Talk:The Foundations

I recall seeing them on the nostalgia circuit at the Village Bowl Bournemouth towards the end of the 70's. Although it wasn't very professional of Mr. Curtis to stand looking at his fingernails between numbers, annoyed by the low turnout for a Sunday Club gig, and his vocals weren't a patch on the original, I'm afraid that it would really be POV to leave this in the article. Sorry! Great article in the main about a neglected group. Britmax 08:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

About this U.S. group calling itself The Foundations and its member(s) or associate(s) messing with The Foundations Wikipedia page

Important info deleted (Updated April 01 2008)
This person who is obviously connected with that American group that calls itself The Foundations has on more than one occasion deleted interesting and important info and placed his own info instead. This is an obvious effort to promote his own website http://www.thefoundations.us/ , and his group. If he wants to promote it then why not start his own page and stop making a mess of this one. The original Foundations were a multi racial band with White English, Afro West Indians and a Sri Lankan. This US group calling itself The Foundations is all white and American and features a female. They also claim the legal rights to the Foundations name.

George-Archer —Preceding unsigned comment added by George-Archer (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A Answer to GROUP WITH THE SAME NAME.---

I am not calling this group The Foundations. We are the current lineup of The Foundations and have been for over 30 years. Check out the legal rights included on the website and see for yourself. Feel free to check out the full legal rights for over 30 years.

I will continue to edit this website every day or every hour if need be to meke it correct. The Foundations are alive and well and performing to this very day. They did not cease to be in 1970 as you seem to think.

This person (Dave Huffman) has had no desire to delete anything about the original English group but would like the record to be set straight. All of the English musicians were in the group for between a month and several years. I have legally performed with and owned the group here in the US for over thirty years and played with the group even earlier than that. I have no problem with the history being stated on this site but do have a problem with things such as Clem coming here and illegally using the name with Mars Talent and others but that was taken care of years ago (or perhaps not according to his website). I also have a problem with the facts not being stated that the American group does have rights to let the public know that this great group did not end in 1970 as stated here but continues to record and perform on a regular basis here in the US. I don't want to steal the thunder of the originals but I do own the group now and have for many years so let's come to an agreement. Apparently the legal side of this does have to be settled and I will continue to add the trademark every time you erase it as I do have LEGAL rights. Check out the number of years the English musicians were with The Foundations and how long I have performed with the group. Believe me I will never erase a single line unless someone does the same thing to me. The fact that the group is alive and well today after all of these years should make all of the original members proud, not make them mad. I feel that the full history of this group should include the start to the finish and the final race hasn't been run yet. I will continue to correct this and other websites until the full history (psst and present)is stated correctly.

Articles on other long-running bands generally trace the evolution and personnel changes. What this article does not do is say what Huffman and Harris have done with the band other than that he joined the band when it came to the US. There is also no discussion of how original Foundations transitioned to the new Foundations and how Huffman and Harris were granted rights to the name. What bothers me most is that I do not think an encyclopedia is the appropriate place for a trademark owner to post his legal claims. ````jkolak

Reply to ````jkolak

I agree with you jkolak, Wikipedia is not the place to make his claims and now he's even making legal threats. But the terrible thing is that in the process he vandalised some of the article by deleting some actual history of the group that involved Clem Curtis and Colin Young. He also seems to have deleted Clem Curtis's website link. The main thing is that The Foundations page on Wikipedia is of interest to fans of the group Soul enthusiats, Mods, Record Collectors, budding historians and people who are into the sixtes and seventies. When someone who's motivations whatever they may be deletes important sections of articles then that is indeed a sad thing.

George-Archer —Preceding unsigned comment added by George-Archer (talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's Springate?

Where's John Springate? He used to play Bass Guitar with Clem & the lads - Here's a piccy of the little rascal with 'em! [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Pending (talk • contribs) 10:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found a brief mention of him - btw, who's this American crew calling themselves "The Foundations?" Pat Pending (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not an American crew calling ourselves '"The Foundations" but are the current legal lineup of "The Foundations" and hold full legal rights to the name and performance rights. Feel free to check this out. We have been performing under this name for more than thirty and have owned full legal rights since 1981. Let's get this settled once and for all stop the childless bickering. If I was going to pretend to be someone it would certainly not be someone as obscure as "The Foundations". I would choose someone a lot more popular and much more in the public eye.

