Latest on MJJC

If Michael Wasn't a Jackson...

That is true, Michael would have still been as big as he is today even if he was called ''Smith'' as for the Jackson's they would have been nowhere they are today. Nowhere.
 
Ramona122003 said:
As I have said in my other post, Tito and Jermaine were so-so musicians. Which is why people had to hire studio bands for them. Even now, their talent on guitar is nothing to write home about.
Click to expand...
Actually on Jermaine's solo albums he plays several instruments, and he also played on some Switch songs. Jermaine produced a couple of songs on Whitney Houston's 1st album. Clive Davis doesn't get mediocre talent for Whitney. Jermaine might not have been that good a bass player at 10 years old, but not many kids are. You don't have to play like Eddie Van Halen to be a good guitar player. Many people consider B.B. King a superior player to Eddie and B.B. can't play fast like Eddie.
Ramona122003 said:
Can you honestly tell me with the vocals you have heard that they would had made it in the industry?
Click to expand...
Explain the popularity of Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, Tom Waits, Britney Spears, Ashanti, Keith Sweat, Kirk Franklin, and many others, lol.
 
Last edited:
Michael for sure would still have the talent. The question would be would he have had his dream and interest in singing and dancing if he wasn't in the Jackson family.
 
Last edited:
I think there would still be a Jackson 5 without Michael, but the group wouldn't have been so successful. I say this because orginally Michael wasn't in the group and Jermaine was gonna be the lead singer. Janet would still be a megastar but may not have the same influence she has had from Michael. The family would still be well known but would probs be something like the Osmonds.
 
Stargazer said:
I think there would still be a Jackson 5 without Michael, but the group wouldn't have been so successful. I say this because orginally Michael wasn't in the group and Jermaine was gonna be the lead singer. Janet would still be a megastar but may not have the same influence she has had from Michael. The family would still be well known but would probs be something like the Osmonds.
Click to expand...
yes, and Jermaine was Michael's first inspitation. listen to young jermaine singing before his voice broke. many people thought it was Michael singing, except you could hear little michael singing in the background and out of tune too.
michael learned his first singing style from Jermaine.
 
If Michael Jackson wasn't Michael JACKSON, then there would never be a Michael Jackson.

There would be a different Michael, a Michael 'something else', but not a Michael Jackson.

and also that different Michael wouldn't have as hott a name as Michael Jackson.
 
Datsymay said:
You wish.
how old were they again/ yes, they were 9 and 10 year olds playing adult intstruments. Michael jackson was very popular and loved in J5 but he was not the most popular of the group. the most popular were Jermaine and Jackie. most teenagers wanted to be with them. so they would have been successful if they had the right songs. not many boy bands played their own instruments at the time. jacksons were unigue because they were a proper band.
Bob marley cannot sing like jermaine yet he was successful.
Click to expand...

You dare mention Jermaine in the same sentence as LENGENDARY, ICONIC, BOB MARLEY.??
 
Datsymay said:
You wish.
how old were they again/ yes, they were 9 and 10 year olds playing adult intstruments. Michael jackson was very popular and loved in J5 but he was not the most popular of the group. the most popular were Jermaine and Jackie. most teenagers wanted to be with them. so they would have been successful if they had the right songs. not many boy bands played their own instruments at the time. jacksons were unigue because they were a proper band.
Bob marley cannot sing like jermaine yet he was successful.
Click to expand...

according to what you say, Michael couldn't afford to be regarded as 'as popular as' Jermaine, because Michael wasn't old enough for sex. so, it's hard to determine that Jermaine and Jackie was more popular. Jermaine and Jackie were just old enough for people to be allowed to express the desires they wanted to express...but musically, it can't be proven that Jermaine and Jackie were more popular. and as far as the songs were concerned..they were what they were..and that explains Michael having the ultimate popularity. Michael really knew how to express a song better than his brothers. whatever was or wasn't learned, the end result was what it was. the songs with MJ involved had the magic and punch. but the songs without him, did not. but i invite you to search for some songs that the brothers did, that did not involve MJ, and let us critique them.
 
