smooth radio’s top 10 jacksons songs

they’ve mixed in jackson 5 songs with the jacksons. I don’t think many people realise they’re two separate groups.
they also mistakenly claim that michael wrote ‘dancing machine’.

I was wondering if the ‘triumph’ album would have been better known had ‘can you feel it’ (plus the short film) been the lead single? they only toured america in support of it as well. I guess the live album kinda made up for it? michael was already saying it would be his last tour back then. I’m just wondering why the success of ‘off the wall’ didn’t carry over to ‘triumph

I don’t have top tens myself. nine is the limit of my playlists.
here’s my jacksons playlist in its normal chronological order:

1. ‘enjoy yourself’ (single edit)
2. ‘show you the way to go’ (single edit)
3. ‘going places’ (single edit)
4. ‘even though you’re gone’ (single edit)
5. ‘blame it on the boogie’
6. ‘shake your body (down to the ground ‘radio edit’)
7. ‘lovely one’ (single edit)
8. ‘heartbreak hotel’ (single edit)
9. ‘can you feel it’ (single edit)


my ranking of these songs are:


1. ‘blame it on the boogie’
2. ‘show you the way to go’ (single edit)
3. ‘shake your body (down to the ground ‘single edit’)
4. ‘can you feel it’ (single edit)
5. ‘going places’ (single edit)
6. ‘enjoy yourself’ (single edit)
7. ‘heartbreak hotel’ (single edit)
8. ‘lovely one’ (single edit)
9. ‘even though you’re gone’ (single
edit)

all of these songs are in the great/good category for me. what’s your top 10/9 jacksons songs?
 
I’m just wondering why the success of ‘off the wall’ didn’t carry over to ‘triumph
Because in the USA, The Jacksons were primarily marketed to R&B radio, it was the same with Jermaine solo. They didn't get the same amount of crossover to Top 40 that Mike did. R&B artists in general did not get the same amount of promotional money by the major labels that rock acts got. Also, after the disco demolition riot at the baseball game, a lot of pop radio stations started to play fewer R&B artists because it was considered disco. In the very early 1980s, there was a lot of soft rock/adult contemporary like Christopher Cross & Air Supply and country crossover that was popular.
 
Because in the USA, The Jacksons were primarily marketed to R&B radio, it was the same with Jermaine solo. They didn't get the same amount of crossover to Top 40 that Mike did. R&B artists in general did not get the same amount of promotional money by the major labels that rock acts got. Also, after the disco demolition riot at the baseball game, a lot of pop radio stations started to play fewer R&B artists because it was considered disco. In the very early 1980s, there was a lot of soft rock/adult contemporary like Christopher Cross & Air Supply and country crossover that was popular.

But radio has little influence on record sales. I too find the Triumph sales very disappointing considering the success of OTW. Granted it was a huge improvement over going places and other albums but not spectacularly. Michael Jackson had crossed over to the top 40 so where were all the white fans who loved OTW when Triumph was released?

What I’m more interested in are direct comparisons with other group vs solo album sales. For example how did Robbie Williams’ album sales compare to those of Take That? John Lennon’s and McCartney vs the Beatles etc
 
@83magic I ‘m quite sure I posted a top 10 someplace else but I don’t mind doing another one

1. Shake your Body (album track) I love the outro and the vocals a lot. It is in fact one of my fave songs ever.
2. Be Not Always
3. Push Me Away
4. Time Waits For No One
5. Show You The Way To Go
6. Living Together
7. Your Ways
8. Bless His Soul
9. Good Times
10. Find Me A Girl

As you may recall I’m a ballads man 😜
 
But radio has little influence on record sales.
Maybe today it doesn't with streaming. But back then it surely did. If radio airplay had no influence on sales, then record labels were stupid for spending all of that money on payola for decades since the 1920s or whenever. 🤣 You really think Thriller would have sold what it did without radio airplay? It was no accident that Clive Davis specifically chose songs for Whitney Houston so that she would get mainstream Top 40 airplay to get the bigger sales unlike Millie Jackson, Regina Belle, Stacy Lattisaw,, or Betty Wright who just got R&B airplay. That's why there was a singles chart. Before the internet, the singles chart tracked radio airplay & sales of 45s. Album tracks that got radio airplay could not chart on the singles charts in the USA. Nobody bought a 45 of those. Even the rock bands that didn't get much Top 40 airplay like Pink Floyd & KISS were played on the AOR radio format they had back then.

