Tags
Tamla T 54126 (A), November 1965
b/w Anything You Wanna Do
(Written by Ivy Jo Hunter, Clarence Paul and Mickey Stevenson)
Tamla Motown TMG 546 (A), January 1966
b/w Anything You Wanna Do
(Released in the UK under license through EMI / Tamla Motown)
Epiphanies and revelations run wide and deep as we trawl (slowly!) through the tail-end of the Motown singles catalogue in 1965. It’s strange enough listening to some of these records in context now, knowing what happened next, so spare a thought for how hard listeners at the time must have found all these curveballs. Even with the benefit of fifty years’ hindsight, it’s still hard to extrapolate some of these artists’ short-term futures, to predict, say, Stevie Wonder the musical genius, or Marvin Gaye the sensitive soul poet. And now, here are the Marvelettes, firmly under the wing of Smokey Robinson, pulling off perhaps the biggest reinvention of all.
The Marvelettes, as we say every time we meet them here on Motown Junkies, had been Motown’s first great girl group, artistically and commercially; in terms of sales, they’d peaked with their début single, Please Mr. Postman, hitting the jackpot first time out and then plugging away for a decade of diminishing returns. Artistically, they were far from done, and their position within the Hitsville pecking order (leapfrogged first by the Vandellas, then by the Supremes) saw them reinvent themselves as a barnstorming, tough-shelled, sassy girl group trading in uptempo dancers: witness I’ll Keep Holding On, witness Danger Heartbreak Dead Ahead.
But even that territory was being mined with more success by the likes of the Velvelettes and the aforementioned Vandellas, and if the Marvelettes were going to stick out, they needed to keep moving forward, to find some new territory to stake their claim on America’s affections. At which point, the group’s story changed forever, and not for the first time the catalyst was one man’s vision: enter Smokey Robinson.
Smokey, taking over from Mickey Stevenson and Ivy Jo Hunter as the group’s producer, had cut his teeth mentoring first Mary Wells and then the Temptations to the top of the charts, while simultaneously keeping his hand in with his own group the Miracles. By the time of Don’t Mess With Bill, his stock was perhaps the highest it had ever been. He’d had a banner year, writing and producing some of his very best songs, for himself and for others, and he surely had plenty on his plate already without being tasked with reviving the Marvelettes brand, especially with the group now in disarray and shedding members. But he took the job with gusto, his enthusiasm fired by the unexpected promotion of Wanda Young Rogers as the group’s lead singer.
Wanda had started out as one of the background voices in the aptly-named Casinyets (so named “because we can’t sing yet”); Gladys Horton had fronted the majority of the Marvelettes’ Motown output over the last four years, with Wanda a shrill and wayward presence given an occasional lead, seemingly for reasons of intra-band politics rather than artistic necessity; without overplaying how bad she was (her barely-controlled teenage falsetto wasn’t necessarily any worse than what Eddie Kendricks was doing over in the boys’ camp, for instance), it made for some difficult listens all the same.
But she’d shown flashes of brilliance before – her Forever is a revelation – and, now 21, her voice had developed considerably as she matured. It surely didn’t hurt that she was now married to Smokey’s Miracles bandmate and very close friend Bobby Rogers, and thus virtually something approaching a sister-in-law to the new man in charge, but this was no case of empty nepotism; while Gladys remained one of Motown’s fine individual lead singers, and while it was undoubtedly a shame she ended up being sidelined in her own group, Wanda had come so far that it would have been criminal to leave her on the bench.
Smokey, as astute a judge of these things as anyone has ever been, was excited about the Marvelettes because he liked what he’d heard, and because he had some big ideas on where this sound could go next, given a push in the right direction. Wanda had fronted both of the Marvelettes’ two previous banging uptempo singles, her forceful, stabbing contralto a focal point on both records, but Don’t Mess With Bill is something else again; it’s a small-scale domestic drama, a kitchen sink epic, needing a restrained lead which is highly sympathetic, believably neurotic, and yet still ineffably cool.
Wanda is perfect for this; Smokey, still a year removed from cutting the first draft of what went on to become Whitfield and Strong’s lasting masterpiece I Heard It Through The Grapevine, here turns in his own paranoid master-class, a mesmerising, mildly menacing stew of minor chords and mistrust. It starts out as a threat, slinky and subtle but still deadly serious – you best keep away from my man, girl! – before the narrator’s confidence audibly crumbles, vacillating between a warning and a plea, and the facade eventually slips away, leaving this as the disjointed thoughts of a scared young woman lashing out at the world.
Wondering whether this lashing-out is real or imagined – one can easily picture Wanda in front of the mirror, waving away her rival’s protests, making herself angry, going over what she’d like to have said – is just one of the excellent things about this record. The target starts out in the realm of the hyper-specific – you can imagine this being aimed directly at some neighbour-woman or work colleague (though probably not a classmate, so mature does Wanda sound here), such that you expect her to be named along with Bill (a name supposedly chosen by Smokey, incidentally, purely for scansion rather than it being his own name) and the narrator’s reeled-off list of apparent mutual male acquaintances:
Now there’s Johnny, there’s Joe, and there’s… Frank and Jim,
just to name a few;
now, Bill’s got me, and… I’ve got him
I’m sure there’s one for you
…and yet, by the time we hit one of the catchiest of the song’s boatload of super-catchy hooks (Hear what I say, girls keep away, oh) the song is seemingly aimed at all girls everywhere, a scattergun blanket warning – he’s mine and mine alone, so back off, everyone else! – so low is her self-esteem. And our Billy doesn’t even seem like much of a catch in the first place, given we’re told he’s “put tears in my eyes a thousand times or more”, but she’s damned if she’s going to give him up to some supposed trollop who may or may not even be interested (indeed, who may not even exist at all). It’s a masterpiece of characterisation.
