Talk:The Foundations

A guideline for this discussion page .... A suggestion

Its easy. Keep it tidy.

As there is an on going discussion about this groups page we should make sure that the discussion is kept tidy so that others can keep track of it. So how about at least signing your name in bold after your post so others will know where you left off. I just marked the place where Morris mech had finished so that people can see where Huffman actially replied. But it makes it all the more easier to follow and therefore hopefully avoids confusion. Another idea would be to possibly make a header like I did before IE: Important info deleted (Updated April 01 2008)
. Anyway its up to you.

Vandalism of a Wikipedia article and abuse

• What would we actually regard as abuse ?
• What would we regard as vandalism ?
• What would Wikipedia regard as abuse and vadalism
• Is this happening here with The Foundations page ?
• What does the general public have a right to know as far as actuality of an article and the history of The Foundations are concerned ?
• Does one mans opinions and desires give him free passage to do as he feels ?

(Reply to unsigned comment above): The level of large-scale addition and removing of text here clearly shows a bitter and emotional edit war in progress. The Foundations appear to have suffered the same fate as many other bands from the 60s, 70s and 80s, in splitting into more than one lineup, each of whom claims to own the name. This edit war can easily be solved by telling the story of the Foundations up to the 1970s and including the observation that a later lineup was formed to tour, record and claim legal ownership to the name.

The whole article is a mess, with these "statements" and angry assertions, which fall far short of an encyclopedic tone, being added and deleted daily. Grimhim (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Grimhim Re: (Reply to unsigned comment above):
Hi there Grimhim , first of all the Foundations WIKI article was over a period of time slowly expanding with addition bits and pieces of info being added by various people. Like other Wiki articles this was both good and interesting. There were a couple of not so commonly known things added with references that made the article more interesting. So basically it was slowly and progressivly taking "good shape". Then I think it was early this year someone that appeared to be Dave Huffman or connected with him started adding unreferenced things as well as deleting certain referenced things as well as deleting original founding member Clem Curtis's website link. He even put in a link with a caption "Come and visit us at http://www.thefoundations/" He also made a mess of the page. Correct me if I am wrong but aren't additions supposed to referenced ? And is it wrong to delete links that relate to an original person connected with an article in favour of his own ? You may also notice that he has completly deleted all of the original Foundations sixties and seventies American discography that included some releases that were never released in the UK. And then he has replaced this with what appears to be titles of twenty of his own recordings. I doubt if all of them were actually singles releases. A couple of them may have been but I doubt all. But to delete actual relative historical information isn't the way to go. That is not a good thing at all. Yes I believe that The Foundations did split up in the early 1970's , but didn't Clem Curtis revive the group ? And didn't he team up with original Foundations guitar man Alan Warner to re-cut the songs in the late 80's ?
You also say that "a later lineup was formed to tour, record and claim legal ownership to the name". Well isn't that what Clem Curtis did in the early 70's ? And didn't Colin Young do the same thing ? And didn't they go to court over it ? And since then and up until now hasn't Clem Curtis been at the helm of The Foundations. Also Alan Warner reformed a version of The Foundations with Colin Young and Steve Bingham. And when Colin Young dropped out Hue Montgomery replaced him. I can't remember if it was on the article page ot this one. Possibly it was the article page. Anyway Huffman deleted the info relating to Montgomery. Well IMO thats not the thing to do.
Yes I agree with your statement that "The whole article is a mess, with these "statements" and angry assertions, which fall far short of an encyclopedic tone, being added and deleted daily." I think that its very sad that it has come to this. I think you'll know the reason why if you look more into it. You could ask Mr Curtis or Mr Warner about this and I'm sure you'll get an answer that will explain things a bit more clearly and then you'll have a good idea of what is actually taking place here. I think that you really will.

BTW: He also made the Claim that Curtis and Young and probably meant Warner too had failed in their solo careers and then were cashing in on the name and past success of The Foundations. Even if that were true wouldn't the original members have a right to use their own resume` ? Wouldn't they have more of a right than someone who only claims to be a former member ?
(George-Archer (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Another reply to Grimhim

Please go and have a look at the new section An example of what has been deleted and see what has been deleted. This will give you an idea of what disappears each time he comes in to change the page. Think about the work that has to be put in to retieve the info and attempt to tidy the page again.
(George-Archer (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

No Subject title ?

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)

Who the Hell is George Archer and who put him in charge of editing this article?