If radio airplay has little influence on sales, then how come music that isn't on commercial radio don't get huge sales like jazz, polka, zydeco, gospel, bluegrass, opera, barbershop quartets, etc.? Or acts on small indie labels instead of majors? People would just buy that stuff in the same quantities as Journey & Bon Jovi, who did get heavy radio airplay. Milli Vanilli sold multi-platinum because they were on the radio. Notice that Lionel Richie was way more successful than the Commodores were after he left. They only really had 1 big hit (Nightshift), other than that they didn't get the airplay even on R&B radio. But both Genesis & Phil Collins got a lot of Top 40 airplay. So they were both successful. Pop radio pretty much ignored the 2300 Jackson Street album, but it got R&B airplay.

Also just because one act is popular does not mean everything they do will be, or else Ringo Starr & John Lennon would have sold as well as The Beatles. Paul was the most successful solo Beatle, not the other 3 so much except on certain records. John probably had the least commercial records or the 4, None of the solo records of The Rolling Stones were really successful, but the band itself is still popular today on the touring circuit. I doubt a Mick Jagger solo tour would make anywhere near the same amount of money.
 
But radio has little influence on record sales.
But it did back in the day. Radio was just as massive in the 80's and 90's as it had been in the 60's and 70's. Radio wasn't just influential, it was pretty much the whole story. Some records could become a club hit and that might cross over to the charts or it might not. But, otherwise, it was all about radio play. Daytime radio, to be specific. My bands were on teeny tiny indie labels - if they were signed at all which most of them weren't. They were lucky to get played on John Peel's show but that didn't translate into much in the way of record sales. He was too niche. Daytime radio is where it all happened, chartwise.

What I’m more interested in are direct comparisons with other group vs solo album sales. For example how did Robbie Williams’ album sales compare to those of Take That?
Don't have the figures but my guess is his record sales will have buried Take That. Robbie was HUGE in a way the TT just weren't. TT were very, very successful, of course, but Robbie as a solo artist was a phenomenon.
 
Maybe today it doesn't with streaming. But back then it surely did. If radio airplay had no influence on sales, then record labels were stupid for spending all of that money on payola for decades since the 1920s or whenever. 🤣 You really think Thriller would have sold what it did without radio airplay? It was no accident that Clive Davis specifically chose songs for Whitney Houston so that she would get mainstream Top 40 airplay to get the bigger sales unlike Millie Jackson, Regina Belle, Stacy Lattisaw,, or Betty Wright who just got R&B airplay. That's why there was a singles chart. Before the internet, the singles chart tracked radio airplay & sales of 45s. Album tracks that got radio airplay could not chart on the singles charts in the USA. Nobody bought a 45 of those. Even the rock bands that didn't get much Top 40 airplay like Pink Floyd & KISS were played on the AOR radio format they had back then.

If radio airplay has little influence on sales, then how come music that isn't on commercial radio don't get huge sales like jazz, polka, zydeco, gospel, bluegrass, opera, barbershop quartets, etc.? Or acts on small indie labels instead of majors? People would just buy that stuff in the same quantities as Journey & Bon Jovi, who did get heavy radio airplay. Milli Vanilli sold multi-platinum because they were on the radio. Notice that Lionel Richie was way more successful than the Commodores were after he left. They only really had 1 big hit (Nightshift), other than that they didn't get the airplay even on R&B radio. But both Genesis & Phil Collins got a lot of Top 40 airplay. So they were both successful. Pop radio pretty much ignored the 2300 Jackson Street album, but it got R&B airplay.

Also just because one act is popular does not mean everything they do will be, or else Ringo Starr & John Lennon would have sold as well as The Beatles. Paul was the most successful solo Beatle, not the other 3 so much except on certain records. John probably had the least commercial records or the 4, None of the solo records of The Rolling Stones were really successful, but the band itself is still popular today on the touring circuit. I doubt a Mick Jagger solo tour would make anywhere near the same amount of money.
All of this.