Smokey, the master of matching a lyric to a performer, has outdone himself here. Wanda’s previous two excursions had seen her – in the words of one commenter here on Motown Junkies – “throwing down with the best of them”, and on being asked to create a follow-up, a lesser writer/producer might have been expected to turn in something in the same mould. Instead, this is all about the performance, not just the technical strength of the vocal, the way Wanda handles the sharp turns.
(Though let’s not underplay that aspect of it; despite the slow tempo, this is packed full of long notes and passages of syllables piled up on each other; just because it’s not at 140bpm, it’s still hard to sing, much like riding a bike up a steep and twisty mountain road compared to the exhilaration of racing back downhill again. But I digress.) It’s Wanda’s “acting” here – and indeed, her “casting” for the part in the first place – that makes Don’t Mess With Bill tick. That, and the Funk Brothers.
Oh, the Funk Brothers. Right. If this session wasn’t at the back of their minds when they congregated to create Marvin’s version of Grapevine, I’d be surprised, as so much of what they’re doing here sounds like a dry run. Not that the two songs are particularly musically similar beyond the use of minor chords to create an atmosphere of foreboding, like a paranoid soup of insecurities for the narrator to swim against; Grapevine (in Marvin and Smokey’s versions) is organ-led, …Bill is punctuated with a sawtooth saxophone that’s strangely sexy and sinuous and yet somehow unsettling. Rather, it’s the feeling both songs conjure that forms the real link between them – I don’t know what information or instruction the musicians had been given to create this atmosphere, but they nail it. If soul is a state of mind, both of these great Motown records are the sound of that mind beginning to lose it after one too many late nights and cups of coffee.
Because this is a great Motown record, there’s no two ways about it. That it came from the Marvelettes, that Motown (or Smokey) had found a niche for them, marks a major stepping stone, the group now almost fully converted from the artless buzz of the Casinyets who’d muddled through a high school talent contest into the late-Sixties Marvelettes, Motown’s most thoughtful purveyors of what came to be dubbed “sophisticated soul”. (Though the journey’s not completely done – there’ll be two singles, including one more astonishing 45rpm landmark staging-post, on the way before we hit the Pink Album). Put simply, they sound all grown up now. Play this back-to-back with an older Marvelettes record like… well, the B-side, for starters, and the difference is striking. Not only that, but it’s striking in a good way.
We’ve never had cause to doubt the Marvelettes’ quality before, but now they’re paired with the right producer, they’ve got a part to play in the Motown story too, a part that finally makes sense; Don’t Mess With Bill is almost something like a rebirth, the start of the Marvelettes’ magnificent second act, and its brilliance is cause for much celebration.
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 Marvelettes? Click for more.)
The Velvelettes “Since You’ve Been Loving Me” |
The Marvelettes “Anything You Wanna Do” |
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. |
The Nixon Administration said:
Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia*, anyone? I could quite easily have held “Children’s Christmas Song” back to become review 666 without messing up the chronology, but I felt I couldn’t disrupt the TCMS order just for a silly joke.
* Thanks, Wikipedia!
LikeLike
Nick in Pasadena said:
At the time this was the first I’d ever heard Wanda sing lead (I hadn’t yet heard “Forever”) so, of course, I had no idea it was The Marvelettes, although it was undeniably Motown. I thought it was some new girl group with a sassy lead singer brought in to build on what Diana Ross occasionally achieved. It’s a great record (a “9” is just about right) but not my favorite Wanda-led Marvelettes disc (that’s coming up!). And regarding the numbering–if the devil had anything to do with this, I take back every bad thing I ever said about him!
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
Great T-shirt spotted outside a heavy metal concert here in Cardiff about 10 years ago: “667, the Neighbour of the Beast”.
I think I touched on this in an earlier Marvelettes review, but it’s interesting to me that the early-Sixties and late-Sixties Marvelettes sound like two different groups (and it’s more sophisticated than just comparing Gladys and Wanda as leads, or noting how few/many of the later records are actually Wanda and the Andantes – rather, it’s as if the entire chemistry of the group has changed at some sort of microscopic level), and that the transition between the two is so patchily documented on vinyl (no Marvelettes studio album between 1964 and 1967). Even the recent Complete Albums box sets, with their generous slew of bonus tracks, exhibit a marked and abrupt lightswitch-type change between Marvelettes Mk 1 and Marvelettes Mk 2.
LikeLike
Chris Hewitson (@drchrishewitson) said:
I remember this from early 1966 (in UK).
LikeLike
Chris Hewitson (@drchrishewitson) said:
I remember this from early 1966 (UK). In a sea of fellow secondary school pupils who were crazy about the Beatles, the Stones, the Who, the Kinks etc, there was a small group of us in the fourth form who were very committed Motown devotees. We thought Don’t Mess With Bill was fabulous. Understated, soulful, tuneful and somehow slightly threatening (what would the Marvelettes do to anyone who actually dared to mess with Bill?). Nearly fifty years on, I still think this track is a gem although I think I find it a musical masterpiece rather than one of Smokey Robinson’s poetic ones. I never thought you’d give this a 9, but it probably is worth that. I’m in a different position from you as I heard all these first time around, in the order in which they were released, and alongside the competition they were designed to beat. Thus the listening context was different for me and it’s hard to ‘unhear’ that context and place Motown tracks outside the time when they were so new and exciting. We eagerly looked out for each week’s new Motown releases and I can’t remember a dud. It was an extraordinary time.
LikeLike
Rhine Ruder said:
not my top favorite marvelette’s song, but a very good … that’s for sure. it is just an inch over the gimmicky line lyric-wise for my taste. a definite 8 or 9. their big 10 is still in the future (actually, i could give three upcoming songs a 10!) a real crowd pleaser, that’s for sure. i never thought of it being a precursor to marvin gaye’s “i heard it through the grapevine”, but i do believe you are on to something!
