The Return of the Jackson 4

[marybrewster]

http://news.yahoo.com/without-michael-jackson-brothers-prepare-tour-133822401.html

BURBANK, Calif. [[AP) — Guided by a thumping bass line from their backing band, the Jackson brothers strut forward to a row of four microphones, thrusting their pelvises along the way, before launching into "Can't Let Her Get Away," a song their superstar sibling released on his "Dangerous" album. If they had afros and matching powder blue suits, it might feel like 1977 again.

It doesn't. They're casually sporting sunglasses, workout gear and a few more pounds than when they, along with the future King of Pop, were simply known as the Jackson 5. [[Also, "Can't Let Her Get Away" was released in 1991 after the group fizzled out.)

Nearly three years since Michael died while preparing for his comeback tour, four of his brothers — Marlon, Jermaine, Tito and Jackie — are set for their own return to the stage as The Jacksons. It hasn't been easy.

"The brothers don't know this, but I've broken down several times and cried during rehearsals," said Jermaine during a recent rehearsal break on a soundstage in Burbank, Calif. "I'm so used to Michael being on the right and then Marlon, Jackie, on and on. It's just something we never get used to."

The brothers are launching their "Unity" tour on Wednesday, five days ahead of the third anniversary of Michael's death from an overdose of the anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009.

"For me, this cycle that comes around every year — this day, that day — that doesn't affect me because it affects me every day," said Marlon. "When that day comes around, it's the same. You learn to live with it. I still wake up sometimes and go, 'Jeez. I can't believe my brother's not here.'"

Following Michael's death, the four brothers appeared in the A&E reality series "The Jacksons: A Family Dynasty," which chronicled their loss and attempt to stage a comeback before their brother died.

Jermaine said the brothers have wanted to reunite on their own for years, but after Michael's passing, they needed time to heal — and the tour is another step in that process. They've rearranged their classics to suit their voices, and Jermaine said the group plans to pay tribute to Michael during their shows with a slideshow and medley that will conclude with the tune "Gone Too Soon."

"There's certain songs that make you feel the sorrow," said Tito. "Then again, there are other songs that bring so much joy and happiness, such as 'ABC' and 'I Want You Back' and the up-tempo stuff like 'This Place Hotel.' I just imagine how he used to walk and spin and do all these things. You can feel his presence here."

The Jacksons' tour kicks off at Rama Casino in Ontario, Canada, and is scheduled to end July 29 at the Snoqualmie Casino Amphitheater in Snoqualmie, Wash. Other stops include Detroit's Fox Theatre, Los Angeles' Greek Theatre and Harlem's sold-out Apollo Theatre, where the Jackson 5 won an amateur night in 1969 before rocketing to fame.

Michael later forged unprecedented success as a solo artist. His superstardom was unrivaled, and his brothers couldn't capture similar acclaim or sales with their solo projects or last studio album, 1989's mostly Michael-less "2300 Jackson Street," but their legacy as a group has remained unchanged. The Jackson 5 were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1997.

While various combinations of the brothers have reunited to perform over the years, including at last year's "Michael Forever" tribute concert in Wales, "Unity" will mark the first time the brothers have toured together since their final "Victory" outing in 1984. [[Marlon said Randy, who officially joined The Jacksons in 1975, elected not to join the tour but noted that the youngest Jackson brother was welcome at any time.)

"We have a certain magic," said Jackie. "Once we get out here and run it down a couple times, it comes back to you. I'm not [[moving) like I used to, but we still got it."

Will the fans think so — and will they turn out to see The Jacksons, whose ages now range from 55 to 61, perform their hits without Michael?

Last year, Cirque du Soleil launched "Michael Jackson: The Immortal World Tour" in Las Vegas. The show featuring dancers and acrobatic acts performing routines set to M.J. tunes has been among the top touring acts this year, and "Immortal" will return to Vegas for a residency at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino.

However, Gary Bongiovanni, editor-in-chief of concert industry trade publication Pollstar, doesn't believe The Jacksons will achieve similar success with their smaller endeavor.

"The Jacksons were really all about Michael," said Bongiovanni. "The Cirque du Soleil show was successful because it was Cirque du Soleil and Michael's music. I don't know if that portends much for the remaining brothers and their ability to generate enthusiasm for ticket sales."

