the boot in, simply because it’s seemingly trying to do something nice, even if it’s a complete failure. But it’s such a complete failure, done so very badly, that I can’t bring myself to go easy on it. These kids CANNOT SING, and the resulting noise terror is genuinely horrible, a rodeo of too-sticky sugar and distorted bum notes from a gang of bellowing toddlers that challenges the listener to cling on as long as they can before giving up.
(It was a challenge I resolutely failed; even if I’d managed to stick to the schedule, which would have seen me writing this at Christmastime, I suspect I’d have found it a chore to give this the normal 40-odd plays for a review here on Motown Junkies. As things stand, here in the grey Welsh light of a drizzly February rainstorm, I think I’ve managed to play this right the way through three times. I doubt even the most hardened Supremes fan has ever willingly put this on repeat. If this review seems a bit sketchier on the musical analysis than normal, I hope you’ll forgive me.)
Yes, I know, they’re just kids. But I never ease up on criticism just because the record’s been made by a child (as I’ve often said, they’re not my kids, I’m under no obligation to coo and applaud because aww, and they’re only six, and I’m certainly not going to willingly pay money for the privilege); nowhere is that adage ever going to be more appropriate than here.
Maybe that’s the record’s whole raison d’être, getting the boss’ kids in on the act for a bit of festive fun. Maybe it was a family favour, a snapshot of a Gordy family Christmas party, an inner-circle in-joke that somehow got out of hand, never really meant for widespread release. Maybe it’s unfair to give it a mark at all, never mind to consider it as part of the Supremes’ “real” recorded output in this most glorious of years for Motown’s top group. But here it is – and it’s so cacophonous, so ear-splittingly unlistenable, that no matter how good its intentions and how kind its heart, it ends up one of the worst Motown singles of all time.
MOTOWN JUNKIES VERDICT
(I’ve had MY say, now it’s your turn. Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment, or click the thumbs at the bottom there. Dissent is encouraged!)
You’re reading Motown Junkies, an attempt to review every Motown A- and B-side ever released. Click on the “previous” and “next” buttons below to go back and forth through the catalogue, or visit the Master Index for a full list of reviews so far.
(Or maybe you’re only interested in the Supremes? Click for more.)
Barbara McNair “The Touch Of Time” |
The Supremes “Twinkle Twinkle Little Me” |
DISCOVERING MOTOWN |
---|
Like the blog? Listen to our radio show! |
Motown Junkies presents the finest Motown cuts, big hits and hard to find classics. Listen to all past episodes here. |
Thom said:
As I remarked on Twitter, this is to my ears the absolute worst thing on any of the Complete Singles sets. At least the novelty records know they’re novelty records. This, on the other hand, is just irredeemable. And I can’t write any more than that without getting myself worked up about how awful it is.
LikeLike
144man said:
I just do not understand why Motown released this nauseous effort. “Little Bright Star” would have been an obvious choice for a single.
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
I’m going to guess it’s tied up with the commercial rewards of having a perennial Christmas tune – the royalties are in publishing, and so I believe Motown wanted Jobete to have a successful Christmas standard in its repertoire (thus disqualifying Little Bright Star and indeed almost everything else on the Merry Christmas album other than this and its flip). The fact that their chosen 45 is such an unlistenable wreck is rather a flaw in the process, but if my guess is right then I suppose the plan itself was sound enough.
LikeLike
144man said:
“Little Bright Star” was in fact published by Jobete.
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
I didn’t know that! Who knows, then. Maybe Harvey Fuqua pushed for his song to be used ahead of outsider Al Capps, or maybe Berry or Diana wanted their kids to get on the radio, or maybe someone unaccountably really liked this…
Thanks for the spot on the technical problem!
LikeLike
144man said:
It was strange that when “Little Bright Star” was reworked into “I Can’t Go On Without You” by Tammi Terrell, the composer credits were changed to Fuqua/ Bristol/ Moy.