LikeLike
therealdavesing said:
Ithe next two singles are better to start with. But for me
The Hunter gets caprtured by the game is def a 10.
Destination anywhere
Here I am Baby
Don’t make hurting me a habit
After All- All are contenders to get 10s from me
LikeLike
Dave L said:
11 years old, and no matter where I heard this start up, even in public, it was impossible not to drop physical clues that this one was working power on me. You knew it was sexy years before you really understood what sexy meant.
Their biographer Marc Taylor picks up exactly on the point that Nick makes above: so unfamiliar with Wanda’s voice was much of the public, that The Marvelettes sounded like a completely new act once “Bill” landed. Katherine Anderson is unsparing at that point in the book about what a shot in the arm “Bill” was for the group at that moment, the needed graduation the record fostered beyond teenage concerns when all of them were just about married women. She lavishes praise on Robinson for moving the group into a stage of maturity that, apparently, not everyone in the company was enthusiastic for.
A 9 is perfect, but Smokey’s only begun to mold Wanda into a young and accessible Mae West for record buyers. The next single in line, though a commercial flat tire at the time, is even more bracing as it directly addresses the target of its lyrical passion. When Wanda speaks again, it is a potent dose of Viagra on vinyl.
LikeLike
soshe said:
This track always reminds me of “My Guy” – I guess Bill had pretty much rewritten the song to have same effect for the Marvs as he had had with Ms Wells.
And it works for me!
The group were to have a bigger UK hit with “When You’re Young And In Love” a little later – but this WAS a classic.
I have a link to my Soulsite with their live performance of this.
So nice to see the girls on stage 🙂
http://www.classicsoulcentral.com/index.php?media/marvellettes-dont-mess-with-bill.10089/media
LikeLike
Damecia said:
The song I’ve been dying for a review of – my hands down, all-time favorite Marvelettes song. From the opening chimes I fell in love with this song the first time I heard it. The coolness that the Funk Brothers provide on the instrumentation matches Wanda’s laid back swag. The backing Marvelettes are not to be left out because they do a superb, sultry job as well. I love the combination of blues and jazz found on this track.
One thing I appreciate every time I listen to this song is the conversational aspect it has to it. What I mean by this is Wanda had the ability to make any song she sang sound as though she was right in your living room or your door step telling you about her problem(s). The first few lines gets me every time: “Well, I know he’s the guy who put tears in my eyes, a thousand times or more, but every time he would apologize, I love him more than before” From these lines, you know this girl is in a crazy relationship and she most likely is the fool, lol, but you’re intrigued to listen.
The characteraztion I have for this “girl” can only come from the brillance of Smokey’s songwriting. Bill is a player and everyone knows it, including this girl, but she is in a denial state and wants to tell the girls “don’t mess with bill” instead of confronting Billy Boy. lol.
I must again go back to Wanda’s vocals. I don’t think she was the best singer, but her voice had personality, which in my opinion, matters most. The was she says “say it one more tiiiiiime” is just great. Not to mention, to my ears she sounds older than what she was. She had a one of a kind voice that is unmistakable.
Well written review Steve D. I just wished you’d given this a 10, but I’m not too mad at the 9 lol.
Hi my fellow Motown Junkies!!!! It’s been awhile since I’ve been chatting your ears off lol. I look forward to reading your commentary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mary Plant said:
Welcome back Damecia! I bet I’m not the only one who has missed you!
LikeLike
Damecia said:
= )
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
I missed you too. It’s great to have almost all the regular crew back here commenting!
I’ll try and up the pace of new entries a bit, I know I’m badly behind schedule.
LikeLike
Damecia said:
Aw, as Frenchie says in the final scene in Grease “all the gangs back together again” lol. It’s great to be missed = )
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
🙂 I hope you’ll all stay with me through 1967 at least; these are some of my favourite Motown years and I have a LOT to say.
LikeLike
MotownFan1962 said:
I don’t know about anyone else, but I just gotta see what you say about “Gotta See Jane”, so I’ll be stickin’ around.
LikeLike
John Plant said:
Ah, Damecia, welcome back! You’ve been missed! And I’m right with you – this is not only a ten for me, but – I think – one of my top ten Motown singles. Those four syllables – a master class in articulation. How could one possibly notate all the shadings, intonations, intimations, and other subtleties – in counterpoint with that gloriously perfect bass line (perhaps sharing the Olympian heights of Bernadette in this respect) – and with the effortless but irresistible momentum which characterizes the best Motown songs. Steve, I love your commentary, particularly your brilliant focus on the song’s dramatic dimension – you do make it come to life – but this song is a ten of tens. I too remember hearing this song for the first time, when it was new, Chris – I was driving past a particularly redolent pig farm in South Jersey – and to encounter such soulful perfection in such a setting was, well, euphoric. And the song has lost NONE of its power and grace in the 49 years which followed!
LikeLike
Damecia said:
John you always manage to say what I forgot to say in such a beautiful manner = ).
I feel as though Steve will give “Hunter Captured by the Game” a 10….mmmm…lol…we will see.
As I’ve said before this is the Marvelettes best track imo.
LikeLike
nafalmat said:
A disc with real soul, charm and sexiness. For a change from recent Motown hit releases of the time a more understated arrangement that works incredibly well. I love the opening when the organ comes in and the fabulous sax break. Smokey in absolute top form as composer/producer. But above all I love Wanda on this. She’s much better on these sexier, slower more controlled numbers like this than when she’s balling her head off on things like “So Long Baby”, “Locking Up My Heart”. She really sounds as though she means the lyric and any other woman messing with her “Bill” would be in serious trouble. Definitely 9/10 and possibly a couple of decimal points added on!
