Latest on MJJC

Are the Jacksons the best family act ever?

I'll say the Jacksons are the greatest, purely because, other than the Bee Gees, I don't know any of the acts that Troubleman84 has posted :lol:
 
I'd have to go back and look at the various family acts, but the Jacksons seem to have longevity while most other family acts were only popular for a few years. The Jacksons are easier to remember than the others.
 
Love.him said:
I'd have to go back and look at the various family acts, but the Jacksons seem to have longevity while most other family acts were only popular for a few years. The Jacksons are easier to remember than the others.
Click to expand...

They've been in it for 40 years, the Gibbs was in it for around 45 before Maurice's death in 2003, the Isleys beat them with 50 years.
 
They haven't really even been in it that long. The group basically disbanded once Michael left. They put out 2300 Jackson Street, but beyond that, they haven't done anything without Michael, as a group, and they haven't seen success without Michael. Michael's the one whose had success for 40 years, about, and been in the business for 44 years.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
They haven't really even been in it that long. The group basically disbanded once Michael left. They put out 2300 Jackson Street, but beyond that, they haven't done anything without Michael, as a group, and they haven't seen success without Michael. Michael's the one whose had success for 40 years, about, and been in the business for 44 years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Jackson 5's tenure was from 1966 (roughly) to 1989, which is 23 years. And the other Jackson brothers' careers basically ended in the early 1990s but Michael's the only one of the brothers to have had a consistent career. In that sense, they haven't lasted as the Gibb or Isley Brothers, both of those groups need props for hanging in there even when trends died down since the brothers were equal of each other. Michael Jackson was a man who was bigger than his brothers.
 
Well to me they are yes! because there the only family act ive been really interested in . and collected all there music, this is down to michael being in the group i will admit.
 
troubleman84 said:
Yeah, the Jackson 5's tenure was from 1966 (roughly) to 1989, which is 23 years. And the other Jackson brothers' careers basically ended in the early 1990s but Michael's the only one of the brothers to have had a consistent career. In that sense, they haven't lasted as the Gibb or Isley Brothers, both of those groups need props for hanging in there even when trends died down since the brothers were equal of each other. Michael Jackson was a man who was bigger than his brothers.
Click to expand...

Well technically Mike hasn't done much since 1991 when Dangerous came out, which is the same year as Jermaine's last album Word To The Badd. Mike's only released 2 albums (of new material) since then. I'd say Janet has been more consistant.
 
Last edited:
DuranDuran said:
Well technically Mike hasn't done much since 1991 when Dangerous came out, which is the same year as Jermaine's last album Word To The Badd. Mike's only released 2 albums (of new material) since then. I'd say Janet has been more consistant.
Click to expand...

MJ is not just an entertainer. He has always had other jobs. His catalogue is far more valuable and earns more money than making records. Maybe other celebs need to be more consistant because that is their main job.
MJ's main job is Sony/atv and Mjj production. They yield more money than any recordings ever yield and alswo much more difficult to sabbotage by media lies and public opnions..
 
Last edited:
Datsymay said:
MJ is not just an entertainer. He has always had other jobs. His catalogue is far more valuable and earns more money than making records. Maybe other celebs need to be more consistant because that is their main job.
MJ's main job is Sony/atv and Mjj production. They yield more money than any recordings ever yield and alswo much more difficult to sabbotage by media lies and public opnions..
Click to expand...

Huh, I was responding to a comment about the Jacksons recording career, so behind the scene stuff isn't relevant.
 
I didn't think of the Isley Brothers. I only remember a few of their songs, but I did think of the Bee Gees. The Jacksons though they haven't had a hit in decades are still quite visible. I don't think the Isley Brothers have been as visible in the news. You'd have to be looking for them.

troubleman84 said:
They've been in it for 40 years, the Gibbs was in it for around 45 before Maurice's death in 2003, the Isleys beat them with 50 years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I would love to know the official numbers for the top 5 main artists of all time.
The Beatles, Michael, Elvis, Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby,
 
Love.him said:
I didn't think of the Isley Brothers. I only remember a few of their songs, but I did think of the Bee Gees. The Jacksons though they haven't had a hit in decades are still quite visible. I don't think the Isley Brothers have been as visible in the news. You'd have to be looking for them.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean it as they're as newsworthy. I mention them because of their longevity on the charts and such. The Isleys IMHO have been underrated for far too long anyway.
 
You're probably right about them being underrated. I know a few more of their songs only because I've listened to CBS 101.FM over the years. So much good music just doesn't get any or much exposure on the radio etc.
 
Love.him said:
I didn't think of the Isley Brothers. I only remember a few of their songs, but I did think of the Bee Gees. The Jacksons though they haven't had a hit in decades are still quite visible. I don't think the Isley Brothers have been as visible in the news. You'd have to be looking for them.
Click to expand...

You've never heard of Mr. Biggs, lol?
 
DuranDuran said:
Well technically Mike hasn't done much since 1991 when Dangerous came out, which is the same year as Jermaine's last album Word To The Badd. Mike's only released 2 albums (of new material) since then. I'd say Janet has been more consistant.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree there, History had quite a bit of "stuff" behind it: Scream, Earth Song (didn't do too well in the U.S. but the music video was in heavy rotation and one of the most requested, and the single was a smash in Europe and other parts of the world). And then there was You Are Not Alone which is the first single ever to debut at number one on the billboard charts. So I wouldn't say that he hasn't done much since Dangerous. History wasn't quite as big as Dangerous, but there was certainly a lot of steam behind it. I think 1995/1996 was the last "big" MJ era, as the Invincible era fell flat for numerous reasons.

Also, Michael may have been the driving force behind The Jackson 5/The Jacksons, but I don't think it's quite fair to count out all the brothers either. They're still a great group act. The group is better than the sum of it's parts, is all.