Picking up the point about John Lennon being the least commercial of the Beatles, this is true (maybe) but he's respected as an artist way more than the others. It's only very recently that Paul has started to get a bit more respect for his work. He was always dismissed as being commercial and sentimental with John being seen as the maestro. Even now, John's work is seen as serious and meaningful in a way that most of Paul's Beatles stuff still isn't.
 
Last edited:
would it have made a difference if Quincy produced ‘triumph’? most of the session musicians from ‘off the wall’ appeared on that album as well. maybe having a big name producer attached to the project would have drawn more attention to it?

@DuranDuran why were the jacksons limited to an american r&b audience during ‘triumph’, when they previously toured worldwide with ‘destiny’ and everything that came before? ‘going places’ the song wasn’t r&b. the message was literally global. ‘show you the way to go’ was a uk number one hit. wasn’t michael also viewed as a primarily r&b artist during ‘off the wall’? he only won in that category for the grammys. that’s what fuelled him to diversify his sound, to keep from being marginalised. I thought he only crossed over as a pop act once his videos were played on mtv? ‘beat it’ specifically.

@filmandmusic I think I remember that thread now. I left a detailed response lol 😆 some of my answers may have been different though..🤔 I love lists 💜 they manage to be calming yet stressful at the same time..
 
@DuranDuran

I understand but I don’t fully agree. In my view a song gets airplay because it is popular. DSTYGE could have stayed in the r&b charts but it didn’t because it was popular and more radio stations started picking it up.

If it is the other way around then it basically means radio programmers decide what will become a hit and what not. So Michael was just lucky that some influential people liked his OTW album which resulted into airplay and then sales?

You have to get yourself out there on tv and radio to sell obviously but it still doesn’t mean you will get a hit, luck is a factor and the quality of music.

Now I understand where you are coming from as the hot 100 was decided for a big part on airplay but in europe none of this was the case and we saw the jacksons scoring very well in the charts.

For me the question remains the same why were the MJ fans not picking up the Jacksons’s music? You come up with Ringo Starr but he was just the drummer, Keith Richards was not a lead singer either. Mick Jagger didn’t get the same solo success because he made completely different music as a solo artist plus he was simply not that big anymore in the 80s.

To me the difference in success in the US between solo Michael and band Michael makes little sense as both played the same type of music. You ser this till today on this forum. MJ fans don’t pay attention to the Jacksons despite claiming how much they love Michael’s voice.

I Do Not Get It
 
Last edited:
I don't think much about The Jacksons or the Jackson 5 when I think of Michael Jackson. There are a lot of Jacksons songs I like when I hear them on the radio or when out but I've never put on a Jackson group record and listened to it from start to finish. Perhaps I should?

The Jackson group (Jackson 5 and The Jacksons) songs I really like are:

Can you feel it? (This is a masterpiece)
Who's loving you?
I want you back
Dancing Machine
Rocking Robin
Torture

So if I want to get into some Jacksons stuff, where would I start? What albums actually stand up to the kind of standard Michael met in his solo career?
 
I understand but I don’t fully agree. In my view a song gets airplay because it is popular. DSTYGE could have stayed in the r&b charts but it didn’t because it was popular and more radio stations started picking it up.
It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation but there was also, for the UK at least, the playlist.

If it is the other way around then it basically means radio programmers decide what will become a hit and what not.
To a certain extent that is what happened. Daytime DJ's didn't get to choose what records they played. John Peel and Bob Harris for late evening programmes plus the pirate stations (in the 1960's) - yeah, sure, they got to choose. But daytime radio was dictated by the playlist. The producers decided what went on the list not the DJ's. They couldn't decide what would become a hit but they did decide what records would be put in front of the listening audience. Then there's the whole payola thing.

You have to get yourself out there on tv and radio to sell obviously but it still doesn’t mean you will get a hit, luck is a factor and the quality of music.

Now I understand where you are coming from as the hot 100 was decided for a big part on airplay but in europe none of this was the case and we saw the jacksons scoring very well in the charts.
I'm not speaking for DuranDuran, obviously, but over here in the UK airplay doesn't count towards chart positions. I think it does in the US. But radio play still affected actual record sales just bc it was part of the promotion. It's not straightforward. Lots of popular songs that got loads of radio play didn't necessarily get really high in the charts. My Sharona is just one example. Didn't stick around in the Top 20 for very long but got tons of radio play and is out there on countless compilations. Generally speaking, though, without the radio play a record would struggle to do well.

