Could The Jacksons Still Have Been Successful Without Michael?

analogue

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
8,234
Points
113
After Michael went solo, do you think The Jackson's could have continued without him, and still be successfull? They wouldn't have been as big as they were when Michael was with them, but I think it's possible they could have had some success without him.
 
Re: Could The Jackson's still have been successfull without Michael?

You make me remember that TMZ "interview" of Jermaine's where he said that there wouldn't have been a Michael Jackson without The Jacksons. I always thought it was the other way around - no Jacksons without Michael. In my humble opinion, he contributed fully to their success. Of course, they had talent on their own, but talent doesn't necessarily mean success. Michael had had that something extra that made him stand out (he oozed showmanship).
My question is: why haven't they continued as a group, when Michael left? We would have had our answer...
 
The Jacksons could not have been successful without MJ.

I would say that even some success would have been impossible for them as a music group without MJ.

Their ‘2300 Jackson Street’ album which was the first to be released without MJ as the lead singer went commercially unnoticed. As a result, Epic Records did not renew the contract with them.

Even worse for The Jacksons, the group (without MJ) was not even able to sign a new contract with a different record label (after the release of the ‘2300 Jackson Street’ album). No record label was willing to undertake the group without MJ.

Notice also that in the mid-1989 his brothers wanted to perform (with MJ) in several Korean shows. But after MJ’s refusal to perform with them on those shows, the whole venture fell eventually apart because there was hardly any demand for tickets for those shows without MJ as the lead singer.

Also, there was no way for his brothers to continue having success (without MJ) because they lack any real on stage talent. That was particularly evident during the Victory Tour (1984) when even in their supporting role (to MJ who was still the lead singer at the time) they fell completely. It is telling that his brothers, during that tour, resorted to pantomime or special effects in order to cover their lack of on stage talent.
 
Re: Could The Jackson's still have been successfull without Michael?

The Jacksons could not have been successful without MJ.

I would say that even some success would have been impossible for them as a music group without MJ.

There was no way for his brothers to continue having success (without MJ) because they lack any real on stage talent. That was particularly evident during the Victory Tour (1984) when even in their supporting role (to MJ who was still the lead singer at the time) they fell completely. It is telling that his brothers, during that tour, resorted to pantomime or special effects in order to cover their lack of on stage talent.

ALL of this.
 
This is seriously the question that shouldn't be asked. Without Michael nobody would even know who the Jacksons were. He carried that group just like Beyonce carried Destiny's Child. They have some decent talent,but Michael's talent alone puts them all to shame. The only other talented Jackson is Janet. Otherwise the family as a whole is pretty bland and I hate to be a b*tch about it but it's wholeheartedly the truth.
 
Absolutely not lol! No question on that.. Motown would habe never signed the jacksons if it wasn't for the magic that Michael had.. no no no way would they have mad it. If they were not Michael's band and backup singers theyd not have a name
 
No. Being successful isn't just about talent. Obviously Michael was the most talented from the group but his brothers were talented in their own way. But alongside talent, Michael had charisma, charm, the ability to stand out from the rest. That's why he was so special and successful. The other Jacksons brothers lack those qualities. Just watch their performances without Michael. Sure they can sing, but do they have the ability to captivate the crowd's attention like Michael could? No, so despite their talent, the Jacksons couldn't have been successful without Michael, because Michael had that something extra that they lack.
 
Last edited:
To put it bluntly no. Not one member of The Jacksons had an inch worth of, singing ability, dancing ability, stage presence or charisma to fill Michael's shoes
Also I don't think they were good enough as a group to all step up collectively and compensate for the huge void Michael would have left
Michael was the greatest entertainer to ever live and one of, if not the most talented and recognisable singers the world has ever seen, he would've left a void in any group
 
No, i don't think so either. Vocally there is really nothing appealing about any of the other brothers that would have made them successful without Michael.
 
No. I thought maybe the Jacksons could be successful without Michael when he left the group and went on his own but that never happen i really believe if Jermaine would have left Motown when his brothers did i think the Jacksons would still have been a group today if that imo. It really hurt Michael.
 
I doubt it. Michael was the carry, lmao. Pretty evident when the Victory Tour is sometimes informally called the Michael Jackson Thriller tour
 
I mean.... look at the Motown Audition Video... then you who brought them the contract. Without Michael in this Audition/Video - No contract!
 
The answer to this question was given in 1989 after their flop album release. It's ridiculous to think they would be successful, apart from Jermaine not a single Jackson 5 member scored a hit solo. Everything they did after MJ left was copying their brother's work.
 
Nah MJ was without a doubt the main Jackson, and the reason for most of their success.
 
Haha nooo.
Even Janet would not have gotten a break without Michael paving the way for her.
 
Jermaine was a good singer... The Jacksons as a group without Mike? No way they make it IMO
 
Well there was no reason why the first single from 2300 Jackson Street didn't do better than #79 on the pop chart, it's a great track and very current to that point in time, good video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQtYbR8vMdo

I'm guessing that the main reason for the title track from that album featuring every single Jackson was that it would ensure that Michael was on it at least for one song. But that song is incredibly cheesy and I'm not surprised that one wasn't a hit.
 
Back
Top