You're right about The Isley Bros. though, ever since "Contagious" they've captured a youthful audience. It's pretty much down to Ronald and Ernie now though, and obviously Ronald is the focal point of things now. Pretty amazing considering he's in his 60's. His last album didn't do too well, but "Contagious" and "Busted" were big hits for him.
 
Last edited:
DuranDuran said:
Well technically Mike hasn't done much since 1991 when Dangerous came out, which is the same year as Jermaine's last album Word To The Badd. Mike's only released 2 albums (of new material) since then. I'd say Janet has been more consistant.
Click to expand...

No, I don't agree with this. Michael has released two full length solo albums since "Dangerous", both of which were incredibly successful, most particularly "History", which sold 18 million copies or so and had along with it a tour more successful then either "Victory", "Bad" or "Dangerous", and as a double disc set, the album becoming the largest selling double disc set in history, and "Invincible", despite the lack of promotion and lambasting by the critics, still sold around 10 million copies, which most artists only dream of doing. And if you count "Blood On The Dance Floor", which did have 5 unreleased tracks, great tracks at that, that became the largest selling remix album ever, at the time.
 
Last edited:
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
No, I don't agree with this. Michael has released two full length solo albums since "Dangerous", both of which were incredibly successful, most particularly "History", which sold 18 million copies or so and had along with it a tour more successful then either "Victory", "Bad" or "Dangerous", and as a double disc set, the album becoming the largest selling double disc set in history, and "Invincible", despite the lack of promotion and lambasting by the critics, still sold around 10 million copies, which most artists only dream of doing. And if you count "Blood On The Dance Floor", which did have 5 unreleased tracks, great tracks at that, that became the largest selling remix album ever, at the time.
Click to expand...

Hits or sales wasn't the point - only that he released 2 albums of new material. You must have not read the comment correctly. If you want to get that technical about it, perhaps you can make up a 3rd album with the unreleased material from BOTDF and the box set and soundtrack/b-sides. Still that's very little in a 17 year period. Janet still has more releases than he has during the same time period, so what's to disagree?
 
Superstition said:
Also, Michael may have been the driving force behind The Jackson 5/The Jacksons, but I don't think it's quite fair to count out all the brothers either. They're still a great group act. The group is better than the sum of it's parts, is all.

You're right about The Isley Bros. though, ever since "Contagious" they've captured a youthful audience. It's pretty much down to Ronald and Ernie now though, and obviously Ronald is the focal point of things now. Pretty amazing considering he's in his 60's. His last album didn't do too well, but "Contagious" and "Busted" were big hits for him.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about the Jackson brothers, are you referring to me?
 
DuranDuran said:
Hits or sales wasn't the point - only that he released 2 albums of new material. You must have not read the comment correctly. If you want to get that technical about it, perhaps you can make up a 3rd album with the unreleased material from BOTDF and the box set and soundtrack/b-sides. Still that's very little in a 17 year period. Janet still has more releases than he has during the same time period, so what's to disagree?
Click to expand...

The point is about success and longevity. He may not have put out as many albums as Janet, but he's seen greater success with what he has put out then her, or most other acts, for that matter. The point is, he still has a succssful career by any stadards. I'm not sure what the quantity of his releases has to do with it.
 
DuranDuran said:
I said nothing about the Jackson brothers, are you referring to me?
Click to expand...

No. That was just in response to a comment or two about MJ being the driving force behind the J5 (which was true). I was just adding to it.

The point you made that I was contesting was that he hasn't done much since Dangerous. I mean, if you think about it, he only released two albums in the 80's: Thriller and Bad. Then there was Triumph and Victory with his brothers. In the 90's, there was Dangerous and HIStory. Again, only two albums. If you add on Blood on the Dancefloor and the two major world tours, it's really not that different from the 80's. He also appeared on some albums with his nephews and sister Rebbie, wrote a few songs for some other artists and was in the public eye quite a bit. He hasn't done much since Invincible (for obvious reasons), but I think saying he hasn't done much since 1991 is a bit far-fetched.
 
Last edited:
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
The point is about success and longevity. He may not have put out as many albums as Janet, but he's seen greater success with what he has put out then her, or most other acts, for that matter. The point is, he still has a succssful career by any stadards. I'm not sure what the quantity of his releases has to do with it.
Click to expand...

Someone said the brothers hasn't released any music since 89, and I responded that Mike hasn't put out much either. Michael & Jermaine both had albums in 1991, and since then Mike has only released 2 albums. Anyway, the thread isn't about success, but opinions on who's the best family group. Who's the most talented has nothing to do with sales, how many hits you have, or how long your career lasted.
 
I said that, and I said it as a point that the Jacksons as a group haven't actually been together as a group since 1989. Michael, however, has had an active solo career, whether he was actually releasing albums during every year or not, he still had a contract, still was expected to put albums out, still was touring, still was making videos and promoting, doing interviews, having a career. Active careers aren't defined by how often you put albums out. He was still a solo star doing things, putting on concerts, making videos, signing deals, etc...
 
Last edited:
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
I said that, and I said it as a point that the Jacksons as a group haven't actually been together as a group since 1989. Michael, however, has had an active solo career, whether he was actually releasing albums during every year or not, he still had a contract, still was expected to put albums out, still was touring, still was making videos and promoting, doing interviews, having a career. Active careers aren't defined by how often you put albums out. He was still a solo star doing things, putting on concerts, making videos, signing deals, etc...
Click to expand...
Well, if you're going by that criteria, then Jermaine, Tito, & Marlon has been doing things. That still isn't what the thread is about.
 
They haven't had a succssful musical career by any means since the late 80s, early 90s. And I was talking about the Jackson's as a GROUP. They haven't been a group since the late 80s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top