The brothers are undaunted, hoping to release an album of new music then go back out on tour.

"It's like riding a bike," said Marlon. "You never forget, but you do need to tweak a few things."

[Penny]

Mary, thank you. I am torn about going to this. I have thought about it but it doesn't seem right without Michael. The Jacksons are legends though so maybe I should go before any of the rest of them join Michael.

Penny:confused:

[jobeterob]

I would go see it if you can Penny. It won't be the old days but it is a chance to see something connected with the past and that is the best you can do.

It's a bit odd that the Cirque du Soleil has been so successful and the brothers have to come out on a much smaller scale.

[jobeterob]

It's never going to be like this, is it!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BanXdqt1O7g

[marybrewster]

I would go see it if you can Penny. It won't be the old days but it is a chance to see something connected with the past and that is the best you can do.

It's a bit odd that the Cirque du Soleil has been so successful and the brothers have to come out on a much smaller scale.

Smaller scale? Diana Ross played the Rama Casino on September 17, 2010. Are you saying.....? ;)

[jobeterob]

The article says:

However, Gary Bongiovanni, editor-in-chief of concert industry trade publication Pollstar, doesn't believe The Jacksons will achieve similar success with their smaller endeavor.

And Cirque du Soleil has been one of the biggest successes of the past year ~ in fact, it might be the biggest concert draw of the year. [[The executors of Michael's estate have done an excellent marketing job). I always wonder if it is not possible to do something similar for Whitney Houston - something that generates big bucks for another estate where there are financial questions.

And Miss Ross? Well..........her Central Park days are over; those kinds of crowds are from another era. And while her voice has held up much better than many voices - Martha Reeves, Dionne Warwick, Aretha Franklin - this is not 1979 in that respect either.

[carlo]

Smaller scale? Diana Ross played the Rama Casino on September 17, 2010. Are you saying.....? ;)

Casino Rama is located up north in Orillia, here in Ontario. It is by no means a smaller scale type of venue, even though it's a casino. Huge names bring their tours/acts there because they pay really well and the venue is a considerable size. It's just odd because it's pretty much in the middle of nowhere, but tons of people go there to see the shows and to gamble. Diana was there in 2002, 2007 and 2010.

[jobeterob]

The Jackson 4 might do OK; it really depends on how hard they've worked and how much they've thought this show through. They've got legitimate connections and it they do it with style and grace, it could do OK. If it's tacky, if they are out of physical and vocal shape, if they embarrass themselves in imitation ~ then it'll fail.

It will be interesting to see if these guys can sing and what this sounds like.

Looks like they have got some decent venues to get it a go in.

[Penny]

The Jackson 4 might do OK; it really depends on how hard they've worked and how much they've thought this show through. They've got legitimate connections and it they do it with style and grace, it could do OK. If it's tacky, if they are out of physical and vocal shape, if they embarrass themselves in imitation ~ then it'll fail.

It will be interesting to see if these guys can sing and what this sounds like.

Looks like they have got some decent venues to get it a go in.


Thank you jobeterob for your input. You are right I think I'd better go. It is a celebration of the past and they are also Motown legends. It just seems a bit difficult without Michael but it must be even harder for them. I hope their tour works out well for them,

Penny:o

[markdtiller]

I wonder why Randy didn't join them?

[smark21]

Randy didn’t do that tacky reality show the brothers did after Michael’s death. Maybe he’s content to live his life outside the public eye and not be tacky like some of his family members?

[milven]

I wonder why Randy didn't join them?
It may be that Randy still is still mad at Jermaine. There is a complicated situation there where Jermaine had children with Randy's wife or ex-wife. It's really complicated to sort out but the children are half siblings and first cousins. I thought they made up during Michael's trial, but maybe the feud has resumed

[Penny]

Randy didn’t do that tacky reality show the brothers did after Michael’s death. Maybe he’s content to live his life outside the public eye and not be tacky like some of his family members?

smark21, you may very well be correct. But "tacky" is what the United States seems to be all about these days.

Penny:rolleyes:
Still schlepping AVON

[marybrewster]

It may be that Randy still is still mad at Jermaine. There is a complicated situation there where Jermaine had children with Randy's wife or ex-wife. It's really complicated to sort out but the children are half siblings and first cousins. I thought they made up during Michael's trial, but maybe the feud has resumed

SCANDAL!