If Michael wasn't a Jackson then the Jackson 5 wouldn't have been as successful as they were..Janet would still be pretty successful and she wouldn't have to worry about being in Mike's shadow (being asked about him all the time in her interviews..etc..)..however, it would've been harder for her to get into the music industry..And one of the greatest duets of all time, Scream, wouldn't have happened..
 
I think Michael would still have found a way to the stage and become as famous as he is now.

I am not sure about the Jacksons though, because they got a record deal with Motown mostly because Berry Gordy was captivated by Michael's performance, that's a known fact. I think they might have still record albums but wouldn't have been very popular...
 
DuranDuran said:
Actually on Jermaine's solo albums he plays several instruments, and he also played on some Switch songs. Jermaine produced a couple of songs on Whitney Houston's 1st album. Clive Davis doesn't get mediocre talent for Whitney. Jermaine might not have been that good a bass player at 10 years old, but not many kids are. You don't have to play like Eddie Van Halen to be a good guitar player. Many people consider B.B. King a superior player to Eddie and B.B. can't play fast like Eddie.

Explain the popularity of Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, Tom Waits, Britney Spears, Ashanti, Keith Sweat, Kirk Franklin, and many others, lol.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do about playing fast. It has more to do with skill and talent. If Jermaine was really as talented on guiltier as some here are pushing, he should be able to play the solo to Beat It, even if it is not his specialty. Just cause you can play fast does not mean you can actually play well. There is a different. Also, just cause he play his own instruments in the studio does not mean he can get on stage and nail it. Why do you think studio musicians don't tour with groups? They maybe good, but not good enough to go on stage with thousands of people listening to them and really get the place going. Which is partly why Michael never played on stage. He may had be train to play different kind of instruments, but even Michael said he was more studio material, which is why he hire people would had master their craft.

As for the Whitney Houston's album, he was the production and he only sang on one song. On the song he did sing, dear Whitney ate the hell out of his vocals. For the record, her brother sings that song much better than Jermaine when they did it in concert. Jermaine was also most likely picked because he was in the industry and he was Michael's Jackson brother. I doubt he was picked because he was the best person for the job. Don't underestimate the power of connections. If he was really a great production or such, he would had more to talk about than just Whitney. Kind of like how Jones tries to make it look like he made Michael, but for some reason he never was able to reproduce the same outcome with other artists.

I also stand by what I said. Their vocals would not allow them in the industry. You would compare them to Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, Tom Waits, Britney Spears, Ashanti, Keith Sweat, Kirk Franklin, and many others, look at the year. I clearly said that in the 50s, 60s, and even the 70s only the best made it. Especially if you were born black. If the Jacksons wanted to make it in the industry, they had to be better than the white groups. Which is why Motown was so successful. It was not only because they knew how to make hits, it was because all their groups had a certain level of talent that made them stand out. Without Michael, that Jacksons simply did not have that factor.

In today's industry, it is much easier to get into the industry and have a fair amount of success because of stuff like American Idol and Disney. That was not the case in the time the Jacksons came from. It was either be very good or you would remain a local group. So, you cannot compare today's artists to artists 50,40, even 30 years ago.
 
Datsymay said:
yes, and Jermaine was Michael's first inspitation. listen to young jermaine singing before his voice broke. many people thought it was Michael singing, except you could hear little michael singing in the background and out of tune too.
michael learned his first singing style from Jermaine.
Click to expand...


You can first learn to see from a dog, does it make the dog the next top singer?

Jermaine has some talent as a singer, but it is nothing impression and Jermaine by himself would had never had made it like the other brothers. Michael made of used Jermaine as a base, much like what he did for James Brown, but he quickly surpass him by the time he reached 10.

As for "he was a good singer before his voice broke", so are alot of great child stars, which is why people thought Michael would have no career once his voice changed. However, his voice actually became more dramatic and even more unique. If Michael tried to stay the same, he would had just been another child star and forgotten.