LikeLike
Dave L said:
Worth noting for the record here too is that “Bill” was the needed hit to spur the release of Marvelettes Greatest Hits the following February. It didn’t have room enough to include “My Daddy Knows Best,” “He’s A Good Guy Yes He Is,” or “I’ll Keep Holding On,” but every other important highlight from “Postman” to “Bill” made the cut, and the album was surefire bang for the buck. Still is.
LikeLike
Robb Klein said:
This is one of my least favourite Marvelettes’ recordings and songs written by Smokey. I’d give it a 7, which is a decent score.
LikeLike
Damecia said:
Wow Robb, I can’t believe you don’t like this song. Since I think this is one of the greatest songs ever recorded, lol, this is hard to take. Would you mind elaborating more on why you don’t like this song? (Really, I love the way you write and I feel cheated that you summed this up and two sentences lol.)
LikeLike
Robb Klein said:
Rating this song at 7 shows that I DON’T dislike it. I just like most of the other Marvelettes songs (other than a few “album throwaways”) better. The instrumental and the vocals are fine. But the song is very boring, and too much of the same thing, -(e.g. few changes). It’s “run of the mill”. “Run of the mill” MOTOWN is good, but not great. My favourite Marvelettes’ songs are: “I Should Have Known Better”, “I’ll Keep Holding On”, “Danger! Heartbreak Dead Ahead”, “That’s How Heartaches Are Made”, “When You’re Young and in Love”, “Playboy”. “Locking Up My Heart”, “Forever”, “As Long As I Know He’s Mine”, “The Grass Seems Greener”, “The Boy From Crosstown”, “Beachwood 45789″, He’s A Good Guy (Yes He is)”, “You’re My Remedy”, “Too Many Fish In The Sea”, “Your Cheating Ways”, “My Baby Must Be A Magician”, and “Some Day, Some Way”. So, I like certain songs from ALL periods of their career and produced by several different producers. I don’t always know why I like a song. It’s the mix of the song writing(mainly just the music portion), instrumental tracks, editing/mixing job, vocal and overall production. The lyrics almost never mean anything to me (although, I DO appreciate Smokey’s great job on lyrics on his songs.
LikeLike
Damecia said:
And this is the response I was looking forward to reading. = )
LikeLike
144man said:
I’d add “Marionette” and “A Breathtaking Guy” to Robb’s choices (even if they are arguably Wanda solo tracks).
LikeLike
John Winstanley said:
Never a fan of this track but I appreaciate the comments made as to why it stands out from anything else hitting the charts at the time,. I would give it an 8, mainly for the excellent Funk Brothers playing to their jazz roots.
LikeLike
Robb Klein said:
This is off topic, but I must ask about your name, John WINSTANLEY! I have to assume that you are referring to winning The Stanley Cup. I assume that you are a big ice-hockey fan. Is that so? I was born and raised in Canada and played up to a high level of both Midget and Junior hockey in Manitoba during the late 1950s and early 1960s. We had a backyard rink. Hockey was my whole life, other than Motown music. Many players I played against eventually played in The NHL. Or is that name just a coincidence?
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
Without wanting to speak for another guest, it’s a reasonably common surname in Britain – I know two different (unrelated) Winstanleys, neither of them John.
LikeLike
Robb Klein said:
Oops! Just a coincidence, eh? That would be a great true family name for a Canadian hockey player! It’s a typical chosen handle (anonymous “user name”) for a member of a pro hockey forum. I’m also a fan of tracing the origins of family names. I’m very curious about the origin of THAT name.
LikeLike
Mary Plant said:
Go Bruins! 🙂
LikeLike
Mary Plant said:
I love this song – loved it when I was a high school student hearing it for the first time, and love it still as I approach geezerhood, and I think the 9 is exactly right.
LikeLike
trebori said:
This is one of my favorite Marvelettes record. It sounded like everything was put in there was made to appeal to me: the great bass line, the vibes, a hip, funky organ part and Wanda’s vocals. I really like what Demecia said about the conversational tone. Never have I heard a threat delivered so coolly. It’s one of my three “10s” in the Marvelettes canon. Smokey really pulled it all together on this one. Another one is coming up soon.
LikeLike
David L. said:
I haven’t posted a comment for a while but I have been following closely all the great reviews and comments. As I said before, I came into Motown after the summer of 1966 at age 9 1/2 and then did a crash course by buying every Motown single I could find. I searched every bin with the records that had wholes in them to satisfy my insatiable curiosity. My introduction to the Marvelettes came with a copy of “The Hunter Gets Captured By The Game” two weeks after its release. This was my benchmark to judge all other Marvelettes songs. This was my favorite. It had a different sound from other Motown Songs ; eerily poetic and mature. Other favorites — “Forever” ,”I’ll Keep Holding On ” , ” My Baby Must Be a Magician.” (all 10’s) — not so much with “Don’ Mess With Bill ,” It has the flavor of something by the Chiffons — a little corny.and outdated. And I too await the “Hunter” review. Regarding The Supremes Merry Christmas album –RUN! The same goes for any live albums, cover albums , and anything that says Funny Girl.
LikeLike
Mary Plant said:
David, you hit on something here, which is the wonderfulness of browsing. Long live the brick & mortar stores (esp books & music) where you can go in and flip through the racks and find treasure!
LikeLike
trebori said:
Amen to that. It’s how I grew up. Most of my adult life I’ve helped out in friends’ book and record stores. Unfortunately there are no longer any independent book stores in my city. But we still have several really good record stores and I usually work on Saturdays in one of them. So I can still browse while I work. Viva le brick and mortar! (And now back to the Marvelettes…. viva les Marvelettes!)