For me the question remains the same why were the MJ fans not picking up the Jacksons’s music? You come up with Ringo Starr but he was just the drummer, Keith Richards was not a lead singer either. Mick Jagger didn’t get the same solo success because he made completely different music as a solo artist plus he was simply not that big anymore in the 80s.

To me the difference in success in the US between solo Michael and band Michael makes little sense as both played the same type of music. You ser this till today on this forum. MJ fans don’t pay attention to the Jacksons despite claiming how much they love Michael’s voice.

I Do Not Get It
Maybe it just can't be explained. I was into J5 from day dot and yet the music I listen to over and over is the 90's stuff and Invincible. I don't even really get into the Q stuff unless I'm watching a video. I do love Michael's voice but the music that pulls me is the later stuff.
 
Picking up the point about John Lennon being the least commercial of the Beatles, this is true (maybe) but he's respected as an artist way more than the others. It's only very recently that Paul has started to get a bit more respect for his work. He was always dismissed as being commercial and sentimental with John being seen as the maestro. Even now, John's work is seen as serious and meaningful in a way that most of Paul's Beatles stuff still isn't.
Critics don't buy records though. Rock critics praise stuff like Lou Reed & Tom Waits, but The Partridge Family sold more than them. Kenny G albums sold more than ones by Miles Davis & Louis Armstrong. Rock critics also don't give the same amount of praise to women artists. I've noticed that in general, the stuff that critics don't like is the most popular with the mainstream audience. No matter if it's music, TV, or movies. Do critics rate Madea movies highly? But Tyler Perry is said to be a billionaire now and he owns his own movie studio, which other Hollyood movie studios also use.
would it have made a difference if Quincy produced ‘triumph’? most of the session musicians from ‘off the wall’ appeared on that album as well. maybe having a big name producer attached to the project would have drawn more attention to it?

@DuranDuran why were the jacksons limited to an american r&b audience during ‘triumph’, when they previously toured worldwide with ‘destiny’ and everything that came before? ‘going places’ the song wasn’t r&b. the message was literally global. ‘show you the way to go’ was a uk number one hit. wasn’t michael also viewed as a primarily r&b artist during ‘off the wall’? he only won in that category for the grammys. that’s what fuelled him to diversify his sound, to keep from being marginalised. I thought he only crossed over as a pop act once his videos were played on mtv? ‘beat it’ specifically.
If Quincy's name made that much of a difference in Top 40 radio airplay, then Patti Austin would have been as popular as Mike. I think Jam & Lewis and Babyface were later more successful in the Top 40 field than Quincy. The majority of Quincy's productions during his entire career were jazz or film score related. He did produce Leslie Gore in the 1960s though. I think Epic didn't want Quincy at first for Off The Wall because they thought he was mainly a jazz producer.

R&B was code for "Black artist". Mainstream media in the USA has always been segregated. Like how many Mexican, Native American, or Japanese artists had Top 10 pop hits? Few if any. Other than Charley Pride, other Black singers who tried to break into country music were unsuccessful, until recent years. Like when David Bowie asked MTV why they played few videos by Black artists. They claimed it was because they made music that didn't fit their rock format. Yet they showed videos by Hall & Oates, ABC, Michael McDonald, & Culture Club who were pretty much making R&B. They were even labeled "blue eyed soul". That tells you right there about American racism, that a white artist wasn't just "R&B", but "blue eyed soul" & The Police was sometimes called "white reggae". There's even a song that has "play that funky music white boy". 😂 There's also "Latin jazz" & "Latin soul" & there's a separate Latin Grammy Awards show. Both Daryl Hall & John Oates have said they hated the "blue eyed soul" tag and so did Lisa Stansfield later on. Living Color was called "Black rock" when rock n roll was originally developed by Black artists. CBS Records had to threaten MTV with removing their other artists like Journey & Bruce Springsteen to get them to show the Billie Jean video. Billie Jean has a similar sound as I Can't Go For That by Hall & Oates, which MTV did have in rotation. There were Black bands that made rock music like The Bus Boys & Fishbone who still didn't get on early MTV. A Black Christian singer was usually called "gospel", but a white one was called "Contemporary Christian".
I understand but I don’t fully agree. In my view a song gets airplay because it is popular. DSTYGE could have stayed in the r&b charts but it didn’t because it was popular and more radio stations started picking it up.
That's not how it worked in the USA. Songs got on the radio because the labels promoted them (aka payola) to commercial radio stations. A R&B artist would get promoted to R&B radio and a country artist would get promoted to country radio. In some cases, an artist from a specific format would get promoted to the mainstream Top 40, which is called "crossover". Like in country, Kenny Rogers & Shania Twain would get pop promotion but Willie Nelson & George Strait didn't. R&B as a genre was never mainstream like hip hop is today. Only a small percentage of R&B artists got Top 40 crossover. People talk about Motown, that's only because some of their artists got pop airplay, The Supremes in particular. Motown wasn't the only label in the 1960s that had R&B/soul artists. Before the 1970s, radio DJs did usually have say in what they played. There was still a payola influence. In the 1960s, James Brown himself would sometimes buy gifts or give money to DJs. That wasn't the case when conglomerates like Clear Channel started buying up a lot of stations to make generic playlists for all of them.
 