However, since this really had nothing to do with the poster's question, I won't go further into this.
 
Ramona122003 said:
It has nothing to do about playing fast. It has more to do with skill and talent. If Jermaine was really as talented on guiltier as some here are pushing, he should be able to play the solo to Beat It, even if it is not his specialty. Just cause you can play fast does not mean you can actually play well. There is a different. Also, just cause he play his own instruments in the studio does not mean he can get on stage and nail it. Why do you think studio musicians don't tour with groups? They maybe good, but not good enough to go on stage with thousands of people listening to them and really get the place going. Which is partly why Michael never played on stage. He may had be train to play different kind of instruments, but even Michael said he was more studio material, which is why he hire people would had master their craft.

As for the Whitney Houston's album, he was the production and he only sang on one song. On the song he did sing, dear Whitney ate the hell out of his vocals. For the record, her brother sings that song much better than Jermaine when they did it in concert. Jermaine was also most likely picked because he was in the industry and he was Michael's Jackson brother. I doubt he was picked because he was the best person for the job. Don't underestimate the power of connections. If he was really a great production or such, he would had more to talk about than just Whitney. Kind of like how Jones tries to make it look like he made Michael, but for some reason he never was able to reproduce the same outcome with other artists.

I also stand by what I said. Their vocals would not allow them in the industry. You would compare them to Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, Tom Waits, Britney Spears, Ashanti, Keith Sweat, Kirk Franklin, and many others, look at the year. I clearly said that in the 50s, 60s, and even the 70s only the best made it. Especially if you were born black. If the Jacksons wanted to make it in the industry, they had to be better than the white groups. Which is why Motown was so successful. It was not only because they knew how to make hits, it was because all their groups had a certain level of talent that made them stand out. Without Michael, that Jacksons simply did not have that factor.

In today's industry, it is much easier to get into the industry and have a fair amount of success because of stuff like American Idol and Disney. That was not the case in the time the Jacksons came from. It was either be very good or you would remain a local group. So, you cannot compare today's artists to artists 50,40, even 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

:sigh:

This whole essay is biased. Jermaine IS talented. He may not meet up to your standards of talent but in reality- he is a talented individual. Jermaine actually opened doors for artists like the Debarges.

This whole argument that some members of the Jackson clan made it because of their connection to Michael has lost merit long, long ago. If this were the case Jermaine would be just as popular and have sold millions worldwide but that's not the case. Why is it so hard to believe that Clive Davis chose Jermaine because of his talent or possibly because of his popularity at the time? This was Whitney's debut album in which he was introducing her to the world of music so I highly doubt Clive Davis (who's a strict executive producer) would add Jermaine to the billing of one of his biggest client's debut album.
 
if Michael wasn't a Jackson....then they would all starve and they would all have to pay their own child support....OMG..they would have to get jobs...Lucky for them Michael was a Jackson
 
trueiopian said:
:sigh:

This whole essay is biased. Jermaine IS talented. He may not meet up to your standards of talent but in reality- he is a talented individual. Jermaine actually opened doors for artists like the Debarges.

This whole argument that some members of the Jackson clan made it because of their connection to Michael has lost merit long, long ago. If this were the case Jermaine would be just as popular and have sold millions worldwide but that's not the case. Why is it so hard to believe that Clive Davis chose Jermaine because of his talent or possibly because of his popularity at the time? This was Whitney's debut album in which he was introducing her to the world of music so I highly doubt Clive Davis (who's a strict executive producer) would add Jermaine to the billing of one of his biggest client's debut album.
Click to expand...

LOL.I stopped reasoning with others a long time ago. Michael didn't make or break the Jackson really.
 
trueiopian said:
:sigh:

This whole essay is biased. Jermaine IS talented. He may not meet up to your standards of talent but in reality- he is a talented individual. Jermaine actually opened doors for artists like the Debarges.