LikeLike
Richard said:
Ahhh, what fond memories of digging through bins looking for a Motown single, any Motown single I could find. I discovered the Supremes (When the Lovelight starts shining through his eyes) this way and I remember being fascinated by the actual label design and noticed when they changed them. I loved knowing where the name came from or how they chose it. I would spend hours browsing in record stores, thank you for helping me go back in my mind to those days.
LikeLike
Landini said:
Hi Everyone! I’ve been away for a bit too. Wow! This is a very fine song – the beginning of what I would call PHASE 2 (& my favorite phase) of the Marvelettes career. Interestingly, like our friend, Robb, I would probably give it a 7. For some reason it doesn’t quite knock me out like some of ther other songs but it is very, very good nonetheless. There was a period of time when “Don’t Mess With Bill” was played a lot on oldies stations. I might have gotten a little tired of it. I’ve always enjoyed Smokey’s work with the Marvelettes. I also love what he did with the Supremes in the early 70’s with the FLOY JOY album. Sometimes I wonder if that is the Lost Marvlettes’ album that hey never recorded.
Anyway, dear friends, I hope & pray you all are well!
LikeLike
Damecia said:
Hi Grandpa Landini!
I’m a little disappointed you don’t think this incredible song deserves a 10, lol.
How are you?
LikeLike
Landini said:
Hi D, Sorry! It is a wonderful song but not quite a 10 to my ears. I have trouble giving ratings. Depending on the day / my mood I might rate it higher. I like “Magiciain” & “Here I am Baby” better along with the LP tracks “I Can’t Turn Around” & “I Need Someone”
I’m doing pretty well. Thanks! Hope u are well. Best!
LikeLike
bogart4017 said:
great lyrics(check). great delivery(check). bouncing bass(check). throwback sax solo (check). we have a winner!
Wanda comes into her own here. The followup single “You’re The One” is even better. Check youtube or classic sopul central for the promo tv appearance. The bows in their wigs are corny but the dance steps are outtasight.
LikeLike
Damecia said:
Shameless plug, but I gotta do it, lol, check out my brief cover of my favorite Marvelettes song “Don’t Mess With Bill”
LikeLike
Mary Plant said:
I LOVE IT!!!
LikeLike
John Plant said:
Damecia, it’s wonderful. The spirit of Motown lives on!
LikeLike
Landini said:
Wanda! Eat your heart out! Great job m’lady!
LikeLike
Dave L said:
Applause, Applause, Applause! 🙂
LikeLike
Damecia said:
Thanks for watching all you wonderful Motown Junkies….keep those compliments coming! lol
LikeLike
Mickey The Twistin' Playboy said:
Nixon, this is a beautifully written and thoughtful essay. I think it’s the best one I’ve read so far. I agree with the 9/10 rating. Do you think the song would have been just a big a hit if Gladys did the lead on the same exact arrangement?
LikeLike
Damecia said:
I know you direct your question at Nixon, but I’m going to add my 2 cents lol. I for one don’t think it would have been a hit if Gladys had sung lead. It’s not that I think Gladys is a bad singer, but this song breathes and is Wanda’s swag. It’s full of her personality and we all know personality can make or break a record at times.
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
I wrote a huge reply to this in the mistaken belief you were both talking about Gladys Knight, before the penny dropped! Yes, I agree with Damecia, this is one of those Smokey moments where the song was paired with the right vocalist from the start.
LikeLike
Damecia said:
= ) I love what you originally said about the skank lol
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
Yes, Gladys Knight may not have been physically threatening, but if she tells you to stay away from her man, you’re staying the hell away 🙂
LikeLike
Mickey The Twistin' Playboy said:
I would love to hear a ballad from you, Damecia!
LikeLike
Damecia said:
A ballad may just be in my near future = )
LikeLike
144man said:
“Don’t Mess With Bill” was recorded five months after Patrice Holloway’s unreleased “For the Love of Mike”. I wonder if it was originally written as a potential follow-up to that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Nixon Administration said:
Interesting idea! Great shout, I’d never have thought of that.
LikeLike
Mike C. said:
Oh, for the love of Mike.
Mike C. enjoys coming to the party late and having the opportunity to read all these wonderful reviews and comments.
I’ve had a wonderful ‘career’ with The Marvelettes and can never forget getting the yellow Anthology album and wearing the grooves grey. I still listen. The Marvelettes are never far away from my cd/record player!
It seems, not unlike The Velvelettes, The Marvelettes were given some of the most creative material at Motown – made many ground breaking records — that at the time were apparently fought against, because they didn’t fit into the Motown box? Or because they weren’t exactly Motown ‘cookie cutter’ we should thank Bill that “Don’t Mess With Bill” was a hit! Who knows what would have ensued.
The closest I have ever come to finding another vocalist to even slightly resemble Wanda Young Rogers is Christina A. of Duvinyls. Perhaps Martha Davis [Motels] studied the vocal stylings of WYR, though with a completely different timber.
It’s the dropping of the end of the vocal phrase. So conversational, so sexy, so (almost) flat. But, talk about ear candy! It makes you sit up (or stand up, whichever the case may be). I love it! Wanda makes a connection. And with recorded music I think the connection made between singer and listener might just be the most important intangible ingredient. Isn’t this what can take mediocre material — couple it with the correct vocalist, one who knows how to draw the listener in—and let them create the magic–that comes up a winner?
I am not saying that “Don’t Mess With Bill” is mediocre material in any way. Top notch! But Wanda doesn’t have much of a vocal range – okay okay – she couldn’t or wouldn’t or didn’t control her wild falsettos from the early days – or combine these two “styles”, then slide them in and out of each other with control. But when she sings DMWB, she is a vocalist to be reckoned with. She sounded like no other. And the songs that she recorded – well, she sings them like no other. A perfect fit.