LikeLike
John Plant said:
I haven’t heard the song, I always assumed that it was an atrocity, and your review bears me out. I have to say that a little vitriol in the right place and the right time is extremely bracing – I have no patience with critics who specialize in jeremiads, but with something so clearly abominable, it’s refreshing to read such an eloquent howl of anguish. (BAD critics always sound delighted with themselves when they manage a particularly vituperative putdown.) There is a lot of glorious Christmas music, but O what acoustic horrors deck the halls of the malls in late November and December! Onward to better things – and thank you for suffering this on our behalf.
LikeLike
treborij said:
>>These kids CANNOT SING, and the resulting noise terror is genuinely horrible, a rodeo of too-sticky sugar and distorted bum notes from a gang of bellowing toddlers… <<
This could be your funniest sentence ever. And I love the phrase "the resulting noise terror". And the record deserves a goose egg.
LikeLike
Robert said:
I have to agree with your review and rating. A couple of additional details:
I think Diana’s brother Chico is in the group of kids as well.
According to some sources, the entire Merry Christmas album is a “solo” effort by Diana Ross. Supposedly Mary and Flo were not on it at all, their parts being done by the Andantes. My belief is that they’re all on it, although Mary and Flo may not be on it as much as the Andantes.
LikeLike
MotownFan1962 said:
So far as I’ve heard, it’s just Diana and the Andantes, though Flo did record two leads (“Silent Night” with The Andantes backing her, and “O Holy Night” solo). They weren’t released originally, but have seen the light of day thanks to compilations and re-releases.
As far as The Andantes are concerned, The Supremes’ Christmas album is their best chameleon act. Most songs, you can’t it’s not Flo and Mary (like on “Born of Mary”, though that may just be because they and Diana are singing in unison.)
LikeLike
Rockin' Ed said:
If that’s her brother Chico, I’d rather hear her other brother Harpo, or Groucho..or perhaps Karl…….we could give this a “0”–then some of the Mel-o-Dy singles wouldn’t sound so bad LOL
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
I’ve been waiting for months for someone to make that joke 🙂
LikeLike
benjaminblue said:
Considering that that there were no Internet blog sites, no books bisecting the company and precious few articles in the magazines in 1965, details about Motown, the entity, weren’t known by at least 98% of those encountering Children’s Christmas Song in its initial season. So, it was a real thrill to hear the mention of “Joy, Berry and Terry” and to be one of the elite who knew that they were Mr. Gordy’s children and that the first two letters of each of their names were used to form Jobete, It was a real thrill to be among those recognizing Chico’s name. It made me and other young fans feel like real insiders!
As for charmless, talentless kids on records, listen to Bobby Sherman’s pairing with several in Christmas Is (Make It Sweet) and you’ll know how bad kids’ singing can be. After listening to it, you’ll think that Joy, Berry, Terry and Chico are budding members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir!
Also considering the context of the times, you will note that Ray Stevens’ Everything Is Beautiful, a massive hit in Spring, 1970, began with the strains of a children’s “choir.” And I do use the word “strains” intentionally. A few children appeared on Three Dog Night’s hit recording Black And White (but mercifully, the group and their band mostly kept them hidden). And The Beatles engaged a cast of non-singers, albeit adult non-singers, on their Hey Jude extended fade, so there was a relaxed attitude about what was acceptable.
Too, children’s groups found their way onto Peggy Lee’s Christmas album (first issued in 1960) and period records by, among others, Doris Day and Frank Sinatra, the latter of whom performed his 1959 45 rpm version of High Hopes with a bunch of them, recreating and expanding upon his movie duet with child actor Eddie Hodges.
So it was perfectly logical in that era to include children on The Supremes’ 1965 album.
In addition, this recording is thrilling because we hear Diana Ross speak at length for the first time. Yes, she had uttered a few words before, for instance on Lazy Bones, Funny How Time Slips Away, The Only Time I’m Happy and (the live version of) Somewhere, but here we get several sentences, and her spoken delivery seems unforced, sexy and delightful, though it is well-paced to the backing track (and the sexiness is downplayed,obviously). So Children’s Christmas Song presages the lengthy paragraphs recited on Ain’t No Mountain High Enough.