I always thought Jermaine was a pig anyway. But maybe that's what jealousy does when you live in the shadow of your younger, more talented sibling.

[jobeterob]

Michael and Tito and Rebbie got an overdose of Katherine genes.

Jermaine and Latoya only got Joe genes.

[Bokiluis]

Ticketmaster is listing many dates on this tour as "canceled".

[Roberta75]

Ticketmaster is listing many dates on this tour as "canceled".

My cousin in Detroit was offered 6 free orchestra tickets for tonight's show. She was told the Fox Theater which holds about 5,000 people has only sold 900 or so tickets.

Unfortunately my cousin has a wedding to attend tonight and can't go which is a shame as I'm sure the Jacksons will put on a good show.

Roberta

[smark21]

Review of opening night of the tour:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/21/jacksons-kick-off-tour-with-a-few-bumps

[luke]

Youd think they'd at least mention Randy--geeez.

[Roberta75]

A nice review from Detroit. They note that 11 dates have been canceled on this tour but a second leg is being added.

http://www.billboard.com/events/michael-s-spirit-felt-on-jacksons-tour-1007410752.story#/events/michael-s-spirit-felt-on-jacksons-tour-1007410752.story

[dvus7]

Review of opening night of the tour:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/21/jacksons-kick-off-tour-with-a-few-bumps

I thought that the set-list was quite intresting!!!!!

[jobeterob]

It is an interesting set list. They aren't playing up the Michael connection all that much; perhaps they can't really do him justice. If the tour doesn't do well, I bet they try and up that connection.

[dvus7]

It is an interesting set list. They aren't playing up the Michael connection all that much; perhaps they can't really do him justice. If the tour doesn't do well, I bet they try and up that connection.


I think that they are giving Michael his "due" giving that Michael was the original "one" that had stop them from touring!!!

[skooldem1]

I think that they are giving Michael his "due" giving that Michael was the original "one" that had stop them from touring!!!

I was wondering about that. The brothers are talented. Jermaine had a successful and solid solo career. I never understood why they all but retired after "Thriller" hit. Its like they became Michael Jackson groupies and not musicians in their own right. The whole family started talking like Michael, dressing like Michael, getting plastic surgery like Michael, etc. Jermaine should have continued with his solo career.

[dvus7]

I was wondering about that. The brothers are talented. Jermaine had a successful and solid solo career. I never understood why they all but retired after "Thriller" hit. Its like they became Michael Jackson groupies and not musicians in their own right. The whole family started talking like Michael, dressing like Michael, getting plastic surgery like Michael, etc. Jermaine should have continued with his solo career.

Michael had the "power" and used the Power to stop them from touring!!!!!

[smark21]

I don’t think it was Michael using his power to stop them [[ I suspect he would have preferred if they had moved on without him) but more that their only album pretty much without him, 2300 Jackson St., just didn’t sell so there was likely no interest in promoters to book them in any type of gig they would have been interested in doing at that stage of their lives.

[Penny]

Maybe Michael will look down on them from heaven and help them with their tour. I am hoping to see them.

Penny:rolleyes:

[milven]

The "Jackson 4" will be on Jimmy Fallon tonight at 12:35 a.m. on NBC. Also on the show is LMFAO, the group that Berry Gordy's son is a part.

[dvus7]

I don’t think it was Michael using his power to stop them [[ I suspect he would have preferred if they had moved on without him) but more that their only album pretty much without him, 2300 Jackson St., just didn’t sell so there was likely no interest in promoters to book them in any type of gig they would have been interested in doing at that stage of their lives.

Michael used his power to persude the promoters not to work with the Jacksons and then he took the Jacksons and signed them to his label and then did not allow them to release anything!!!!What do you call this????

[rod_rick]

Maybe Michael will look down on them from heaven and help them with their tour. I am hoping to see them.

Penny:rolleyes:

Here's your chance Penny, check out this clip. I think the brothers do pretty well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0dciQIjy9k&feature=related

[smark21]

Michael used his power to persude the promoters not to work with the Jacksons and then he took the Jacksons and signed them to his label and then did not allow them to release anything!!!!What do you call this????

I didn’t know that. Can you elaborate about this? This sounds very interesting. Is there an article on the net you can link to?