However, …personally, I think Gladys Horton would have done a fine, fine job with this song. I love her singing. She, too, was quite capable of drawing the listener in. The difference here was Wanda was selling personality. Gladys was the first phase. It seems she wasn’t allowed to sell/create “personality”, though, for me, Gladys Horton’s beautiful dark misery shines through in so many unexpected places, even when singing unabashed love songs (I’m thinking of the fantastic “Tonight Was Made For Love”) and would have done so if given the opportunity to have sung the second phase Marveletes [sic] songs like “Don’t Mess With Bill”.
Wanda stepped up to the plate and delivered. And that is what ALL of the Marvelettes did. They delivered.
LikeLike
Damecia said:
Agree with everything you said about Wanda.
LikeLike
soshe said:
Quote from TNA:
“I think I touched on this in an earlier Marvelettes review, but it’s interesting to me that the early-Sixties and late-Sixties Marvelettes sound like two different groups (and it’s more sophisticated than just comparing Gladys and Wanda as leads, or noting how few/many of the later records are actually Wanda and the Andantes – rather, it’s as if the entire chemistry of the group has changed at some sort of microscopic level), and that the transition between the two is so patchily documented on vinyl (no Marvelettes studio album between 1964 and 1967). Even the recent Complete Albums box sets, with their generous slew of bonus tracks, exhibit a marked and abrupt lightswitch-type change between Marvelettes Mk 1 and Marvelettes Mk 2.”
What????
No…
EVERY act on Motown changed DRAMATICALLY between the early 60’s and the late 60’s. Because SOUL MUSIC changed dramatically.
Compare “Don’t Feel Sorry For Me” by Jimmy Ruffin from 1961 with the successful stuff he did after 1966. Does it sound the same??
Now do that with EVERY long-standing Motown act.
Spot the difference?? (I hope so…..)
The ONLY swerveball with the Marvs is that they were so invisible around ’66 that the changes seemed more marked, simply because we didn’t hear from them.
You are “over-intellectualising” again, Mr Nixon 🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
But they didn’t. Yet again, you’re skim reading my writing and then fighting one-line straw men that weren’t even there in the first place. It’s my contention that the Temptations of 1967 sound like the Temptations of 1964 where you’d expect them to be three years later, like the Vandellas, like the Tops. Like Jimmy Ruffin, for that matter. I don’t mean “gosh, these records don’t sound identical, I must go public with this discovery at once!”, I mean the Pink Album sounds like the work of a completely different group to The Marvelous Marvelettes in a way that doesn’t hold true for eg Watchout against Come And Get These Memories, or Reflections against Where Did Our Love Go – that’s the whole point of my argument.
LikeLike
soshe said:
With respect TNA, I didn’t “skim read” your review, and yes, you could call every dissent from your preferred line “one straw” – that’s your prerogative.
You say: “early-Sixties and late-Sixties Marvelettes sound like two different groups” .
That is a quite specific statement. As if it was something unusual. If disagreeing with that statement is “one-straw”, then yes, that’s me to a tee 🙂
Again, it is the difference between your “looking back with hindsight” view, or being there.
The Temptations in ’63, singing “I Want A love I Can See” and the Temptations in ’68 singing “Cloud Nine” – very different.
Martha & the Vandellas in ’66 with “Ready For Love” and in ’69 with “Taking My Love” – very different.
The Tops – “Ask The Lonely” from ’65, and “What Is A Man” from ’69 – very different.
Jimmy Ruffin – “Don’t Feel Sorry For Me” from ’61, and “As Long As There Is L.O.V.E” from ’65 – very different.
Now, if we had not heard any tunes in between, we would have noticed the glaring differences. But, BEING THERE, we got to hear all the stuff in between.
So the difference was a gradual thing.
However, pick those tunes, from different years and different producers and different production values – and ignore the stuff in between – and you can say the SAME THING about EVERY Motown act.
THAT was the point I was making.
Maybe you should amend the tag-line at the bottom:
“Dissent is encouraged, but I’ll ignore it, call it “one-straw”, and carry on regardless”
🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
Now, now. Dissent is encouraged, meaning I don’t put my opinions above anyone else’s (except physically on the page), I don’t censor, I want everyone to have their say as many times as they want (we all get endless right of reply, including you and including me, and including the chance to clean up misinterpretations and misunderstandings on everyone’s part, largely for the benefit of onlookers who can decide for themselves).
(I don’t then change my review scores, ever, but I do sometimes refer to interesting dissenting points of view the next time the group in question comes up, as indeed I will be the next time we meet the Marvelettes in a few months’ time).
So. I didn’t call anything “one-straw” (what does that even mean?), I said you were knocking down one-line straw men. Which you were, and still are! It isn’t an insult (it refers to the thing you’re arguing with, not your subsequent disagreement), I’m enjoying reading your thoughts, I just think you’re fighting a battle where nobody’s actually disagreeing with you.
You keep coming up with examples to disprove a totally different argument, one I’ve never actually made – as if I’d said “the Marvelettes’ records from years apart sound very different from each other, unlike those of any other Motown act”. Which is not what I said at all, mainly because that would be completely wrong, as you’ve quite rightly shown 🙂
I’m saying that for all the obvious and undeniable musical evolution for every Motown act for the period between 1964 and 1967, the changes in the overall sound of the Marvelettes are perhaps the most marked, to the point they sound (to me) like two different groups. (As Mike C states below, they changed not just lead singer but their entire model – in a way that, for me, doesn’t hold true to the same extent for other Motown acts of the same period.) If they’d rebranded themselves for the likes of Hunter/Pink Album as (e.g.) the Darnells, I don’t think people would necessarily peg them as being the same group only older – unlike the Supremes, Temptations, Vandellas, Tops or Jimmy Ruffin over the same period (not a random period of your choosing), where to me while the records sound different (obviously) they are still clearly identifiable as the same act underneath.