And while I’ll concede that this may not be the best choice for a holiday 45, I’ll fight to the death saying it’s not horrible by any means and was, at the same time, both appropriate for the era in which it was introduced and precedent-setting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cambridge said:
Finally, someone gets the “Jest” of this song! It was never a failure or horrible in any manner or form. Taken in context, it works as long as you understand what it is and what it said. The problem is and remains – the internet allows access to too many of the invisible who only become momentarily visible when they comment on anything and everything, with no more validity than what fills the space between their ears!
LikeLike
Nick in Pasadena said:
I remember hearing this for the first time many, many years ago and recoiling at its forced, cloying (and blatantly artificial) sweetness. Still, I wouldn’t give this a ‘1’. The kids can’t sing, true, but I’m sure someone felt that was part of their “charm.” I do think it could have been worse (shudder).
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
It’s difficult – its heart is clearly in the right place despite the woeful execution, but it’s so awful that I physically can’t listen to it, and I can’t in good conscience give it points for trying (see also that Ray Oddis record).
I just tried again, and… no. No no no. I like Diana being the teacher, I even like the idea, but… no. It’s as if it hits the “sweet spot” of awfulness – had the singing and the lyrics been any worse, it might have become funny, laughably bad, whereas in fact it’s almost perfectly terrible. There’s just something about the tuneless, buzzing drone of the children’s voices which sounds like it’s going to bring on a skull-splitting migraine; it physically wears me out trying to listen to it. And I’m someone who’s paid good money for records by Autechre and Robert Wyatt. (Not together, though that would certainly be an interesting one.)
LikeLike
mhinrichs said:
Nixon, because of your review I haven’t mulled over the terribleness of this record so much – so thank you! Your 1 rating and reasons for hating it are spot-on. I think what really stood out here is that this song plays like one of the CHEAPEST things Motown ever put on a single a-side – it literally sounds as if it was recorded in one take with no prior rehearsal. The kids are too atonal and young, and I have to wonder if it would have sounded less dissonant and icky-sweet if they recruited a slightly older choir from a local elementary school to sing on it. The song would have sounded 100% more professional, and I’m sure they could have pulled it off with little extra cost or effort. Instead, we ended up with this nepotistic, blecch-y mess.
ANY song from the Supremes’ Merry Christmas LP would have been a preferred a-side to this.
LikeLike
John Plant said:
O dear, I just noticed that I have this – I was just going to say that it was interesting that it wasn’t chosen for the 2-LP Motown Christmas album..and yet there it is, tucked away on side 4. I guess I never made it that far! But my resolution to never subject myself to the agony so eloquently described (and suffered) by Steve is only strengthened.
LikeLike
144man said:
You should listen to it. It makes everything else sound so much better by comparison!
LikeLike
Dave L said:
The older copy (of two) that I have of this is actually the oldest surviving 45 in my entire collection, bought Dec. 26, 1965, when I was 11. Found at the store I mentioned in “I Hear A Symphony,” I didn’t know till that very day after Christmas that they had done any holiday records.
Yes, it’s awful. If my memory isn’t playing tricks on me, The Supremes actually did this on Hullabaloo without the kid chorus, Ross doing the verse three times like the record but without being assaulted, and it wasn’t as bad, but maybe the footage no longer exists. While I do like “Little Bright Star,” like it very much, the stompin’ “Santa Claus Is Coming To Town,” the one song made to sound kick-ass Motown, is so obvious the one. The drumming is so damn good, I’d love an instrumental of it. Detroit or Los Angeles, Benny or no, whoever that is, he must have had bleeding hands by the end of it.
And when I want sheer, escapist, romantic marshmallow bliss, only the mono “White Christmas” will do.
“Children’s Christmas Song,” however, is so dreadful a choice of single, it very well may have drove sales from album 638, a big mistake, because it’s the only cut of the 12 that’s a bomb. Well, at least we know the b-side of M1085 can’t fall any lower, and I know I do like it better. We’ll soon see…
LikeLike
Dave L said:
Test for you, Nixon:
Of The Supremes lowest scoring 45 sides: “Children’s,” “Banjo Band,” and “He’s Seventeen,” which do you find the most god-awful (so far)…?