[stephanie]

There were a lot of people there and they sound good to me.

[smark21]

Here's a review of last night's show at the Apollo: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/michael-jackson-4-sound-article-1.1104472

Did anyone here attend that show?

[milven]

They will be on THE VIEW this morning

[marv2]

I saw clips from the show at the Apollo on local news last night. They looked and sounded pretty good.

[dvus7]

I didn’t know that. Can you elaborate about this? This sounds very interesting. Is there an article on the net you can link to?

All the Michael did was he sent the "word" out to the promoters that if they worked with his brothers that they would not have an opportunity to promote any of his concerts!!! He then moved the Jackson recording contract to his label and refused to record them!!!

[jobeterob]

All the Michael did was he sent the "word" out to the promoters that if they worked with his brothers that they would not have an opportunity to promote any of his concerts!!! He then moved the Jackson recording contract to his label and refused to record them!!!

What had they done to cause him to do that? Sounds pretty extreme. Did he feel they were taking advantage of his success? Jermaine? Would he do such a thing?

[marv2]

Michael used his power to persude the promoters not to work with the Jacksons and then he took the Jacksons and signed them to his label and then did not allow them to release anything!!!!What do you call this????


He also steadfastly refused to participate in any reunion concerts upon the advice of one of his long time "mentors".

[smark21]

All the Michael did was he sent the "word" out to the promoters that if they worked with his brothers that they would not have an opportunity to promote any of his concerts!!! He then moved the Jackson recording contract to his label and refused to record them!!!

Ok…but can you provide a source? Right now, your post is still on the level of gossip and hearsay.

[smark21]

NY Times gives the Apollo show a pretty good review and the critic seemed to especially enjoy Jermaine and Marlon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/arts/music/review-the-jacksons-pay-homage-at-the-apollo.html?ref=arts

[dvus7]

What had they done to cause him to do that? Sounds pretty extreme. Did he feel they were taking advantage of his success? Jermaine? Would he do such a thing?

Do you remember "Word to the Badd"?

[dvus7]

Ok…but can you provide a source? Right now, your post is still on the level of gossip and hearsay.

The source is the "the actions speaks for itself!!!!" OK!!!Why did they not tour until after his death!! Common sense

[juicefree20]

Dvus...

Chalk it up to the "curiosity factor". Often-times when tragedy strikes, a group can sometimes catch lightning in a bottle while they're still fresh in the public's eye & consciousness.

Now let's remember that for several years, Michael was at odds with SONY specifically, the industry in general & compared to what they had been, his sales were definitely on the decline. So given that as fact, if Michael indeed had conspired against his brothers by having them "blackballed", then what better way for the industry to strike back at him by putting his brothers on & attempting to push them & elevate them above him?

And we know that if there had been enough money in it to make it worth their while, the average company would've pushed just about anyone. So regardless of what Michael might have tried to do, considering how things were going, had their been a great outcry for The Jacksons MINUS Michael Jackson, that's exactly what we'd have gotten.

Think about it.

[juicefree20]

I can break this down a little further, but will wait to read any additional thoughts before diving in further.

[dvus7]

Dvus...

Chalk it up to the "curiosity factor". Often-times when tragedy strikes, a group can sometimes catch lightning in a bottle while they're still fresh in the public's eye & consciousness.

Now let's remember that for several years, Michael was at odds with SONY specifically, the industry in general & compared to what they had been, his sales were definitely on the decline. So given that as fact, if Michael indeed had conspired against his brothers by having them "blackballed", then what better way for the industry to strike back at him by putting his brothers on & attempting to push them & elevate them above him?

And we know that if there had been enough money in it to make it worth their while, the average company would've pushed just about anyone. So regardless of what Michael might have tried to do, considering how things were going, had their been a great outcry for The Jacksons MINUS Michael Jackson, that's exactly what we'd have gotten.

Think about it.

@ juicefree.....Tell me this could SONY stop Michael from touring????since he was at odds with them!!!There is no way that a record company can promote the "jacksons" without Michael!!! MICHAEL WAS THE STAR!!!! In more ways than one!!

[smark21]

The source is the "the actions speaks for itself!!!!" OK!!!Why did they not tour until after his death!! Common sense

So you have no concrete evidence, primary documentation or a valid link to provide. In other words, you’re going based on what you imagine might be the case and not any facts.