Well, who's "This Crew" then? Led Zep???[2] Pat Pending (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I would love to be "Led Zep" we are the current lineup of The Foundations and apparently the fact that we have legally kept the group alive for over thirty years seems to really bug you. What's the problem, do you want the group to not exist? Clem was only with the group for a few years and the same held true for the other guys. Why the problem with blacks and whites? Are you prejudiced. By the way our drummer was black and has now returned to the group after an extended illness. I'm not asking you to like what we are doing but to ignore the facts is a little silly. The facts are that we have as much or more rights to be on this web page as anyone. The guys that you are sticking up for quit the group in the early 70's and that is when I started performing with "The Foundations". I was quite young at the time and just stuck it out and kept the group alive (be it in the US) while the other guys deserted the group and the name for varions reasons. Why don't you accept this or at least let this site offer the complete story of "The Foundations". By the way, what is your relationship with the group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.44.177 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Huffman & Co

The rights to The Foundations would rest with the former members, Clem Curtis, Alan Warner, Colin Young and whoever else of the original band is alive today .. Pat Burke , Tim Harris etc. In actual fact the guy Ramong who was there in 1966 when they were called The Ramong Sound would have more connection to the band than you have, he was there from the beginning. Alan Warner had four - five years with the group and even recorded with Clem Curtis in the late eighties.

Quote:"All of the English musicians were in the group for between a month and several years"Unquote

I bet you didn't even know that the band evlolved from The Ramong Sound and I bet you didn't even know Arthur Brown was a member and so was Hue Montgomery. BTW: Why did you delete the info relating to him ? And how does an English band become American ?

The simple answer to that is, they can't. The "current members" of The Foundations are: "Clem Curtis & The Foundations" and "The New Foundations" who can also be known as: "Colin Young & The New Foundations" Pat Pending (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit resulted in Curtis getting the rights to the original name, while Young was allowed to use "The New Foundations" [3] Pat Pending (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are NOT AWARE that Clem left the group in 1968 un his own free will and that Arthur Brown was with the group for one month. I will not contine this silliness.We are the current "Foundations" with full legal rights and have been for 30 years. It does not matter who was in the group before it was "The Foundations" or who is in it now in England. I hope Clem is doing well and I will not come there to perform but he or any of the others will not come to America to perform or they will be stopped. There is no reason to have a dispute over members in a 35 year old band but if you want the true history of "The Foundations" it did not stop in England thirty years but continued here in the US to the present day. Just because the original guys were in a group that became "The Foundations" or because they now want to cash in on a name that was not emportant enough for them to keep the group alive back when they were popular does not give them legal rights to the name or performance rights now. These musicians left the group due to the fact that each of them thought they were the reasons "The Foundations" were a hit. When they left for solo careers and failed then they want all the credit for "The Foundations" success. No one individual made the group a success and if it was not for me continueing on here in America where "The Foundations" were and are still a success no one would remember who "The Foundations" are. I am aware that all of this discussion is being done out of ego but I still have a working group here in America and we're still popular after all of these years. What has Arthur Brown done for the group other than spend a month of his time all those many years ago. All I am asking is that this website state the truth and no matter whether you will admit it or not we are "The Foundations" and will continue to be for many years to come. Why do you find it so offensive that I played with the group when they came here and continued on with "The Foundations" when they chose to leave. It was a concious decision on all of their parts to stop performing with the group. I want not credit for starting the group or playing with some other obscure Brithis group prior to the time that I joined "The Foundations", but I do want the truth told. You are correct, this was originally a multi-racial group with members from around the globe but it didn't ent up that way. There may very well be other "Foundations" groups in other contries, legal or not but here we are "The Foundations" and will continue to be until we are, like the original members ready to hang up "The Foundations" name. I'm not messing with Clem or Colin, they can do what they want but the truth is they didn't want anything to do with the name until they failed in their solo career and then wanted to fall back on their past success. I would appreciate it if you would stop erasing our information on this site and I will be happy to do the same even though I don't see why you want to drag Peter's problems all across the internet when it has nothing to do with "The Foundations". By the way you have proven my point yourself with the statement made above that "The Foundations" are not "The Foundations" but Clem Curtis & The Foundations or Colin Young and The New Foundation. Why are neither of the "THE FOUNDATIONS". Could it be that they do not have rights to "The Foundations" neme. I have those rights and have had them for a very long time. Also in answer to how does an English band become American? They move to America, hire American musicians, give up the name and go back home without looking back and them the American members continue with the name since the British members dinn't care. After several years of touring the American musicians go through the proper channels and aquire the leagal rights to the name and performance through much time and expense and are legally "The Foundations" while members of the British group are not. They had the perfect right to do what I did and it was even posted for opposition and they chose to not do so since they were off pursuing their solo careers. This is my last attempt to convince you that we mean no one any harm but do wish to have all of our work over the years keeping "The Foundations" name alive is at bear minimum at least not destroyed here. I think if you would realize that we did not buy this name from Wal Mart last week and start pretending to be this group but rather kept the group going here in America when the English guys threw in the towel for various reasons, that you may have a little more tolerance of us. Hope it can be worked out but at the present time this website ststing that the group folded in 1970 is probably hurting both us and the English groups us this name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.44.177 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Dave Huffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.44.177 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be perfectly possible to explain in the article (as I see you do, at one point) and copy-edit the article so that the genesis of the current US "The Foundations" band and its relation to the original line-up(s) is made clear. You'll forgive me if I say, as a disinterested observer, that the efforts to do this to date have been adversarial and ham-fisted.