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
Well, there’s always the Cahiers du Cinéma answer of not bothering to waste time (mine or yours) distinguishing between things that don’t enthuse, but honestly, I’d rank them all pretty level anyway – they’re all equally poor in different ways. If you put a gun to my head I’d go with He’s Seventeen at a pinch, but then that hasn’t got monotonically chanting grade-schoolers or a massively incongruous bluegrass breakdown. None of them is worthy of sharing the Supremes brand with My Heart Can’t Take It No More, never mind I Hear A Symphony.
LikeLike
Dave L said:
Since you answered, I will too.
I think I have to give it to “Children’s.” While all are indictable offenses to the human eardrum, “He’s Seventeen” and “Banjo Band” were made before the group really even knew what the hell their identity was going to be, and still arguably finding their footing.
However, so well after the “Where” juggernaut of ’64, and now that they are the most successful female recording act in music, “Children’s,” or anything as bad as it, doesn’t even have that excuse now.
While I have nothing but admiration for the finished album Harvey Fuqua came though with, we could wonder, if Motown was hoping for a perennially classic Supremes holiday single, why weren’t HDH drafted for a few tries….?
LikeLike
Joe said:
This is something I never expected I would have any reason to say, but…I wish they could have used AutoTune on this record! Actually, something they could have done that probably would have helped, oddly enough, would have been to have *more* children singing. A larger vocal ensemble would have masked the intonation problems somewhat. Not as good a solution as using kids who could actually sing, mind you, but nonetheless it would have been an improvement. Lowering the volume of the kids’ voices in the mix might have been prudent also.
I actually don’t think this is such a terrible song, but that wretched singing by the children does make for an unlistenable record.
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
Yes, I agree with all of that. I think the song’s a clunker, even by modern carol standards, but if it was Diana solo or Diana with a bigger/better choir I’d likely have given it a 2 or 3 – bad but not horrible.
LikeLike
Tom Lawler said:
You have it lucky Mr Nixon…over here in the US, you can count on one or two stations in most radio markets to go wall to wall Xmas…with this piece of dreck in rotation along with the worst musical sphincterlock since “Honey”…”Christmas Shoes.” Us DJ’s hate the holidays for this reason alone…even moreso when Jewish.
The QC department had to have been hitting the egg nog pretty hard to let this pass…Diana sounds shrill, the kids couldn’t hold a note with both hands, and the lyrics are saccharine enough to give you diabetes. I’d rather hear any cut off the Miracles Christmas Album (one of my favorites) on repeat than this…or its flipside.
The review & rating are spot on. Keep up the great work!
LikeLike
Randy Brown said:
Tom: the holidays is when I become damn near homicidal after too-frequent exposure to “Continuous Christmas Favorites” on Lite-FM. (Doesn’t help that I’ve lost two people who were very dear to me during the holidays.) Who are the bigger a-holes: the people who run the stations playing this crap, or the people who insist on LISTENING TO this crap?
As horrible as this song is, it’s nowhere near as bad as “Christmas Canon.” The person(s) who put words to Pachelbel’s famous piece need to be hit upside the head(s) with a brick. Repeatedly.
LikeLike
nafalmat said:
I think people are over reacting to this item, sure it’s not a classic and true the kids can’t sing but there is a melody and the production/arrangement is up to par. I wouldn’t like to comment on the sincerity of ether the lyrics or Miss Ross’s interpretation of them, but I don’t think it’s quite as bad as everybody else is saying.
Actually the stereo mix is worse than the mono single because the kids voices are clearer in stereo and sound even more out of tune than on there single. I certainly wouldn’t rate it as the worst Motown Christmas recording, to me it’s better than anything on the. J5’s Christmas album.
LikeLike
bogart4017 said:
Let’s face it….the whole album sucked.