Disagree with any or all that, by all means, but let us be clear what it is you’re disagreeing with 🙂
LikeLike
soshe said:
We are going in circles, my friend.
You stated “but it’s interesting to me that the early-Sixties and late-Sixties Marvelettes sound like two different groups”.
That infers that it was somehow unique to the that group.
That was ALL I differed with you on.
You now say: “the changes in the overall sound of the Marvelettes are perhaps the most marked, to the point they sound (to me) like two different groups”
Again, I will differ with you.
Do you REALLY think that early Tempts stuff with Paul Williams or Eddie Kendricks singing, and produced by Smokey, sounds ANYTHING like Dennis Edwards singing on the Whitfield produced stuff?
Do you REALLY think that Billy Gordon, singing “Do You Love Me” with the Contours, produced by Berry Gordy, sounds ANYTHING like “Just a Little Misunderstanding”, sung by Jo Stubbs, and produced by Clarence Paul & Mickey Stevenson?
That is not a “straw man” or any other put down you wanna tag on it. You are simply ignoring the point.
MANY Motown bands swapped singers and producers ( the Temps, the Supremes, the Contours, the Velvelettes to name a few), AND changed their styles between the early and late 60’s.
You are simply WRONG to hang that purely on the Marvelettes. 🙂
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
Yes, we’re going around in circles, because as far as I can see you’re still arguing about things I’ve not actually said, and providing (perfectly correct!) examples to “prove” things I already agree with, so I have a strong suspicion that we are simply misunderstanding each other’s points (except… please take my word for it, accusing you of “arguing against a straw man” is not the insult or put-down you think it is. Honestly it’s not.)
In super brief, it was my argument (and my only argument) that between 1964-67 the Marvelettes’ sound changed more abruptly and dramatically than their labelmates (many of whom, yes, very obviously changed more dramatically, or as much, over/in a different time frame – we’ve always agreed on this point!!).
But look, forget about this, because what’s important is, whether by luck or judgement, you’re right, I was indeed WRONG – the Contours! Yes, I’m an idiot for forgetting them – they certainly fit the same mould of dramatic transition between 1964-67 and I’d quite forgotten about them…
(though, here’s a question: to all intents and purposes, could you say they really were a different group? Discuss!)
…and I readily concede that, yes, their change in sound was at least as dramatic as that of the Marvelettes. Well done, let’s all have some tea and cake * 🙂
That’s probably too long for most skim-readers to see, so…
======================
SOSHE WAS RIGHT
======================
* NB: there is no tea and cake
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
(this comment box column squishing is really annoying, and makes even quite concise replies look like the epilogue to War and Peace)
LikeLike
soshe said:
An even more squished reply! 🙂
With the greatest of respect,TNA, you really don’t wanna concede the whole point, do you, although I appreciate the wit at the end.
You seem to belittle dissent as a way of countering it (although your next reply, if there is one, will say you don’t 🙂 )
So here’s a thing:
The phrase I disagreed with was this:
“but it’s interesting to me that the early-Sixties and late-Sixties Marvelettes sound like two different groups”
That was EXACTLY as you wrote it, and I took specific issue with that.
But you now say:
“as I can see you’re still arguing about things I’ve not actually said”
NO I AM NOT, TNA – I am arguing about a statement you SPECIFICALLY said.
And you now try to muddy the waters by picking up on the personnel changes within the Contours.
OK, lets look at the “early 60’s and late 60’s” (your phrase) as a whole.
If you had been there, or had paid any real attention to its history, you would know that music changed dramatically during that period – probably more so than in any other decade in modern musical history.
And unlike later decades, it wasn’t about reviving old styles. The music revolution of the later 60’s created NEW music – and ANY self respecting band or musician wanted to be part of it.
Compare “Please Please Me” by the Beatles (1963) with “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” (1967). Same band. same Producer. Sound just a tad different, don’t they??
Listen to Eric Clapton playing live with the Yardbirds in 1963, singing Don & Bob’s “Good Morning Little Schoolgirl”. Then listen to him singing Robert Parker’s “Crossroads” (1968). Two live concerts. Same singer. Sounds more than a little different though, doesn’t it??
I could go on, but you accuse me of picking particular examples.
The thing is, AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS, almost EVERY BAND and musician, if you compare their early 60’s output with their later 60’s output, WILL HAVE CHANGED.
So the statement (which you DID say, so please don’t infer that you didn’t) :
“but it’s interesting to me that the early-Sixties and late-Sixties Marvelettes sound like two different groups”
is WRONG on all levels.
It infers a lack of understanding about the Marvs – of course they changed – they were developing like their co-bands on the label.
It infers a lack of understanding of Motown – they wanted ALL their bands to develop and change – the ones who didn’t were dropped, because they were seen as old fashioned.
And it infers a lack of understanding of the 60’s as a musical decade – OK, you weren’t there – so why extemporise to such an extent that you have to come up with jealousies within the group to explain a process that almost ALL bands went through in the 60’s??
You probably think I am going on about this – well, as long as you keep denying that you said it in the first place – there will still be an itch to scratch.
Why not try “Yes, I was wrong”, without the “ah, buts”……… 🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
Oh, for the love of… Right, let’s do this. Unsquished reply is below.
LikeLike
Mike C. said:
I agree with Mr. Nixon.
The Marvelettes move was a stylistic one. The later records are no longer group/choral singing – the records are lead vocal with sweetening, added background vocals. Of course, ALL of Motown’s acts and records changed. The music changed. But the groups still maintained their identity.
It’s surprising that The Marvelettes made records in the group singing mode as long as they did. They evolved from homespun to sophisticated soul. It’s in the grooves and the two “phases” do sound like they are entirely different groups.