The edits should begin at the first paragraph ... if the group is continuing, albeit under a different leadership and perhaps even a disputed name ownership, then we should say this. What we should not do is insert crap like ""The Foundations" are alive and well in 2008 contrary to the rumors that they disbanded in 1970."

is there any possibility that we can develop a neutral coverage of the legal history of the name, encompassing the "The Foundations split in 1970, and by the middle of the decade that followed, Curtis revived the band -- but so had Young, and both outfits were called the Foundations. A lawsuit resulted in Curtis getting the rights to the original name, while Young was allowed to use The New Foundations." business, and whatever legal steps were taken by the contemporary The Foundations band?

Can we also establish whether the contemporary The Foundations band is a continuation of the existing band, or some sort of offshoot which has usurped the name?

Bottom line: can we start dealing in facts, dispassionately, and in a neutral way explain what has been going on for the past 30 years? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, bottom line: how the hell can an all-white American "bar band" become Britian's first visibly multi-cultrual soul band? Pat Pending (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is to miss the point somewhat. We have an article space called "The Foundations". There appears to be a contemporary band called "The Foundations", which has the remotest connection with the original band of that name, and which makes claims - that may or may not be dubious - to be a continuation of the original band. The task for us is to decide what to write about the band or bands going under that name. The original band appears to be notable in wikipedia terms. I don't know if the contemporary band is notable.

It is not beyond our abilities to write an article which explains all of this in a neutral tone. You, Pat, may not like the (idea of) the contemporary band. And the IP, as part of that band, clearly does want to shape the article to suit himself. Neither of those points of view is relevant to the article. Let's get on an explain what's been happening within "The Foundations" namespace and move on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex offender conviction

What do people want to do about this. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an argument that if Peter MacBeth is notable enough to have his own article (and the BBC website might be sufficient indication of notability), that the conviction information should be in that article. And if he is not notable enough, that the conviction information should not be on The Foundations entry ... it is not obvious to me that a conviction of an ex-band member some 37 years after the demise of the original-ish line up split up, should form part of the subject matter of an article about the band. (Equally, I can see why others, and in a different hour, myself, would disagree with me). Suffice to say it might be useful to discuss the matter here rather than get into a revert war --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

COI

This article appears to be the venue for some sort of sad battle between a couple of The Foundation factions; suffice to say whoever added the long note, above, appears to admit to being something to do with some sort of contemporary band called The Foundation, and is editing the article against the advice set out in wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines.

In particular, the IP appears to wish to bore us all to death with an inappropriate screed, partially in capital letter, about the current ownership of the name. Guess what? That's a completely inappropriate and disrespectful use of wikipedia. Please have sufficient maturity to fight your wars elsewhere.

See WP:COI --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually reported this to Wikipedia for a Conflict of Interest investigation yet Tagishsimon? Or are you just bringing the policy to the attention of Mr Huffman so he can think on his current stance and desist voluntarily? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The latter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question for Dave Huffman

It would be helpful if you could tell us on what basis legal title to the name "The Foundations" passed to you. I well understand that you have registered a trade-mark. You will agree with me that that is not the same thing as a transfer of title. Was there any agreement at all from the original owners / members of the band that you inherited the name? Or did you usurp the name as it had been in some sense vacated by the demise of the original group? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I joined the original group when they came to the US to tour in the early 70's. I believe that makes me an original member of "The Foundations". Clem Curtis and some of the other members had already left the group by that time but the group was still touring and recording. I continued performing with The Foundations when the so called break up rumors occurred. There was no break up but most of the original members decided to return home or pursue their solo projects. The group continued performing and recording in the US. I continued on with "The Foundations" for several years and then our agent suggested that we make sure that we had legal rights to the name. I put in to trademark the name and all rights to the group with no opposition from anyone that had ever performed with the group since I was a legimate member of "The Foundations" and had been with the group longer than any of the other "original" members. The fact that I was a member of the original group (even though I was not there in "before The Foundations" days had no legal bearing on keeping a group going when all of the so called "original" members had guit the band for various reasons. All of the other musicians were given the opportunity to dispute my claims for a number of years and none were interested in keeping the group going or using the name themselves at that time. I want to make it clear at this time that many of the individuals that are now claiming association with "The Foundations" were not any more original members than I was. Colin Young was not with the group when it started but was hired to replace Clem Curtis who was only with the group for a few years. The fact that the group was called by another name prior to the actual groups beginnings as "The Foundations" has no actual legal bearing on who was original. I have been performing for more than 30 years as the original group and have never had any legal problems until now. I hope this explains why I have the full legal rights to "The Foundations" name. Why after thirty years has this now become a problem. I am not trying to steal the glory from any of the great musicians that have played with "The Foundations" over the years but I would like for you to state the correct information on Wikipedia. I understand that the legal statement does not need to be on the website but I feel it was necessisary to post it due to the fact that all of my information on the current group (which is also a part of "The Foundations" history) was being deleated daily. In response to your inquiry of whether I purchased the group or took it on due to it being abandoned I did not purchase the name and did not just decide to use the name due to it being abandoned. I was a member of "The Foundations" and kept it going when all others deserted it for their own reasons. One other thing I don't think Peter's trouble needs to be spread all over this website but that's not up to me. He was a great guy and whatever happened with him after his stay with this great group should not be included in the group's history.