This whole argument that some members of the Jackson clan made it because of their connection to Michael has lost merit long, long ago. If this were the case Jermaine would be just as popular and have sold millions worldwide but that's not the case. Why is it so hard to believe that Clive Davis chose Jermaine because of his talent or possibly because of his popularity at the time? This was Whitney's debut album in which he was introducing her to the world of music so I highly doubt Clive Davis (who's a strict executive producer) would add Jermaine to the billing of one of his biggest client's debut album.
Click to expand...

now you really cannot say someone's essay is biased, and then answer it with your own biased essay. lol. and, if anything, the bolded does support her essay. if Jermaine was as popular as Michael, then, that would mean it would be because of Jermaine's own merit.
 
vncwilliam said:
now you really cannot say someone's essay is biased, and then answer it with your own biased essay. lol. and, if anything, the bolded does support her essay. if Jermaine was as popular as Michael, then, that would mean it would be because of Jermaine's own merit.
Click to expand...

What I said isn't biased. The bolded doesn't support what Ramona said. He/she is saying that Jermaine got top billing on Whitney's debut because he's Michael's brother. This whole association argument is a sorry attempt to discredit the whole family. A pity.
 
trueiopian said:
What I said isn't biased. The bolded doesn't support what Ramona said. He/she is saying that Jermaine got top billing on Whitney's debut because he's Michael's brother. This whole association argument is a sorry attempt to discredit the whole family. A pity.
Click to expand...

i knew this thread would become what it has become. it is a what if thread, so it can't be anything but biased.
i don't know why it seems that there are people that have a hard time with the massiveness of Michael's popularity, and that his fans are fans of him, the way they are fans of him, and no one is out to discredit anyone. if people have a problem, they should talk to the hand, that is known as the size of Michael's popularity. and talk to the music and the talent that made those fans and their money, willing slaves to it.
 
Last edited:
trueiopian said:
:sigh:

This whole essay is biased. Jermaine IS talented. He may not meet up to your standards of talent but in reality- he is a talented individual. Jermaine actually opened doors for artists like the Debarges.

This whole argument that some members of the Jackson clan made it because of their connection to Michael has lost merit long, long ago. If this were the case Jermaine would be just as popular and have sold millions worldwide but that's not the case. Why is it so hard to believe that Clive Davis chose Jermaine because of his talent or possibly because of his popularity at the time? This was Whitney's debut album in which he was introducing her to the world of music so I highly doubt Clive Davis (who's a strict executive producer) would add Jermaine to the billing of one of his biggest client's debut album.
Click to expand...



How I am being bias? I simply stated the reality of the situation, not the way things are suppose to be or how things people think they should be.

I never said that Jermaine was not talented, however, he is not that talented to make it in the industry on his own. He simply does not have it. If he did, he would had enjoyed far more success than what he has now. Just because he opened doors for others does not mean he can walk through the door as well. This has been case to many who worked in the industry.

As for this quote:

"This whole argument that some members of the Jackson clan made it because of their connection to Michael has lost merit long, long ago. If this were the case Jermaine would be just as popular and have sold millions worldwide but that's not the case."

Janet admitted that her worst fear that all her success was base on her being a Jackson and she still didn't feel that she deserved to be where she was. Oprah looked right at her and said that her brothers may had opened the door for her and gave her that chance, but it was her own talent and hard work that got here where she was. Being a Jackson would had only gotten her so far, like it only got Jermaine so far. Just because you last name is Jackson does not equal success. However, it does give that one chance that many other more talented people does not have. Part of what make artist break into the industry is connection and talent.

As for the whole production argument, I am not Clive Davis so I don't know what he was thinking or what he was going for. He may had chosen Jermaine purely for his name or his popularity. Since it is all speculation, there is no way to know who is right unless you go and ask him. So, I won't go further into it. All I did was note that no one else in recent years had asked Jermaine to produce anything. Which should tell you something.