Dave Huffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.36.194 (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To Dave Huffman , Re: Who the hell is ?
For starters I am not the only one editing this article. You have been doing a lot of editing and having a felid day I see. There are others here that have been editing and tidying up what you have changed. And who the hell am I ? I am somebody who is just concerned with the accuracy of certain articles. If another article that I am interested in or have made some contribution to gets changed in a way that could make it inaccurate then I would possibly edit some part of it. You pal have gotten a bit too carried away here and you had the bloody cheek to say that Curtis , Young and Warner all failed in their careers and were trying to cash in on the name of The Foundations. Heck THEY WERE THE FOUNDATIONS !!! Well tell us what you're tring to do then ? Don't you even realise that Clem Curtis revived the Foundations in the early seventies as did Alan Warner in the late nineties. You are making your group the most important one at the expense of actual history. You erased important and relevent info in favour of your own. You even deleted Clem Curtis's website link in the process..
George Archer 12:30, 8 April 2008

You are 100% correct in the fact that both Clem Curtis and Colin Young were The Foundations. I am 100% correct in the fact that they both quit the group under their own free will in the early 70's and at that time giving up The Foundations name. Then later both trying to get the legal rights to the name just as I did. I have never tried to take anything away from them. Also if you were the one that told me to contact Clem, I did so and he has not returned my email so apparently he's not concerned with what's going on between you and I but rest assured I will continue performing and recording as "The Foundations" as it is my legal right and there is nothing anyone can do about it after 30 years. Don't worry we'll all be dead soon and you can take up another noble cause to fill up your time. Oh, excuse me I've got another 10 years before the name comes up for renewal even if I die. Maybe I'll will it to you and you can be The Foundations. That's a joke, don't take life so seriously. Dave Huffman The Foundations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.36.194 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Does your "legal right" to record and perform under the name "The Foundations" extend itself to the UK? If it doesn't, I feel you have no right to include your band in an article that has been written about the original British Foundations. Will you please explain how is your band more, or just as notable as the original British group? Pat Pending (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

YES. I have performed with and recorded with "The Foundations" longer than any other "original" member(without quitting "The Foundations") and have full legal rights (once again over 30 years) . This is my last comment. I have more to do than play your silly games. Besides even though this group originated in the UK (and that has never been denied) it was not restricted to being only an English group but was comprised of members from all around the globe (include the dreaded US) during the first few years (not before it was called "The Foundations") and toured the States for extended periods of time. And besides, since you seem to be very concerned about it feel free to contact an attorney and we'll let our legal teams work this out like Clem and Colin did in the UK. You will however lose the battle. And let's get this straight I don't give a damn what YOU think. The facts are, as have been stated numerous times that, at this pertiuclar time there are two groups (not three) that have the rights to be called (1) Clem Curtis and The Foundations (UK) and (2) The Foundations (US). Colin Young(who of course was with "The Foundations" early in their career but not from the beginning) has always had to use the name Colin Young and The New Foundation. The history of "The Foundations" includes all of the above. Whether YOU like it or not that is how it is. Dave Huffman The Foundations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.36.194 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it very hard to beleive that you have a legal right to perform or record in the UK as "The Foundations" and furthermore, the members "from all around the globe" were British Subjects/Citizens. Pat Pending (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Pat Pending , "Connections" ,
Dave Huffman has never had any connection with The Foundations and you'll notice that he has never mentioned any of the Foundations members that he took over from or who he rubbed shoulders with. He's never been connected with The original Foundations, Clem Curtis & The Foundations or Alan Warner etc.

• Where's his proof ?
• Who were the members ?
• Why doesn't he give the names ?

And in the process he (IMO) vandalises an interesting historical article , deletes actual historical info that other people have spent valuable time building up and contributing to.
(George-Archer (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

I could not agree more, he and his band are in no way shape or form, notable and furthermore, if you look at the bottom of the page, he has taken to calling us infantile and is refering to us as morons! Cheers, Pat Pending (talk) 05:26, 19 April 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 ?
Revision as of 12:34, 1 April 2008 (edit) George-Archer (Talk | contribs)

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)

I have contactd Clem Curtis, even though we have been through this many years ago and give him all of my telephone numbers (which he also could have gotten off of my website had he needed them). Awaiting his call.

Dave Huffman The Foundations

>>> 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.?