[juicefree20]

Smark,

I address that in the post that I wrote but held back in order to see if there were any other additional thoughts forthcoming. But all things considered, if SONY, Epic or anyone else had believed that there was a truckload of money to be made, then that truckload of money would've been made. And despite Michael's popularity, had the fans of The Jacksons had any inkling that he was trying to keep them from what they wanted...music & tours from The Jacksons MINUS Michael, Michael would've taken a very negative hit publicity-wise. It would've gone against his image & Michael, nor SONY would've wanted that.

The truth was that for the vast majority of the world whom didn't grow up watching Soul Train, Michael was THE MAN. Michael had the style, Michael had the charisma, Michael had it all & from the day that he stepped on that stage at "Motown 25", everything changed forever. ''Motown 25" represented a "passing of the torch", so to speak. He stole that show from legends. Michael was the ''here & now'' & that performance elevated Michael from everything that had come before, even The Jacksons. There's no way that that can be disputed, it's just the way that it was.

I've always read about music, I was a DJ at the time & just based upon what was happening with Michael, The Jacksons & music in general between the years 1982 when "Thriller" dropped", through the "Victory" LP in 1984 & beyond, had it made economic sense for SONY or Epic to put the brothers on, they'd have been put on. Michael indeed had power, but I don't believe for one second that he had to have his brothers "blackballed".

As long as Michael was "MICHAEL" & was going to perform solo, no threats, perceived or otherwise was necessary. Nor do I believe that Michael would've gone out of his way to hurt 3 other brothers in order to get back at one brother. A brother, by the way who hadn't followed them out of Motown until many years later & wasn't a part of the success that they had following their exit from Motown.

I don't believe that Michael harbored that much dislike for Tito, Jackie, Marlon nor Randy. As mentioned, there was indeed the "Word 2 The Badd" episode & we know about the whole Jack Gordon situation. LaToya wasn't a part of the "2300 Jackson St." project & Jermaine had previously reunited with his 5 brothers for the "Victory" tour, after which he & Marlon left the group & for the most part, the music industry & Michael went back to his solo career.

I can't understand why Michael would've felt to need to have ALL of his brothers "blackballed", when it was merely one of them [[who wasn't even a part of the group) who was somewhat guilty of pursuing a rivalry with him. Why would he have tried to hurt ALL of his brother to get back at ONE who for all intent & purposes wasn't even a part of the group?

I don't believe that because given the public sentiment at the time, Michael is who the world wanted & at that point in time, his brothers were no threat to his sales, touring, airplay or anything. One other thing to consider is that back then you never heard Jermaine talking about getting together with Tito, Jackie, Marlon & Randy & doing anything. All that we ever heard was that Michael was coming back & they would be touring & recording together, a attempted manipulating that probably made Michael even more stedfast in NOT returning.

That & as I mentioned earlier some of what we saw in their reality show may give a bit of an indication of what Michael msy hve had to deal with when recording or touring. I don't believe that Michael would've wanted to deal with that kind of drama, nor as the "little" brother to be expected to be subservient to one whom he had eclipsed years before.

Not having been there I may be wrong, but considering the oft-stated history that I DO know, I just can't back any conspiracy claim.

Curiously, the banishment didn't extend to Janet who gave Michael a real run for his money for quite awhile there. I don't believe that there was a conspiracy simply because there was no conspiracy necessary.

Perhaps in my next post I'll address the various reasons why none was necessary. And by placing things within the context of THOSE times, rather than nearly 30 years of hindsight, I think that my points will make perfectly good sense.

[juicefree20]

Smark,

As regarding SONY's stopping Michael from touring. Frankly, I don't believe that anyone could've been able to stop him from touring. If the demand was there, then I can't think of any contractual language that would've stopped him. As I recall it, I believe that it was his illness around the time of "Dangerous" that pretty much ended that tour.

HOWEVER...usually tours accompany an LP or new product to sell. If the product isn't really moving well, then that's an indicator that it's either not being promoted very well, or that it's simply not what the people want at that given time.

