If Michaels solo career

[twinklEE]

had failed big time back in the late 70s/early 80s where would the Jackson family be now? Would they really be ''America's first family in music''? Assuming the Jacksons wouldnt have success in the 80s, their albums flopping like "2300 Jackson Street"
Would the J5/The Jacksons be nearly half as legendary as they are now? Or would they be a long forgotten child group act of the 70s similar to The Osmonds? Where would Janet Jackson be?

I somehow doubt they'd ne anywhere near where they are now.

[Courtney]

I really can't imagine what the music industry would be like had Michael's career failed.

It would be probably be VERY different. As for their family, they possibly would have just died out slowly I guess.

[Siyahamba]

I'm going to guess that The Jacksons as a group would have had more longevity and more success into the 80s and 90s, assuming that Michael turned his attention to the group rather than solo efforts. Even if the group albums flopped, they'd still be acclaimed now for their incredible success in the 60s and 70s. Janet would likely have had a similar career trajectory as she had already: she would have started out known as "the sister of The Jacksons," but later become known for her own achievements.

[Hess]

The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons made amazing music.

It would never have been forgotten, BUT it may not have been so succesfull as it is.

[twinklEE]

I'm going to guess that The Jacksons as a group would have had more longevity and more success into the 80s and 90s, assuming that Michael turned his attention to the group rather than solo efforts. Janet would likely have had a similar career trajectory as she had already: she would have started out known as "the sister of The Jacksons," but later become known for her own achievements.

nice.

[Siyahamba]

nice.

Thanks.

[babykinsilk05]

I'm going to guess that The Jacksons as a group would have had more longevity and more success into the 80s and 90s, assuming that Michael turned his attention to the group rather than solo efforts. Even if the group albums flopped, they'd still be acclaimed now for their incredible success in the 60s and 70s. Janet would likely have had a similar career trajectory as she had already: she would have started out known as "the sister of The Jacksons," but later become known for her own achievements.

I agree that Janet Jackson would have had the same "career trajectory" BUT (and this is a BIG but) she would NOT have had the same type of career that she has enjoyed since the 80's WITHOUT the success of her brothers (especially Michael). She would have gone (in my very humble opinion) wear Paula Abdul went and ended up where Paula Abdul is now...if not with a little bit more respect from her peers because of her work ethic.

As for the Jackson Family as a whole and their tittle of "the first family of music"? They probably would not have even been a memory for most people. They were already on their way out (of peoples minds) by the time the late 70's early 80's rolled around and was only revived because of the success of "of the wall". This was followed by the ridiculously successful Thriller which in my opinion, sealed the deal for them intrest wise because Michael became the most famous man in the world and everything having to do with him (including his family) was of intrest to the media. Realize that while the other brother are talented, the only reason why (imo) the Jackson Five/ the Jacksons is/was as famous as they were/are was because of Michael. And the only reason why they (the media) kept talking about them long after they were no longer a group is because they were referring to what Michael contributed. If Mike wasn't in that group they would not have been as revered as they are.

[elmari]

IMO, Michael would never have failed in his solo career. he would have just got back up and tried harder until he succeeded. There was so much burning ambition inside of him that nothing would have stopped him. I sincerely believe this. But if Michael wasn't the person who he was, then he'd probably still be fronting the J5.

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

had failed big time back in the late 70s/early 80s where would the Jackson family be now? Would they really be ''America's first family in music''? Assuming the Jacksons wouldnt have success in the 80s, their albums flopping like "2300 Jackson Street"
Would the J5/The Jacksons be nearly half as legendary as they are now? Or would they be a long forgotten child group act of the 70s similar to The Osmonds? Where would Janet Jackson be?

I somehow doubt they'd ne anywhere near where they are now.

they would be in Indiana trying to figure how to make Jermaine charismatic and talented so they can then exploit him and tell him that he is nothing without them, i mean like they did to Michael, but it would never work, cause is Jermaine...
See that family s---- if you know what i mean...

[Hess]

IMO, Michael would never have failed in his solo career. he would have just got back up and tried harder until he succeeded. There was so much burning ambition inside of him that nothing would have stopped him. I sincerely believe this. But if Michael wasn't the person who he was, then he'd probably still be fronting the J5.

I agree with you totally.

BUT I think this discussion is theory.

[MySerenity5]

I'm going to guess that The Jacksons as a group would have had more longevity and more success into the 80s and 90s, assuming that Michael turned his attention to the group rather than solo efforts. Even if the group albums flopped, they'd still be acclaimed now for their incredible success in the 60s and 70s. Janet would likely have had a similar career trajectory as she had already: she would have started out known as "the sister of The Jacksons," but later become known for her own achievements.

I'm gonna argue Janet wont be able to work with her producers if it wasn't for Michael's success...and she doesn't have a career to based on.

The success of music videos also started with Michael.

[Hess]

Janet has a lot to thank MJ for.

[babykinsilk05]

Janet has a lot to thank MJ for.

She really does...I mean SERIOUSLY. I don't know why some of her die-hard fans just REFUSE to understand this. Janet is talented yes, but...it's not that serious. She got the oppurtunities she did BECAUSE of her CONNECTIONS the same way her sexy nephew Austin is getting now. She made it as far as she did because she worked her ass off NOT because there was something oh-so-special about her the way there was about MJ.

[MySerenity5]

She really does...I mean SERIOUSLY. I don't know why some of her die-hard fans just REFUSE to understand this. Janet is talented yes, but...it's not that serious. She got the oppurtunities she did BECAUSE of her CONNECTIONS the same way her sexy nephew Austin is getting now. She made it as far as she did because she worked her ass off NOT because there was something oh-so-special about her the way there was about MJ.

I was just on a Janet site right now and it just made my head spin at how this one guy think that Mike does not deserve his AMA awards. I seriously hope he knows the #1 reason why Jan was even invited for this year's AMA was because of the renewed interest on MJ- which basically includes the Jackson as well.

[twinklEE]

Janet fans have always been deluded guess we would be bitter too, if our artist had been only able to sell 2 mill copies of his past 3 new albums each WORLDWIDE lmao.