Are the Jacksons the best family act ever?

Well for me, yes.

Just because the J5, The Jacksons, Michael and Janet have made the best music.
 
Statistically they are, it's in the Guinness World Records. It's quite unbelievable when you think that
1) J5/Jacksons are one of the biggest selling boy bands behind the Beatles
2) Janet is one of the biggest selling female artists of all time and
3) Michael is THE biggest selling living artist and the biggest selling artist of all time behind Elvis.
faint2.gif
 
Michael's actually sold more then Elvis. But anyway, I would say there have been family acts that blended better, such as The Andrews Sisters, and the Beatles blended better then just about any act. The Bee Gees are probably the best family act ever, imo.
 
from what they meant to Pop culture at large and changing the sound and imagery of Popular Music, yes they are bar none. now other family acts were as talented and more talented in other areas,but they didn't have a Michael in the mix and that is the big divider right there.
 
i would say definitely
All 9 siblings including some of their kids have had some level of success.
it's really remarkable.
Michael, Janet and the Jackson Five are incredibly iconic. they're a legendary family.
 
Tons of Elvis' sales are posthumous releases. I mean, I can see Michael Jackson selling a crapload more before and after his time on this earth passes. Number Ones sold around the 10 million mark, right? An album of material that most people already own and only one new song sold 10 million copies... that's pretty astounding.

When you take The Jackson 5, The Jacksons, his younger solo work, Off The Wall on through Invincible and then Number Ones, Ultimate Collection and Thriller 25.... I can easily see the sales of all those things outdoing Elvis or, at the very least, easily eclipsing Elvis one day.

His star power is such that he could release an album of just about anything and have it go multi-platinum in a matter of weeks, so the only thing stopping him from beating Elvis if he hasn't already is his relatively slow output of new material and the fact that he's still alive and well.

On topic, I'd say The Jacksons are the best musical family ever. If their legacy stopped after The Jackson 5 material, they would be legends. But then they put out stuff as The Jacksons, then Jermaine had decent success, Janet went huge (often referred to alongside many of the biggest female pop-stars ever like Whitney, Madonna, Mariah, Streisand and Celine Dion) and well, there isn't much that needs to be said for Michael Jackson.
 
Last edited:
The 1 billion mark is a myth that Elvis fans like to quote, but it's not real. Elvis has sold about 300 million albums with over 100 album releases, while Michael has sold about 350 million albums with only like 12 solo album releases I think. He's only behind the Beatles, but proportionatly he's outsold all of them, as the Beatles have something like 40 album releases.
 
Tons of Elvis' sales are posthumous releases. I mean, I can see Michael Jackson selling a crapload more before and after his time on this earth passes. Number Ones sold around the 10 million mark, right? An album of material that most people already own and only one new song sold 10 million copies... that's pretty astounding.

When you take The Jackson 5, The Jacksons, his younger solo work, Off The Wall on through Invincible and then Number Ones, Ultimate Collection and Thriller 25.... I can easily see the sales of all those things outdoing Elvis or, at the very least, easily eclipsing Elvis one day.

His star power is such that he could release an album of just about anything and have it go multi-platinum in a matter of weeks, so the only thing stopping him from beating Elvis if he hasn't already is his relatively slow output of new material and the fact that he's still alive and well.

On topic, I'd say The Jacksons are the best musical family ever. If their legacy stopped after The Jackson 5 material, they would be legends. But then they put out stuff as The Jacksons, then Jermaine had decent success, Janet went huge (often referred to alongside many of the biggest female pop-stars ever like Whitney, Madonna, Mariah, Streisand and Celine Dion) and well, there isn't much that needs to be said for Michael Jackson.
Elvis Prestley is not the biggestselling artist in the world. Micheal Jackson is.
Elvis started and ended his career when albums and records were not sold in large numbers.
Michael became the biggest solo artist when he dropped Off The Wall, not thriller. The media like to say biggest, black artist, but that is not true. He was the biggest selling artist ever.

The bulk of Elvis's sales happened after his death, with over 150 albums
He has NO BEST SELLING ALBUMS. Elvis's fanbase averages 2 million, if you average out his sales figure which is 300 million sales.

Michael Jackson got that covered with 7 albums and 350 albums, not counting his Motown career..

Michael Jackson IS the biggest selling act in history, Not Elvis.

Yes, I would say that the Jackson family have contributed more than any other family acts to music.
 
The 1 billion mark is a myth that Elvis fans like to quote, but it's not real. Elvis has sold about 300 million albums with over 100 album releases, while Michael has sold about 350 million albums with only like 12 solo album releases I think. He's only behind the Beatles, but proportionatly he's outsold all of them, as the Beatles have something like 40 album releases.

The Beatles don't have 40 albums, unless you count compilations (and a lot of the earlier ones were done without the group's permission like the ones called "Love Songs" & "Rock n Roll"). They only recorded for about 7 years as a group.
 
Last edited:
Oh no, I have unleashed a totally off topic debate. :unsure::lol:
Should we resume this debate in another thread?
 
Saying the Jacksons are the best family act ever is subjective. It's not a fact. Are they the most successful family act ever though? Yes, I believe so.
 
The Beatles don't have 40 albums, unless you count compilations (and a lot of the earlier ones were done without the group's permission like the ones called "Love Songs" & "Rock n Roll"). They only recorded for about 7 years as a group.

Well those compilations are counted towards their 400 million sales mark, so I do include them. Without those, they've probably sold less then Michael. But since Michael's compilations are also counted, I assume, then it's only fair to also count the Beatles compilations.
 