Now to me, given his world-wide popularity, it doesn't seem that one would have to actively "push" nor promote Michael, as he had & still has a loyal GLOBAL fanbase, that was & is simply unbelievable. Despite industry machinations, I believe that as long as Michael was alive, he could've performed just about anywhere in this world, especially overseas & continued to draw crowds that the average performer could only dream of. I don't believe for even a moment that SONY could've affected his ability to tour as Michael's fan base was so ridiculously large, that new product or not, Michael likely could've toured from now until hell froze over & filled arenas merely on the strength of his massive body of work.

If anything at all truly hurt Michael's ability to tour it would've been the media's constant attempts to mock him, as well as what I've always believe to be those false allegations against him. Not for one moment did I believe that he ever did anything to anyone & regardless of what many may believe, I do believe that he was set-up by adults who had a easy payday on their minds.

I believed that then & knowing & having seen similar things happen to people whom I know, I believe it even more today than I did yesterday. Now one can question his judgement if they choose to, but bad judgement doesn't necessarily equate to anything other than just that...bad judgement.

With that said, I find it somewhat strange to think back & remember how many of his fans & how many critics were somewhat perturbed by his alliance with Teddy Riley for the "Dangerous" LP. Ironically, this was his fastest selling LP in the U.S. Despite this fact, how often do you hear or read it being compared favorably to "OTW", "Thriller" or "Bad"? That New Jack Swing connection wasn't exactly appreciated by many of his fans, as it's sound was a bit "TOO" urban for many of his fans. It appears to me that when you hear most fans talk about his "great" music, they very often reference "Off The Wall", "Thriller" & "Bad".

As an example, how often do you hear "Dangerous" referred to as a "great" LP? Now for my money, "Remember The Time", "In The Closet'', "Who Is It" & "Can't Let Her Get Away" are damned good & I put "Remember The Time" up there with any of his solo recordings. But let's look at just a few songs from that LP & think about which ones seem to be more frequently played & referenced most often after the passage of roughly 21 years & I'll stick with the 9 which were actually released the 1st time around...

Remember The Time
In The Closet
Who Is It
Heal The World
Will You Be There
Gone Too Soon
Black Or White
Jam
Give In To Me

Now despite their respective chart positions upon their release, which of these songs do you hear more often on mainstream radio or referenced as being "classics"?

Ironically, all things considered, one could argue that this was considered by many in the U.S. to have been his last "great" LP. Unfortunately, subsequent events & the nonsense which accompanied the single "They Don't Really Care About Us" from his next LP, "Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix" seemed to be where the true disconnect came into play, displaying a shocking & dramatic fall off in sales.

And we know why that proved to be the case & upon reflection, it seemed to be more driven by vendettas than anything else. And that, more than anything that SONY could've done is what would've had much more of a negative effect on his touring. I might add that to be the case here in the states, as many of his overseas fans have seemed to be more supportive of him during his trials than more than a few of his fans proved to be here at home.

But he's got a lot of loyal fans here, but the press here smelled blood, which might've made things a bit rougher for him here.

[dvus7]

@ juicefree....I agree with you 110%, that performance changed everything!!! Remeber it ws not live, and MICHAEL had "editorial" contol over the segments that he appeared in!!!![[Please look inide the quotesto review the other replys)


Smark,
The truth was that for the vast majority of the world whom didn't grow up watching Soul Train, Michael was THE MAN. Michael had the style, Michael had the charisma, Michael had it all & from the day that he stepped on that stage at "Motown 25", everything changed forever. ''Motown 25" represented a "passing of the torch", so to speak. He stole that show from legends. Michael was the ''here & now'' & that performance elevated Michael from everything that had come before, even The Jacksons. There's no way that that can be disputed, it's just the way that it was.

As long as Michael was "MICHAEL" & was going to perform solo, no threats, perceived or otherwise was necessary. Nor do I believe that Michael would've gone out of his way to hurt 3 other brothers in order to get back at one brother. A brother, by the way who hadn't followed them out of Motown until many years later & wasn't a part of the success that they had following their exit from Motown.

I don't believe that Michael harbored that much dislike for Tito, Jackie, Marlon nor Randy. As mentioned, there was indeed the "Word 2 The Badd" episode & we know about the whole Jack Gordon situation. LaToya wasn't a part of the "2300 Jackson St." project & Jermaine had previously reunited with his 5 brothers for the "Victory" tour, after which he & Marlon left the group & for the most part, the music industry & Michael went back to his solo career.