By the way, could you give me a definition of "An Original Member" of any group. I was under the impression that it meant that you had performed and/or recorded with the group under the original name (which I had done both) but perhaps I am wrong due to Wikipedia standards.

Also, in response to the above comment about this being a "sad attempt" we are still performing and recording constantly and have been extremely successful in the US and other countries so this article will not make or break us but "The Truth Is The Truth".

I would appreciate it if you would leave the information up on the website as this is "The True History of The Foundations".

Thank You Dave Huffman The Foundations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.44.177 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll edit the article in the next 12 hours or so, and would then be glad if you and Pat would look at it & see if you agree with the new model. In short, it seems to me that, for better or worse, The Foundations in essence became three bands, one led by Clem, one by Colin Young (both UK based?), and one by you (US based)? Of these, by & large and after a legal wrange (in the UK?), two traded under the original name - yours and Clem Curtis'; with Colin's being The New Foundations. You registered The Foundations as a trade mark in the US, do not appear to be challanging Clem's ability to trade under The Foundations name in the UK, but are likely to challenge any attempt by anyone else to mount a The Foundations operation in the US.

Please feel free to comment on that summary.

Unless I am mistaken and I do not believe that I am we are the only group allowed to use the name "The Foundations". Clem has to use Clem Curtis and The Foundations and Colin Young has to use Colin Young and The New Foundation. I know when I last talked with Clem he was booking as Clem Curtis former lead singer with The Foundations but that may have changed after legal battles in England. We are actually discussing a Foundations tour and record deal for the new CD in Sweden and Germany early next year so the legal battles may begin at that time. Maybe they will finally be settled. Thanks for your help in getting The Foundations information corrected.

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.44.177 (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up question, more for general interest: do you have a clue what Curtis makes of you continuing the band / band name in the States? Happy? Indifferent? Enraged? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

He was not too happy years ago when I contacted him after he did a British Invasion special that aired on ETV here and had a Foundations posting on the Mars Talent website but he agreed that he would not try to perform here under The Foundations name and the posting was removed from Mars Talent. He called me and after checking out the legal aspecs even talked of performing with us in the states if he got any other bookings here but I never heard from him again. I told him that I had no problem with him booking here as Clem Curtis, former lead singer with The Foundations. I did not want to cause him to lose work but it would interfere if there was more than one band under the same name. I was under the impression as stated in this article that neither he nor Colin Young could use the name "The Foundations". I noticed on his website that he apparently has performed here in New York under "The Foundations". If that is true my attorney will have to contact him and the venue he performed at to straighten out this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.44.177 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A message for Dave Huffman, on behalf of Clem Curtis. He has been alerted to this ongoing dispute. He has requested contact with Dave himself about this and wished to speak with him in person. Dave Huffman, Please contact him giving your telephone number. You can email him at therealclemcurtis@hotmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msstone61 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

>>> A question please Mr Huffman You're not even answering the question properly.You're saying that you "joined the original group when they came to the US to tour in the early 70's". Who were the members then? Did they go back to the U.K.?

Another English creation stolen by Americans

Not satisfied with Man About The House, Steptoe and Son, Reginald Perrin. Now its The Foundations. What next?

I'm through with defending a group that I have been performing with for over 30 years and have full legal rights to just because you hate Americans. I'm through, even though you seem to have nothing to do with your life but try and make me miserable, I don't have the time or the desire to play your game online. Think what you want but I have been with The Foundations longer than any our your "so called" original members and will continue to perform with the group as long as I choose due to my legal status. You really should get over your prejudice for the rest of the world. This my last statement. Get over yourself. You are not worth it. By the way, I think the UK groups were great. Why are you not concerned that the "original" group was not completely English? Or didn't you know that?

Dave Huffman The Foundations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.44.177 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)