(((Revision as of 12:08, 4 April 2008 Morris-mech to sign off here)))

If you would read the info already posted your request has already been answered by myself and in the history of "The Foundations". Of course the "original members" quit the band for various reasons and returned to their various countries (this was not a UK only group) or I would never have continued here in the US when they left but would have continued to perform with what was left of the "original group". Dave Huffman The Foundations

Who returned to their "various countries?" To the best of my knowledge and memory, they were all British Subjects/Citizens. Thanks, Pat Pending (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another English creation stolen by Americans

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

((Revision as of 11:55, 4 April 2008 Morris-mech to sign off here))

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)

So you can come and play Brixton Academy? You can bill yourself as The Foundations yeah? No way, and you know it. If i'd bought Tupac's drivers licence, that would make me him? No and your'e not The Foundations alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soul Geeze (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hating Americans
I don't think that anyone here hates Americans. I'm sure that Morris-mech and Soul Geeze don't. I don't either. You are over reacting to this. You have to realise that sometimes people tend to get protective of something that is theirs and national pride may come into it. I personally don't have any hate for American people or the country. I don't think that anyone wants to see you miserable. You're just getting carried away. Personally I am just concerned with the accuracy of an article and this article in particular that seems to be under threat. Now I know that after all thats happened that this may seem an inappropriate thing to say but ... well you know.... . Anyway you did come in here like John Wayne with your six guns blazing and that was sure to provoke a reaction. I'm actually quite surprised that you didn't get more. I'm not connected with The Foundations but I can't speak for others that may have posted here. I suspect that one of them is. Now I believe that The Foundations are / were a group that was created in England and broke up in England. Clem Curtis , Colin Young and Alan Warner are all still musically active and have contributed to the Foundations of later years. To make out they haven't is not right. George-Archer 5 April 2008
PS: Morris-mech don't forget to sign off after your post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George-Archer (talk • contribs) 12:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right I don't hate Americans, it's where the music comes from geeze, but the original Foundations were British and I mean this with respect - they weren't a cabaret act that sings country and western, not that there's anything wrong with that kind of music. you may call your band The Foundations and maybe you have that right to do so in the states I don't know, but your'e not The Foundations. Peace Out. Soul Geeze (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC

Message to George Archer

A Request from Clem Curtis

---

- Please can you email Clem Curtis at 

therealclemcurtis@hotmail.com with your telephone number so he can call you regarding this. Thanks

Current revision (10:16, 11 April 2008) Msstone61 (Talk | contribs)

Reply to Msstone61
(("Oh well I suppose I better then"))
(George-Archer (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Wha gwan? Soul Geeze (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that Mr. Geeze! Pat Pending (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys think that this would be the good thing to do? Ah maybe I have. (George-Archer (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Yes it would, and yes, I see you have! Cheers! Pat Pending (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome friend. Please keep an eye on the article page because I know what will happen next. Not looking forward to that. (George-Archer (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Will do, with the greatest of pleasure:) Cheers! Pat Pending (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again.

Yes, ....."and I think to myself, what a wonderful world - Buttercup"! Pat Pending (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to communicate with someone at Wikipedia about the legal aspects of the infantile behavior of the above individuals who refuse to accept the history of "The Foundations" from the sixties to the present. The facts are that there are two groups that have the rights to perform under the name now. One in the UK and the other in the US. What legal steps can be taken to have these infantile individuals stop erasing the info listed here and have the staff at Wikipedia make a decision? What good is a history of anything if any self proclaimed authority can change it at will regardless of legal status or facts. That is not history but rather a forum for anyone to state anything regardless of whether it is fact or fiction. In regard to the senseless banter of the above individuals the facts and legal status does matter. Clem apparently now has the rights to "The Foundations" name in the UK and I have the legal rights to "The Foundations" name in the US and have had it since the late 70's. I am tired of defending history to a bunch or morons. Please decide and leave this site alone. I am not claiming anything that I cannot prove 100 percent in any court. But you are correct in one thing. This is not the place for legal battles so please advise me how to contact your legal department and I will have my attorney handle this. Dave Huffman The Foundations (US)

A bunch of morons? That, Mr. Huffman is outrageous and totally unacceptable. Pat Pending (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look Pat. This is just going too far, he is getting way carried away with it all. Yes that is totally unacceptable, I agree 100%. What ..... morons just for attempting to keep some form of historical accuracy and preserve an article from becoming someone elses personal tool ? (George-Archer (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

An example of what has been deleted

Below are from sections of the article page that were deleted by a certain person
This happened while inserting in his desired info on 19 April 2008 .