@ Juicefree...IF you don't beleive it...Then tell me why? the Jacksons did not tour until his passing.Remeber Joe was going to tour with a poster if MIchael, in fact, that poster was used in the "Torture" video...LOL!!

I can't understand why Michael would've felt to need to have ALL of his brothers "blackballed", when it was merely one of them [[who wasn't even a part of the group) who was somewhat guilty of pursuing a rivalry with him. Why would he have tried to hurt ALL of his brother to get back at ONE who for all intent & purposes wasn't even a part of the group?

I don't believe that because given the public sentiment at the time, Michael is who the world wanted & at that point in time, his brothers were no threat to his sales, touring, airplay or anything. One other thing to consider is that back then you never heard Jermaine talking about getting together with Tito, Jackie, Marlon & Randy & doing anything. All that we ever heard was that Michael was coming back & they would be touring & recording together, a attempted manipulating that probably made Michael even more stedfast in NOT returning.


@ Juicefree....Jackie would announce, too that the Jackson w/ Michael were in the recording studio!!

That & as I mentioned earlier some of what we saw in their reality show may give a bit of an indication of what Michael msy hve had to deal with when recording or touring. I don't believe that Michael would've wanted to deal with that kind of drama, nor as the "little" brother to be expected to be subservient to one whom he had eclipsed years before.


@ Juicefree...It is highly, unlikely that "Thrilller" would have been a Jackson product!!! Michael did not want to relinquinches the "creative"control he had goteen since "Thriller" Michael appeared in NO videos for "Victory" and onl sung on a couple of cuts!!!

Not having been there I may be wrong, but considering the oft-stated history that I DO know, I just can't back any conspiracy claim.

Curiously, the banishment didn't extend to Janet who gave Michael a real run for his money for quite awhile there. I don't believe that there was a conspiracy simply because there was no conspiracy necessary.


@ Juicefree....Michael could not stop Janet...They were not tied to one another..She had her "own" recording contract!! The Jacksons nver had a "Control/Off the Wall" album!!!

Perhaps in my next post I'll address the various reasons why none was necessary. And by placing things within the context of THOSE times, rather than nearly 30 years of hindsight, I think that my points will make perfectly good sense.

[jaybs]

The Past is that! all the matters is the Future and I wish The Jackson Four all the best, quite impressed with all the video's I have seen from this tour.

[skooldem1]

Well I always thought it was strange that after "Thriller" the Jackson brothers dissappeared from the music scene. On the other hand, Rebbie, Laytoya, and Janet all pursued their music careers. If we can rule out that Michael had them blackballed, can it be possible that they were put on "payroll"- maybe Michael said I will pay you, you don't have to work anymore? Did he "retire" them? Off course this is all speculation.

[dvus7]

Well I always thought it was strange that after "Thriller" the Jackson brothers dissappeared from the music scene. On the other hand, Rebbie, Laytoya, and Janet all pursued their music careers. If we can rule out that Michael had them blackballed, can it be possible that they were put on "payroll"- maybe Michael said I will pay you, you don't have to work anymore? Did he "retire" them? Off course this is all speculation.

Ok!!! We agree that they disappeared......now answer the "HOW" & "WHY"? Janet, Latoya did not have recording contracts with CBS!!!!

[juicefree20]

As I have no desire to have it appear as though I'm slamming anyone by dissecting facts as regards the music, much less point out things which should be readily obvious to anyone who was hanging out in clubs or DJing back in the 80s let me ask you a few questions...

1. Does the term "emotional blackmail" mean anything to you? Have you never been in a situation where someone put you on the spot despite the fact that they already knew how you felt about a certain situation? But by calling you out in a public situation, they figured that they could embarrass you or manipulate the court of public opinion by placing you in a situation where you might look bad if you were to say "no"?

Manipulations such as this are attempted all of the time, not just in music, but sports, acting & everyday real life. It's called an attempt at a coup aka a power play. Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires.