Saying the Jacksons are the best family act ever is subjective. It's not a fact. Are they the most successful family act ever though? Yes, I believe so.
it is subjective except for one main factor, no other family act had a Lead singer with Michael Jackson's charisma, persona and that "IT" Factor. that alone is what makes the Jacksons the Number 1 choice. if you take Michael out of the mix then they barely make the top 10 overall because MJ carried that kind of weight as a Leader.
 
it is subjective except for one main factor, no other family act had a Lead singer with Michael Jackson's charisma, persona and that "IT" Factor. that alone is what makes the Jacksons the Number 1 choice. if you take Michael out of the mix then they barely make the top 10 overall because MJ carried that kind of weight as a Leader.

Well I agree with that. Without Michael they definitely wouldn't be considered to be one of the best family acts ever. I mean I like a lot of Janet's stuff, as well as J5/The Jacksons and they're all talented in their own ways but Michael is THE Jacksons as far as i'm concerned lol. Without him, no one would care that much about the Jackson family. He's really the reason why they'll be remembered in 100 years.
 
Yeah maxxx, you are right about that. They never would have made it out of Gary without Michael, I don't think. Michael made them exceptional, I guess is what I'm saying.
 
probably...when it comes to family acts how many of them have a 'michael jackson' in there, who got to be a huge legend like Elvis and be called a king as well. The Osmond family did not have that. michael was showing that he had that speical 'something' as child. that family was made to be different thanks to michael.

theres alot of talked about celebrities out there... but theres only so few legends out there including michael.. so it makes the jackson family huge in history.

plus werent the jacksons the first family act in the very adult playground of Vegas at the time? didnt they pave the way for kids to have their part there in some way?
 
Elvis Prestley is not the biggestselling artist in the world. Micheal Jackson is.
Elvis started and ended his career when albums and records were not sold in large numbers.
Michael became the biggest solo artist when he dropped Off The Wall, not thriller. The media like to say biggest, black artist, but that is not true. He was the biggest selling artist ever.

The bulk of Elvis's sales happened after his death, with over 150 albums
He has NO BEST SELLING ALBUMS. Elvis's fanbase averages 2 million, if you average out his sales figure which is 300 million sales.

Michael Jackson got that covered with 7 albums and 350 albums, not counting his Motown career..

Michael Jackson IS the biggest selling act in history, Not Elvis.

Yes, I would say that the Jackson family have contributed more than any other family acts to music.

I never really said Jackson didn't sell more than Elvis. I was just saying that either he already has or easily will one day.

I make a whole post praising the guy and you act like I was defending Elvis...

Anyways, Jackson fans are often accused of inflating his sales as well. Really, it's a touchy subject because records often differ from country to country and tallying worldwide sales is a bit of a task. If you say Jackson is currently the record holder (which again, I never really disputed) then that's great.

My point was more or less to show that Elvis sold most of his albums in death, whereas Jackson has ginormous sales just by coming out with a new album. No need to get so defensive when I'm essentially agreeing with you.
 
Last edited:
And speaking of underrated R&B family acts:

750663_356x237.jpg


This group were "the first family of soul", coming in around '65, '66, just two years before the Jacksons started to break out professionally, they only had one BIG hit, "Ooh Child", but they were one of the few to perform not only doo-wop and soul but also funk, jazz ("Pasado"), rock and disco (The Invisible Man's Band's "All Night Thing").

And how about these funky divas:

emotions.jpg


Their harmonies came down like angels in heaven!
 
I never really said Jackson didn't sell more than Elvis. I was just saying that either he already has or easily will one day.

I make a whole post praising the guy and you act like I was defending Elvis...

Anyways, Jackson fans are often accused of inflating his sales as well. Really, it's a touchy subject because records often differ from country to country and tallying worldwide sales is a bit of a task. If you say Jackson is currently the record holder (which again, I never really disputed) then that's great.

My point was more or less to show that Elvis sold most of his albums in death, whereas Jackson has ginormous sales just by coming out with a new album. No need to get so defensive when I'm essentially agreeing with you.

This is why this smiley comes in handy - :eek:fftopic:

:lol:
 
I guess that depends on whether you count The Jacksons as a family group act or if you just take the entire family's contribution to music. Sure, it's debatable whether The Jackson brothers or The Isley Bros. or Bee Gees are better, but when you take The Jackson 5, The Jacksons (after they moved away from Motown), Jermaine, Janet, Michael and even Rebbie's hits, then it becomes a bit hard to really name a family that has had as much success.

As someone else mentioned though, "Best" will always be subjective.
 
In terms of success, the Jacksons and Gibbs seem to close in, in terms of overall TALENT, they've got a lot of competition. :lol: Clearly the Hutchinson sisters (Emotions) and Pointers can take Rebbie, La Toya and Janet to school. ;) :lol:

But surely I jest. :D
 
I guess that depends on whether you count The Jacksons as a family group act or if you just take the entire family's contribution to music. Sure, it's debatable whether The Jackson brothers or The Isley Bros. or Bee Gees are better, but when you take The Jackson 5, The Jacksons (after they moved away from Motown), Jermaine, Janet, Michael and even Rebbie's hits, then it becomes a bit hard to really name a family that has had as much success.

As someone else mentioned though, "Best" will always be subjective.

That's why there's no such thing as "THE BEST". You're either great or you're not, the Jacksons are a great family act. How about that?
 
The Bee Gees over all are more talented then the Jackson Five. But the Jackson Five have got one member more talented then any Bee Gee, and that's Michael, so I guess if you are looking at the groups as a whole, the Bee Gees top the J5. I just tend to look at Michael as the driving force behind the J5. He really made the group the success it was, whereas with the Bee Gees or other family groups, each member was really essential to the whole. And overall I think the Bee Gees have better music.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top