When "Baby Now That I've Found You" was first released it went nowhere. Luckily BBC's newly founded Radio 1 were looking to avoid any records being played by the pirate radio stations and they looked back at some recent releases that the pirate stations had missed. Baby, Now That I've Found You was one of them. The single then took off and by November Baby Now That I've Found You was number one in the British charts. This was the ideal time because of the soul boom that was happening in England since 1965 and American R&B stars visting , interest and intrigue in The Foundations was generated. Their second single released in 1968 "Back On My Feet Again" didn't do as well as the previous but made it to 18 in the UK. A third single also released in 1968 "Any Old Time You're Lonely Or Sad" only got to no 48.

With Colin Young they had two more big hits , "Build Me Up Buttercup" their second hit in 1968 and "In The Bad Bad Old Days" in 1969.

There has also been another line up formed in 1999 that included Colin Young (Vocals), Alan Warner (Guitar), Steve Bingham (Bass), Gary Moberly (Keyboards) , Tony Laidlaw (Sax) and Sam Kelly then Steve Dixon (Drums) This version of the group was reformed due to the popularity of the film There's Something About Mary and the interest created resulting from the 1968 hit "Build Me Up Buttercup" being featured in the film. Some time later Colin Young left this version of the group and was replaced by singer Hue Montgomery AKA Hugh Montgomery.

There is also an American group that uses the name The Foundations. They have no connection with the original group and just happen to use the name as well as cover some of the material of the original band.

UK EP

• It's All Right Pye NEP24297 - 1968

US Singles discography

• "Baby, Now That I've Found You" / "Come On Back To Me" - UNI Uni, 55038 - 1967
• "Back On My Feet Again" / "I Can Take Or Leave Your Loving" - UNI 55058 - 1968
• "Any Old Time (You're Lonely And Sad)" / "We Are Happy People" - UNI 55073 -1968
• "Build Me Up Buttercup" / "New Direction" - UNI 55101 - 1968
• "In The Bad Bad Old Days (Before You Loved Me)" / "Give Me Love" - UNI 55117 - 1969
• "Born To Live, Born To Die" / "Why Did You Cry" - UNI 55162 - 1969 - UK #46
• "My Little Chickadee" / "Soloman Grundy" - UNI 55137 - 1969
• "Take A Girl Like You" / "I'm Gonna Be A Rich Man" - UNI 55210 - 1970
• "Stoney Ground" / "I'll Give You Love" - UNI 55315 - 1971
• "Build Me Up Buttercup" / "Baby, Now That I've Found You" - Eric 192 (Re-release)

US Album Discography

• Baby Now That I've Found You UNI 73016 1967
• Build Me Up Buttercup Uni 73043 1968
• Digging The Foundations UNI 73058 1969

• "Baby Now That I've Found You" / "Build Me Up Buttercup" - Flashback FBS 6 - 1979
• "Baby Now That I've Found You" / "Build Me Up Buttercup" - Old Gold OG9407 - 1984

UK Singles discography
1979
1979

UK Album discography

(George-Archer (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this for now, to help cut down on edit warring. I'm combing through this talk page, although a lot of this doesn't seem to be in chronological order. Were these comments copied/pasted from somewhere else? It may be best for editors here to check out Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I'm seeing there are two bands with the same name - is that the main issue? Why not create a disambiguation page and an article for each one? - eo (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a very messy saga, for sure, and the talk page is a disaster, with unsigned comments making it difficult to work out who the hell is saying what and when. I've contacted another editor who attempted some sort of mediation on April 1-2 in the hope that he can continue, otherwise I might try to help.

I doubt your last suggestion will be acceptable to Huffman, who claims to "own" the band now and naturally considers it to be a current lineup of the original band. My suggestion would be to cover the history of the band through their golden era, then note, without judgment, the fact that several strands of the band have appeared since then. All can easily be accommodated in one article, but this depends on everyone abandoning their hardline attitudes.