LikeLike
MotownFan1962 said:
Not the whole album. The majority of the performances are very good, like “Born of Mary”, “My Favorite Things”, and “Joy to the World”. Then again, it’s all a matter of personal tastes.
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
I don’t know if I’d go as far as either Bogart4017 or MotownFan1962 – to these ears it’s wildly uneven, and it’s a “Supremes” LP which could really do with a lot more Supremes on it, but overall it’s nice enough and never a total disaster.
What I do think is that, whatever you think of the album’s qualities, Motown surely made just about the strangest choice possible when picking two songs to use on this 45.
LikeLike
Russh29 said:
After a write up like that I had to go have a listen. I have to admit, for the first time, I don’t think your write up came close to doing this recording justice.
In mitigation, I suspect the words do not exist in the English language to fully convey what a complete abomination that is, you have to go and listen to it to fully understand the horror.
What on Earth were Motown thinking when they issued that ???
LikeLike
benjaminblue said:
Hey! Christmas is a time to, among other things, celebrate with your family and friends. And I imagine that many of you, who sound great, at least to your own ears, when singing in the shower, have family members and friends whose voices are not quite up to your own vocal prowess!
It’s a time of year when even beloved crooner Bing Crosby, who hauled his tone-deaf children into the recording studio and television studio every Christmas, was allowed to indulge a bit. Maybe his audiences cringed a bit, but they excused the strident, errant notes and muttered to themselves, “well, it’s Christmas, and isn’t it wonderful that [child-beater] Der Bingle is so family-oriented and religious and all.”
What counts is the warmth, the making of personal memories, the sharing of the Christmas story and the generally happy togetherness, whether it’s genuine or inauthentic.
So be happy that this record reminds you of holidays you’ve experienced; be happy that it brings back thoughts of your siblings’ voices and your children’s. Everything wasn’t quite perfect back then, and yet, those are memories you can and will treasure forever.
Of course, I agree that “Little Bright Star” would have been a better choice for a Christmas single, but this song did flesh out the image of the (sophisticated) Supremes as warm, caring older sisters or aunts. And certainly it created a more positive image of home life and human qualities than did the introduction of the supposed Mama Ross who died while making homemade jam (!), even if that song hinted, three years down the road, that Diana could learn from past mistakes and so could her listeners, who perhaps beat up on themselves too much if they could see beyond their narrow self-interests.
LikeLike
David Wilson said:
A real Christmas turkey. I would go so far as saying that all of Motowns’ Christmas themed recordings are poor2nd rate fayre- especially when compared with the Phil Spector Christmas album. I would posit that you avoided the elephant in the room (or should that be the recording studio) The most obvious bad vocal on the recording- Diana Ross. Don’t get me wrong I’m a big fan of Ross but I’m not obsessive to the point of refusing to accept that often she was out of her depth as a vocalist. Her voice was distinctive and a major contributing factor to the groups success but Diana was regularly given material that was unsuited to her, exposing her painfully thin voice & sung in a key that is way too high. It is a shame that Mary and Flo were not given more leads on album tracks that were clearly more suited to their voice and range. It has resulted in many tracks that are excruciating to listen to today, often with great arrangements and backing vocals but driven by Diana’s Minnie Mouse helium fuelled screech. And this coming from a lifelong Diana Ross fan! They also recorded some real rubbish but what can you expect when they were continually churning them out on Motown’s famous production line. Blatant cash-ins like this recording were not unusual at the time from established acts, remember that albums were not held in the same regard as they are today- the Beatles would create that market! No doubt Gordy saw the Christmas album as a way to get the girls booked on Christmas TV Specials on the large networks by big established stars like Dean Martin. Berry was obsessed with broadening the appeal of the Supremes by moving beyond the pop hits into the lucrative big bucks white mainstream TV/Vegas/Copa nightclub shows. This further amazes me that he did not develop the other girls profiles- I believe it would have created a more harmonious group and broadened their appeal with the sophisticated ‘mature’ mainly white middle class audience. Their hits are amongst the best pop recordings of all time but the remainder of their output contains a lot of dodgy embarrassing moments best buried in the vaults.
LikeLike