Btw, some of my opinions about Jermaine maybe bias, but I not the only one who thinks this way. Obviously, the industry feels Jermaine is not that talented, even with their mega marketing, otherwise he would had more success besides Lets Get Serious. Also people who not had felt the need to go to the restroom and get snacks when he played his solo set during the Victory Tour. Even during the peak of his popularity with Motown where he was given a solo album along with Michael, it had mediocre success. This was during the peak of all of their careers, so people didn't buy those albums for a reason.

As for Ernestine, you're still here? Go back to reading the Sun.
 
If Michael Wasnt A Jackson...........He'd Be An Osmond!
 
Ramona122003 said:
It has nothing to do about playing fast. It has more to do with skill and talent. If Jermaine was really as talented on guiltier as some here are pushing, he should be able to play the solo to Beat It, even if it is not his specialty.
Click to expand...
Jermaine is a bassist, not a guitarist. Two different instruments. Eddie Van Halen is not a bassist, so there is nothing to compare there. Maybe you can compare Jermaine to another bassist like Stanley Clarke or Larry Graham instead. Jermaine is not as good as Stanley, but about as good as Larry. And Bob Dylan came out in the 1960s by the way. Listen to the average 1960s psychedelic band, many of the singers in those like Jim Morrison weren't great.
 
Last edited:
DuranDuran said:
Jermaine is a bassist, not a guitarist. Two different instruments. Eddie Van Halen is not a bassist, so there is nothing to compare there. Maybe you can compare Jermaine to another bassist like Stanley Clarke or Larry Graham instead. Jermaine is not as good as Stanley, but about as good as Larry.
Click to expand...


That is fair enough.

Although, I am in he personal opinion that if you want to master your craft, you should be good in both, especially if you want to really make it in a band. However, since Jermaine seems to want to be more a vocalist so he may not of tried as hard on the guitar. Although, he does not have very good vocals, imo.

I honestly think Jermaine would had far better success if he became more like Slash and Eddie Van Halen, but I guess it does not really matter.
 
Ramona122003 said:
How I am being bias? I simply stated the reality of the situation, not the way things are suppose to be or how things people think they should be.

I never said that Jermaine was not talented, however, he is not that talented to make it in the industry on his own. He simply does not have it. If he did, he would had enjoyed far more success than what he has now. Just because he opened doors for others does not mean he can walk through the door as well. This has been case to many who worked in the industry.
Click to expand...

I think he just wasn't marketable like Janet and MJ. He's just lazy. Jermaine expects all the fame and success to come to him rather then working for it.

Ramona122003 said:
As for this quote:

"This whole argument that some members of the Jackson clan made it because of their connection to Michael has lost merit long, long ago. If this were the case Jermaine would be just as popular and have sold millions worldwide but that's not the case."

Janet admitted that her worst fear that all her success was base on her being a Jackson and she still didn't feel that she deserved to be where she was. Oprah looked right at her and said that her brothers may had opened the door for her and gave her that chance, but it was her own talent and hard work that got here where she was. Being a Jackson would had only gotten her so far, like it only got Jermaine so far. Just because you last name is Jackson does not equal success. However, it does give that one chance that many other more talented people does not have. Part of what make artist break into the industry is connection and talent.
Click to expand...

I agree but disagree with your last sentence. Most artists that break into the industry are marketable and semi talented. Rarely do we see talented artists.

Ramona122003 said:
As for the whole production argument, I am not Clive Davis so I don't know what he was thinking or what he was going for. He may had chosen Jermaine purely for his name or his popularity. Since it is all speculation, there is no way to know who is right unless you go and ask him. So, I won't go further into it. All I did was note that no one else in recent years had asked Jermaine to produce anything. Which should tell you something.
Click to expand...

Or maybe because he's no longer in his prime. For instance, Jimmy and Terry aren't producing big names like they used to. That doesn't mean they're not good producers. The same can be said about a variety of other producers and artists.
 
Was Jackie really popular than Mike back in the J5 days?

When I read old teen mags in the 70's, it's usually Mike who has his own exclusive story and Jermaine.

Can anyone old enough verify this? I've always thought Michael was the most popular...

or was it just the media... but not the Jacksons' real fanbase...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top