A huge amount of material seems to have been deleted as part of the edit war (including material on the talk page), which makes it more difficult, but it's not impossible. People need to cool down a bit and allow a middle position to be created or this article will always look a mess and be read by no one. Please remember when commenting here to add your comments at the end of each section and sign them with four tildes, which inserts your username and date. Grimhim (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

After all of the threats and deletion of my information you have chosen to put false statements about my group and stop me from editing this page while you allow the individuals who changed the site numerous time in one hour to continue spewing their false information. I have, from the very first edit, asked you to take the information(check it out if you wish) and make true historical statements on both groups ( or all three). I am appalled that you have allowed George Arthur and the others to change "The Foundations" site at will and erase my information when I have full performance rights to the group in the US. I do believe there is a legal discussion here. I want this site to state the truth and not a bunch of lies by individuals who have nothing to do with "The Foundations", either here or in the UK. I would do anything to "abandone my hardline attitudes" but I do have a problem with the "history of The Foundations" not including the single longest running "legal"group just because the English don't like the fact that we are in the US. Your site should want the complete history of "The Foundations", not just the British version. Also in response to all of your statements about "alleged this and alleged that" on my part it is very easy to verify who the true owners of the group are. I included the proof earlier on in my edits but it was, of course, erased and ignored by all. I would like to apologize to Wikipedia for any edits that caused problems but this is my first experience with a site that anyone can edit even though they have no true information or connection with "The Foundations". This is very frustrating situation and it is causing me untold concern. All I am asking is that the truth be told. If you will note I am being threatened that anything I put on this site will be erased and that I am, and I quote "Pissing in the Wind" to try and put the truth out there. I hope you find that as offensive as I do.

Dave Huffman The Foundations

My sincere apologies if I have offended you Mr Huffman, that was not my intent. The phrase is a common colloquialism in the UK and is shorthand for describing what you get back if you stand down-wind. It was never intended to be any form of insult and I am very sorry if you interpreted it as such.21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pissing in the wind"

If you will permit the colloquialism Mr Huffman? I am not sure that you quite realise what you are dealing with at Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia that ANYBODY can change and edit (within certain limits). You are not dealing one or two editors on these pages, not even dozens or hundreds but thousands of us. Your threat above This is not the place for legal battles so please advise me how to contact your legal department and I will have my attorney handle this. is just ridiculous and empty. If you read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page you will find amongst other things that None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.

There is only one answer to this problem and you might as well accept it now rather than later. Start your own page called The Foundations (US) and write your own history which we will all leave alone. There will then be a disambiguation page that will steer people to whichever page they desire. There could even be a short paragraph added to this page that explains a brief history of your band and linking to it.

You may arrogantly feel that you really are a continuation of the original Foundations and you may even have the rights to the name in the US. BUT, in the view of the worldwide fans of the original band your claim does not stand up outside of the US borders and if you try to continue editing this page it will continue being deleted, every account you set up will be banned and the page may be permanently locked off from edits.

Sit down, have a cup of coffee, breathe deeply and accept the inevitable. This is one battle you simply cannot win. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sitting, don't drink coffee and have been breathing very deeply ever since this infantile crap started. If you were following this from the beginning you would realize that I, in no way wish to take anything from the UK groups or individuals associated with them unless it interferes with "The Foundations" which I own in the US.

I won't go through all of the proof and legal performance rights and when they began again because apparently you would not accept the facts if they fell in your lap. That's your perfect right but it is not anyone's right to leave out the true history. Whether you like it or not Clem was replaced by Colin when he left the group under his own free will to pursue a solo career. At that time he gave up his rights to "The Foundations" name and had to acquire it later through court battles. At that time anyone who had played with the "so called" original group had the right to continue on with the band name (even if it wasn't in England). I know you will not accept this but that is why Clem and Colin fought over the name for years after they decided to put the group back together. But remember, both of them left the group for their own reasons after splitting with the original management company. This is not a fight between Clem, Colin and myself. We have not interfered in any way with each others careers over the last 30 + years. This is not a fight between the UK and the US. It is however a fight over the truth being told on a website that even though you and I know anyone can edit at any time many people still go to for information and the facts are not being told correctly. I don't want anything changed in any way, shape or form on the UK information but I do believe that lies like the statement that I never had anything to do with the band should be corrected. I also do not believe that there should be two Wikipedia pages on "the history of" one band. The fact that there are two in the UK doesn't seem to bother you. If the only way that this problem can be worked out is for Wikipedia to have two pages with links between them then so be it.

But keep in mind that all of the statements about us "stealing" The Foundations name are untrue. What about The Foundations admittingly "stealing" the American "Motown Sound"? Now, doesn't that seem silly? I do think that Wikipedia should intervene on this site due to the fact that this rediculous replacement of material is causing some loss of history. But not just on the UK's part. I dont' want this article to be some sort of publicity page but I also don't want it causing me problems here in the US. In regards to the threats that you will continue crasing my information be informed that I also have that right according to Widipedia standards and will also continue to do so if necessary. Hopefully that will not be the case and we can all get on with our lives. My suggestion, from the beginning is for Wikipedia to include the US "Foundations" on this page and keep the UK and US info seperate and listed as such. What is the problem with that? Have you just decided that we never had any rights to the group? If so, what is your proof? Also I emailed Clem and gave him all of my telephone numbers and email addresses and have not heard from him. We have coexisted peacefully for all of these years until this article.