Critics don't buy records though. Rock critics praise stuff like Lou Reed & Tom Waits, but The Partridge Family sold more than them. [...]
I wasn't talking about critics, though. Beatles' fans, music fans, people in general - all of them usually rate John Lennon as being the artist over Paul. And I disagree. Critics do buy records. Yes, they get loads for free. Of course they do. But they do actually buy stuff, as well.
 
Last edited:
The only Jacksons track I care for is Can You Feel It.(that one I love btw)
But I must admit that I havent heard many of their albums,only single releases.
 
@DuranDuran
So what was in your opinion the goal with off the wall? Was it meant to cross over or was it meant for the r&b charts?

@Hurley509 imo they all stand up to the solo work. If your main interest lies in post thriller Michael you won’t find any music like that but if you are into very solid 70s r&b the Jacksons are as good as any other similar act in those days.
For me the selling point for the Jacksons is that I believe Michael his best vocals in this time period (1975-1985), so for me there is a lot of enjoyment to be found.

Perhaps the main difference between The Jacksons and everything post thriller is that Michael started to really experiment with his vocals and his trademark vocalizations. He basically reinvented himself with thriller and took it further vocally on bad and dangerous. But you can hear the very beginning of his trademark singing also on albums like off the wall, triumph and destiny.

There is a lot to love though. If you like his falsetto styled singing you can go for “your ways” but for me he truly shines in the ballads of these times. Time waits for no one, push me away, even though your gone, dreamer and many others are just lovely and they are far less contrived and lyrically more emotional and deeper than a couple of his later ballads like you are not alone or I just can’t stop loving you.
 
I wasn't talking about critics, though. Beatles' fans, music fans, people in general - all of them usually rate John Lennon as being the artist over Paul. And I disagree. Critics do buy records. Yes, they get loads for free. Of course they do. But they do actually buy stuff, as well.
That may be so, but there's not enough of them to make much of a difference in record sales compared to what the mainstream audience liked and bought. Before Thriller, the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack was the biggest selling album. That wasn't because the rock critics liked disco music. Some US rock critics in the late 1970s were giving good reviews to punk rock, which was never really mainstream popular in the US or got Top 40 airplay. I think punk was mostly popular with the British audience. It was what the critics called "corporate rock" (as a dismissal) that sold a lot and got a lot of airplay. Such as Styx, Journey (with Steve Perry), Boston, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, etc,
 
Critics are evil, they all think their opinion is the most important but they’re basically jealous and sour because they didn’t make it as rock/pop stars themselves. They’d sell out in a heartbeat if they were able to get a top 40 hit themselves. Those fans who are into these obscure acts that don’t seem to be able to break through are too entitled as well, they stop being a fan once those bands get a radio hit.
 
Critics are evil, they all think their opinion is the most important but they’re basically jealous and sour because they didn’t make it as rock/pop stars themselves. They’d sell out in a heartbeat if they were able to get a top 40 hit themselves. Those fans who are into these obscure acts that don’t seem to be able to break through are too entitled as well, they stop being a fan once those bands get a radio hit.
I love critics. Some of them are idiots, of course. Some of them are a waste of space. But some of them write stuff that is brilliant or interesting or at least thought provoking. I love them.
 