The Marvelettes became distinctive quickly. (Or perhaps they didn’t. Like you say, Mr. Nixon- the absence of records was great) But the craziness of adding Ann Bogan’s style to the mix is another trick where Motown used The Marvelettes in every way possible to see what WAS possible for the genre a la Motown style.
Gosh, we had The Darnell’s record. The Marvelettes were constantly being railroaded, yet following directions to a tee. Can you imagine if they did that to the Supremes?
—Hey, here’s a new little record on the Gordy label by The Prissettes: “Who’s Foolin’ Who?” uh huh…right…..
Wanda Young practiced a style. Prepared and moved forward.
The woman deserves credit for real talent, hard work, perseverance and guts! Plus- what a voice!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Nixon Administration said:
Dear Soshe,
I’ve been, I feel, more than reasonable given your repeated rudeness about my credentials and “understanding” of Motown, and it feels like every time I turn the other cheek you just go right on slapping away, while if I bite, you accuse me of hypocrisy, me having requested dissent and all. I’m sorry if you feel I’ve “belittled” you until now, as that was not the intention. Still isn’t the intention.
With that said, I’m not going to “concede” anything, because I think – Contours aside – you’re wrong.
But life is beautiful and far too short, and it’s sunny outside. And I fear this conversation may be boring other readers.
If you honestly want me to put up a line-by-line rebuttal of what you’ve just said, which you can then reply to and I can then reply to and so on and so on, we can absolutely do that – but on the understanding it’ll be solely at your request.
Otherwise – and this is not an attempt to shut down debate, but simply to increase the peace, while leaving both of our conflicting opinions up here for posterity (both to speak for themselves, and to prove that dissent is, indeed, encouraged) – I’m perfectly happy to say let’s agree to disagree, and move on. It’s your call.
LikeLike
Damecia said:
Amen to that!
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
🙂
LikeLike
soshe said:
You should have been a politician, my friend (or maybe you are).
Your ability to avoid a straight answer is to be commended.
Let’s just say that I’m your Jeremy Paxman, and leave it at that 🙂
LikeLike
144man said:
It’s worse than that, Soshe. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in life, it’s never to argue with a lawyer!
LikeLike
The Nixon Administration said:
Beat me to it by a couple of minutes there 🙂
LikeLike
MotownFan1962 said:
You say you believe our host’s statement that “…it’s interesting to me that the early-Sixties and late-Sixties Marvelettes sound like two different groups…” is incorrect.
I hate to go all Grammar Nazi/Debate Team on you, but if you examine the sentence, you’ll see that it is a statement of *personal belief*, not of a universal fact (signified by the phrase “to me”, showing that it is a personal belief). Therefore, his statement cannot be proven or disproven, unless you can somehow read his mind and produce evidence that he doesn’t really feel that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Nixon Administration said:
Whistle had already gone, but thanks anyway. I learned a lot, mainly that I need to be clearer in what it is I’m actually saying, and also that offering a handshake of peace to some people simply leaves your groin unprotected. But it was for the best; I could practically hear the stifled yawns from other readers.
More new posts soon.
LikeLike
benjaminblue said:
Hearing this song for the first time on a cheap transistor radio and especially in the context of the era — when you were bombarded by the Beatles’ and other British groups’ latest records and when Motown’s pre-1964 catalog was largely unknown — what struck you immediately, what with the growling guitar riff, followed by the preliminary organ announcement of the chorus, was, “wow, that seems to have been lifted from a Rolling Stones’ or Animals’ session.”
Then, as the vocals began, you thought of the Jaynettes singing “Sally Go Round The Roses,” another moody, mysterious song from the relatively recent past.
On repeat listens, you identified some recognizable Motown elements: the vibes, the catchy tune and the clever lyrics. Together, these had the same infectious quality that characterized the Supremes’ and the Four Tops’ songs of the 1964/65 period.
If you were a young teen, you certainly heard something other than a companion piece to “Please Mr. Postman” or “Beechwood 4-5789,” which you maybe remembered vaguely from a few years earlier. By then, the Marvelettes of that earlier time seemed trite, while the Marvelettes of this record seemed relevant and of a piece with both the international music scene and the H-D-H era Motown.
Again in context, a few years later, I did not think of this song as a precursor of “I Heard It Through The Grapevine,” perhaps because I didn’t internalize the message of either record; they were exciting and appealing sounds and they were special tracks, but they were not about my experience. Or perhaps at that point, lyrics were somewhat secondary, after the assemblage of the right voices, rhythms, songs and instrumentation. Thanks for making that connection between the two songs; it seems so apparent now!
LikeLike
Lars Nilsson said:
Don’t know if been mentioned here… but the UK single mono release (TMG 546) of “Bill” just use one channel of the USA stereo mix… without drums and organ!
Check it out…
Lars
LikeLiked by 1 person
bogart4017 said:
How are you gonna have this song with no organ or drums. Thats the backbone of the whole record!!!!
LikeLike
144man said:
“Those marvellous Marvelettes can chalk up another winner here with a groovy and swinging number that really gets under your skin after a couple of spins. Gladys [sic] tells the story, which takes the form of a warning, with gentle determinedness. Cool. 4/5
“Flip is a Chiffons’ type number which seems without precedent in the Marvelettes’ repertoire. A very polished and potent performance, but not as strong as some of their previous flip sides. 4/5”
[Dave Godin, Hitsville USA 12, 1966]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Donald White said:
To whpm it may concern:
Ttibute to smokey robinson would sustain inter_ruption by smokey robinson himsrlf subsrquent to him. Finding it more necesdary to pay tribute to the likes of aretha franklin,barry gordy,stevie wonder,the. Rest of his peers and especially to his beloved mother who taught him about lofe’s pitfalls.
Smokey earned his rights to royalties written in abundancr and the legislature.verifies that in congress assembledif aretha was alive…neo-motown
/anonymously yours in appreciation of god_given talent.
LikeLike