Dave Huffman

The Foundations

No point in shooting the messenger Mr Huffman. And I am NOT threatening anything, I also have no rank or status here, I am just an interested observer. I was merely discerning the mood of the editors that are showing an interest in the Foundations page and predicting the way things will go if the current Yo-Yo editing continues. I will happily sit back and watch you continue banging your head against the brick wall till it bleeds. I still feel my suggested compromise is the best answer you will likely find....but that is entirely up to you 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I feel that your suggested compromise is the only sensible and logical way forward. Cheers, Pat Pending (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If Dave Huffman's version of the Foundations achieves notability as defined at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, it should have a separate, spinoff article from the main Foundations one. But his lineup, and a brief history, need also to be included under the main Foundations page, along with a similar coverage of rival Foundations incarnations from subsequent years.

Any information on this will need to be supported by verifiable third party sources as per WP:V and Mr Huffman will have to resist the temptation to edit material on himself and his own band in contravention of Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest.

And will everyone joining the discussion please remember to end your comments with four tildes to include a signature and date. Grimhim (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone with 'Wikipedia' knowledge know if we can make a 'Family Tree kind of section so that we can all see how Clem, Colin & Dave fit in to this lovely (redneck) family Veddern (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, a "family conection" needs to be established before any trees get planted:) Cheers, Pat Pending (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Mr. Huffman's "Foundations" are also known as "Caribbean Soul" [4] a Jimmy Buffett? trib band ...interesting. Pat Pending (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's start at the begining and see how far we can go till it all breaks down, or we get to the current groups touring (I'm workiing with 'Clem' & his foundations this saturday) Veddern (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And I am working with The Foundations in the US this Friday and Saturday. Also worked with them for the past 30+ years without stopping. We need to face facts, there are two legal "The Foundations" groups (Clems and mine) and I certainly don't wish to cause him any trouble other than not appearing in the US. I don't intend to appear out of the US so what's the problem? The history is not in any way changing other than there are two legal groups that evolved out of the "original" British band. I was not in the group in England but started with them here are would like for all of this to end. I do find it offensive to be listed as having nothing to do with The Foundations on this site even though I have been recording and playing with the group (not to mention legally owning the group in the US) longer than anyone (even the so called "original" members gave up the name of their own free will when they quit in the early 70's. I don't know what's been going on in England for all these years but I do know what has been going on here in the US and "The Foundations" are not and have never disbanded for any period of time. I have no doubt that you did perform with Clem this past weekend but what does that have to do with the fact that there are two legal Foundations. That's just the way it evolved and to totally disregard that fact is not reporting true history.Also in answer to the uninformed gentleman that stated that "The Foundations" are also known as"Caribbean Soul" if he had seen that "The Foundations" here are a 7 piece group with a horn section playing new and old original music written by myself and Jimmy Winders (our bass player) and "Caribbean Soul" is a duo playing Jimmy Buffett covers. I do believe that even he could keep that straight if he wasn't just causing trouble. I suppose that now he will be telling me what groups I can and cannot perform with.:::

Dave Huffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.120.241 (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The site states: "Caribbean Soul is a premier Jimmy Buffet tribute band." If you are a duo, it should state that quite clearly should it not? As for me causing trouble, all I'm trying to do is establish if you, your group/groups/duo's are in anyway notable. Pat Pending (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Veddern and Pat Pending
Yes a family tree type of thing would not only be interesting to those interested in the history of this band but also would guage the actual level of connection between Mr Huffman's current American band and the multi racial 60's English band that evolved out of a certain Ska R&B band called The Ramong Sound.
http://www.alan-warner.com/10102/info.php?p=4&pno=0 Perhaps someone with a little knowlege can start a map of sorts.
(George-Archer (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Can all this unhelpful point-scoring and sniping end? The ultimate split of the group into two, or several, rival incarnations of The Foundations is worth noting in the article and needn't spark World War III. Sadly, this article reads like crap and lacks any hint of inline references to verify any of the claims about the history of the band, therefore giving it a credibility rating of zero. I've given articles such as 10cc, David Tickle, Mike Chapman (record producer) and bubblegum pop major cleanups and makeovers and I'm prepared to help clean this up and ensure the story of the Foundations is told in a balanced form, but I really can't be bothered while all this ridiculous needling goes on. Grimhim (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Grimhim, Yes after all of this I think it would be a good idea at cleaning up this article and setting it out right. I think that the Foundations article has the potential to grow into a very interesting piece. I hope that you will have a go at it. There have been some good contributions (mostly) and I would like to see more.
(George-Archer (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