That is not the point I was making at all. 🤷‍♀️
That's what I was saying though with "critics don't buy records". You were saying that John Lennon is more respected than Paul McCartney. But Paul/Wings is the one who got the higher sales and probably the Beatle who gets the most oldies play. With The Beatles I usually hear George led songs more often than the others like Here Comes The Sun, Something, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, & Taxman. A lot of people didn't like that John had Yoko "broke up The Beatles" Ono on his records. Even recently I've seen negative comments about Yoko's presence in the Get Back documentary that was on Disney+. Like that's something that was filmed over 50 years ago. Why are people still complaining about her now? 😂 Especially from people who weren't even born then.

Critic reviews have never made anything popular, because most people don't read or watch critics. The average listener hears a song on the radio or in a club and they either like it or they don't. Like they used to say on American Bandstand "I like it because it has a good beat and I can dance to it" lol. Maybe music critics can't dance. 🤣 If they like the song a listener might call the radio station to request the song be played again.
 
I’m surprised that michael was able to secure a solo album deal at epic records, considering his previous two albums at motown (‘forever, Michael’ and ‘music and me’) underperformed. record label boss walter yetnikoff was told not to sign the jacksons. they were looked at as a vegas act, with their heyday behind them. they were even in the process of being dropped after ‘going places’ flopped. I guess the success of ‘destiny’ changed things, and they saw that michael was a breakout star?
 
1. Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground)
2. This Place Hotel
3. That's What You Get (For Being Polite)
4. Lovely One
5. Give It Up
6. Bless His Soul
7. Push Me Away
8. Things I Do For You
9. All Night Dancing
10. Different Kind of Lady

they’ve mixed in jackson 5 songs with the jacksons. I don’t think many people realise they’re two separate groups.

They're the same group lol. Jacksons is just what they renamed themselves after leaving Motown.
 
1. Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground)
2. This Place Hotel
3. That's What You Get (For Being Polite)
4. Lovely One
5. Give It Up
6. Bless His Soul
7. Push Me Away
8. Things I Do For You
9. All Night Dancing
10. Different Kind of Lady



They're the same group lol. Jacksons is just what they renamed themselves after leaving Motown.
they’re not the same group because they have a different lineup, as well as a different name. there are also two separate categories for their chart histories and sales.
 
they’re not the same group because they have a different lineup, as well as a different name. there are also two separate categories for their chart histories and sales.

Replacing one member =/= becoming a different band lol. Bands change members all the time.

Their original name was the Jackson Brothers before being renamed to Jackson 5 when they got signed to Motown. They didn't become a different band then and they didn't become one when they changed their name again later.
 
I’m surprised that michael was able to secure a solo album deal at epic records, considering his previous two albums at motown (‘forever, Michael’ and ‘music and me’) underperformed.
The Jackson 5's last album at Motown underperformed, too, yet they still got signed. No reason MJ's solo career would have been any different.

The idea was that Motown was holding them back, so it was thought that they'd be more successful at a label that gave them more artistic freedom.
 
Replacing one member =/= becoming a different band lol. Bands change members all the time.

Their original name was the Jackson Brothers before being renamed to Jackson 5 when they got signed to Motown. They didn't become a different band then and they didn't become one when they changed their name again later.
they were the jackson 5 before they came to motown. it was actually a lady in their neighbourhood who suggested they call themselves that. they were also credited as such on their steeltown releases.

besides, marlon was the one who made that clear distinction between the two groups in an old documentary.

ps: there’s no need to ‘lol’. it comes across as condescending and disrespectful.
 
they’re not the same group because they have a different lineup, as well as a different name. there are also two separate categories for their chart histories and sales.
That's because Motown registered the name "Jackson 5" as a trademark, and told the group they couldn't use it when they left. This also happened with another group called The Moments (not on Motown). When they left their label (Stang Records), Sylvia Robinson said she owned their name. So that this couldn't happen again, the group used their own last names as the group's name (Ray, Goodman, & Brown).
 
Back
Top