An attempt to revive the Foundations

A reminiscence from Roger Cawkwell

In 1970 I was recruited to play Sax and Flute in an attempt by Barry Class to revive the Foundations. The lineup, after several changes, included Colin Young on lead vocals, Steve Bingham on Bass, Graham Preskett on Electric Violin and Guitar (also the MD), Jean Roussel on Keyboards (who later went on to play with Cat Stevens) Chris (can't remember his other name, Smith?) on Drums and myself.

There was a just-about resolved tension in the situation as Colin was very keen to start including his own material although it didn't fit stylistically into the Foundations soul-type repertoire. Barry (the manager) on the other hand, was very keen to exploit the Foundations name. The compromise reached was that we would appear & be billed as the Foundations but Colin would explain during the gigs that we were becoming a new band which was to be called Development and then we proceeded to play a mixture of old Foundations hits and the new material (which I remember as preferring to the well-known stuff, though I couldn't for the life of me recall any of it now, except that it sometimes contained quite a few time changes - more Prog than Soul).

In early 1971 the band toured extensively in Latin America, appearing many times at the Expo-Show in Buenos Aires and also playing in Uruguay and Brazil before returning to Argentina for a few final concerts. Upon returning to the UK in early March 1971 the band recorded an album of Colin's songs which, to the best of my knowledge, was never released. I was told that Barry Class had not paid the studio so they held on to the tapes, though I can't vouch for that. The band did a very few UK gigs (might have been only one, I don't recall) before splitting up as nothing seemed to be happening.

Rogerc99 (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: An attempt to revive the Foundations
Thats real interesting stuff you wrote there. I remember seeing on the label of that Colin Young 45 , "Anytime At All" / You're No Good" , I think it was on the Trend label release it said "Introducing Development". Thats obviously the same group. When exactly was the Foundations name dropped ? Was it at the time of that 45's release ? Not a bad 45 by the way. I remember listening to the B side and hearing a prominent violin playing. Also the album that you refer to ... is it the one that featured Madeline Bell and Elkie Brooks as back up singers ?

(George-Archer (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

I presume that the 45 you refer to (which I didn't know about until reading the above) contained tracks taken from the album recording I mentioned. We were all quite young & cocky & wanted to do it all ourselves & were miffed when we came to the studio one day to find extra brass overdubs not "authorised" by us (I think put on by the brass section of "Swegas") and presumably the backing vocals were put on in the same manner; management asserting its "better judgement" over that of the band. I can't say how long the band continued to go out as "The Foundations" as I lost interest pretty quickly & anyway had a offer to go play baritone with the John Dankworth band (but that's another story...) For some time I kept up contact with Graham Preskett, the violinist, who was a very good musician & we performed in a music theatre group in France a year or two later and apparently the band had died long before that.

Rogerc99 (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The 45 may only contain one track as only the B side has Introducing Development. The A side is quite different from the B and possibly had different musicians. The B side is also the side that features the violin. I was discussing this with a friend who says that the UNI release is a different length from the Trend release. Can't remember which one he said was longer. I wonder if its a different take.

Also was there any association with the past members of the Foundations ,Warner, Allendale, Burke ,Elliott etc ?

(George-Archer (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Attempted cleanup

I attempted to clean up this article, but since it's all over the place, it would probably take me an entire day to bring it up to acceptable standards. Since there was (I'm guessing it's in the past) a bit of a issue with this article, I imagine these changes might not go down too well, but considering the older version was a hot mess and probably shouldn't have left up for as long as it was, I'm willing to take the chance at pissing someone off. Either way, the current state of the article (even after my mini-cleanup) is pretty shoddy. I attempted to fix the glaring errors (sentence fragments, bad grammar, punctuation issues, poorly worded content, etc), but there's still more than needs to be done. If no one takes issue with it, I'll attempt to rewrite and properly source this article in the next few days or weeks (depending on how much strength I can muster up). As it stands right now, this article probably confuses more than it informs and there's no excuse for that. Whatever personal issues one has with this band or its history needs to be set aside for the good of the project. After all, that is why most of us are here. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 07:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good idea Pinkadelica, and well worth the effort to get this article tidied up. There is also a wealth of valuable info in it too. The issue related to this article or problem if you like stems from a certain Mr Huffman, an American who claims that he is the rightful owner and true member of the Foundations. He was using the wikipedia article to promote his own website and so called Foundations band. His band which calls itself The Foundations goes under different names as well. The band is all white or was last time I checked. It has a female singer and the material that they cover can range from Bobby Brown's "It's My Perogative" to a Country song called "Redneck Girl". He basically accused Clem Curtis and Colin Young of failing in their solo carrers. Here are his own words ............................ 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.................. Taken from .......... Dave Huffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.44.177 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC) ....................................................... So with this attitude expressed you can see why things have turned out the way they have. There was indeed worse than this. There was actual name mentioning and accusations of career failing on the part of Clem Curtis, Colin Young and this would have also included Allan Warner. Incidently he has C&P'd, used the content of Wikipedia to boost his own bio on his website. And as far as establishing a connection between his Foundations group and the original, I would say that one would have more luck in locating Muhammed Ali's Olympic gold medal in the Ohio river. And for the record I'm not trying to set anything off here again. The whole ordeal was a nightmare. I just want to make you and others aware of what took place and hopefully this thing can be avoided in the future. Another thing is that another experienced Wikipedia member was quoting or indicating there was validity in what this person was saying and he was acting like it should have been incorporated into the bands history when in fact the only source of reference was from Dave Huffman and his agenda to promote his band. (George-Archer (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC))

To Huffman & co

Dave Huffman, you accuse the guys of cashing in on the name THEY built as they had no solo careers. Isn't this exactly what you are doing except cashing in on SOMEONE ELSE's name?

Hi there 76.113.18.156 , please don't forget to sign off with the tides.Cheers (George-Archer (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Enough is enough !

I think that Dave Huffman has had his day here. I suggest that he now be banned from Wikipedia. Banned as in banned! This stupidity is not going to stop. I think that I have pretty much worked out what his agenda here is. He can carry on like this but not here ! If he wants to make up stories about his connection to The Foundations and write what he wants, then let him do it on his own website. If he wants to block Mr Clem Curtis, Mr Colin Young or Mr Alan Warner from going to the United States and using a name that they worked hard for for years as original members then let him make these threats on his own website. What ever he sews then he'll reap but not by using Wikipedia as his own personal promotional tool for his band. This whole carry on has just got too out of hand. (George-Archer (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Merge proposal

I suggest that Ron Fairway be merged to this article: please see Talk:Ron Fairway for discussion. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now merged Ron Fairway to The Foundations#Career from 1967 following debate at its talk page and at an AFD discussion that followed. Please check for errors: I'm bound to have made some. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Allendale / Allandale

I have posted this notice here, as I suspect this page gets more passing Wiki editor traffic than Talk:Eric Allendale. According to Val Kilmer's obituary in The Guardian, the subject's stage surname (his real middle name) was spelt Allandale - see [5] Also, Google searches throw up more hits utilising this spelling. Could others have a look at the matter, and either comment here, or at Talk:Eric Allendale. I modestly suggest a page move may be appropriate. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Foundations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091026201920/http://geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Diner/2674/living_bernie_a.htm to http://www.geocities.com/sunsetstrip/diner/2674/living_bernie_a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828090704/http://www.kp-agency.com/thefoundations.htm to http://www.kp-agency.com/thefoundations.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Foundations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081018192232/http://www.50connect.co.uk:80/entertainment/music/artist_focus/a_chat_with_the_foundations_clem_curtis to http://www.50connect.co.uk/entertainment/music/artist_focus/a_chat_with_the_foundations_clem_curtis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Biography: origins

"Pat Burke, a professional musician, was from the London Music Conservatorium." I looked for a wikipedia link to add here, but there's no article of that name, and nothing comes up if you google it either. There is a London Music Conservatory, which from its website appears to be a recent development. Can anyone provide any information? Robocon1 (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Any band image?

Seems a bit strange for a band to have had two massive hits and not have an image. Anything on commons? BT Curry (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Foundations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925091517/http://www.clemcurtis.com/biography.htm to http://www.clemcurtis.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925091517/http://www.clemcurtis.com/biography.htm to http://www.clemcurtis.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)