So the fact that someone claimed to be it the studio, or holding up posters holds no particular weight with me. I've seen
small-time promoters put the names of artists on fliers & announce that they would be performing on a show in order to sell tickets to the unsuspecting. The problem is two-fold...1. The artist has no idea that this person has made these claims & 2. People don't comprehend what they read. Ever see one of those "Special Invited Guest" fliers, which has as much value as a roll of used toilet paper because such a statement doesn't mean that an artist agreed to anything, it doesn't even mean that the artist even knows the person from a hill of beans, much less received the invite. It's just another old parlor trick that people employ in order to manipulate people & to separate them from their money.

So any announcements that were issued by anyone NOT named Michael Jackson held no water with me because if the announcement was that grand, we'd have heard it straight from Michael first & no one else. Please, let yourself not
be deceived by wishes & dreams that 99% of the time were proven to be untrue.

And have you ever considered the fact that perhaps it was all of those empty proclaimations & statements which seemed to put Michael on the spot that is/was DIRECTLY responsible for him NOT reuniting because he didn't appreciate the very public attempt to manipulate him into doing something before he, himself was ready to do so?

Very few of us like being manipulated behind closed doors, much less publically & tend not to react positively to such an attempt. With that as fact, why do you not view that as a possibility as well?

2. Did you ever stop to consider that it may just be the desire to create a "Thriller" of their own that served to hold the brothers back, proving to be their very undoing? I have but one word to say & I want you to consider it very carefully. The word for the day is "Victory". If you can tell me the problem with "Victory", then you'll be halfway to understanding why I say that this has nothing to do with any conspiracy, but was a rather obvious conclusion.

A few other thoughts before closing...

Jermaine was talented & just as you pointed out about Janet, NOT tethered to Michael, Epic, nor SONY [[he recorded for Motown & Arista) & even did "Tell Me That I'm Dreaming" with Michael onhis LP which came out AFTER "Thriller" [[one hell of a great song too!). So as he was a viable artist in his own right & UNTETHERED to Michael, exactly why is it that he didn't continue down that solo path?

Exactly how is Michael responsible for that?

Am I supposed to believe that Michael was so powerful that he was able to flip argurably the most powerful executive in music against his brother?

As I recall it, Arista was pushing Jermaine, even had him do duets, one specifically with Whitney Houston. So it's obvious that by teaming Jermaine with someone the magnitude of Whitney, that Clive was behind Jermaine. Hell, he even found a way to have Michael record "Tell Me I'm Not Dreaming", not on Epic but on Jermaine's LP on ARISTA. So how badly was Michael trying to be to Jermaine when he recorded a duet with him & not even on his own label, but on the label of his brother? Do you know how many string usually have to be pulled to get ANY label to allow their megastar to record a potential smash for a competing label?

So, since we know that just as with Janet, Jermaine wasn't tethered to SONY, Michael nor anything remotely related to Michael, then exactly what happened at Motown & Arista? Having had a degree of success in his own right, why wasn't he pushing his own tours, instead of always talking about touring with Michael? As he had a solo career independent of his brothers, why wouldn't he have played up that aspect & sold himself, as opposed to playing up tours which would've found his spotlight & own star somewhat reduced?

Or can it be that those constant declarations about reunions that never were, press conferences & behavior on the reality show give more insight about the situation than any conspiracy theory ever could?

You mentioned the song "Word 2 The Bad", which as I recall it wasn't written by anyone named Michael. Perhaps the need to have written such a song may give still more insight as regards why things played out as they did, as well as an underlying condition which would make any possible reunion with somewhat untenable for Michael.

And that's only what we KNOW about. How much more do we NOT know about that situation?

It may be easier to blame all of this on Michael but most often in these situations, those that know certainy don't tell. But from where I sit, it's rather unfair to attempt to blame Michael for creating a conspiracy when at no time have I ever heard one of them state such at thing.

Not even LaToya when she was with Jack Gordon.

Now if you have a link to corroborating information you'd like to share which proves me wrong, I'd be perfectly willing to admit my error. But Dvus, I've talked to enough people about situations such as this & have been around some situations as they unfolded & I've learned a few things.

1. Truth is usually stranger than fiction
2. Just when you think you know the truth, you really DON'T know the truth
3. It is what it is

and finally...

4. Despite what fans want, sometimes, you just can't go home again

Very often, your biggest enemies can be people who share your same address.

Just something to consider.

[juicefree20]

Skooldem

There are a few things which have traditionally served to break up groups.

In the case ot The Jacksons, I believe that it most likely came down to creative differences. If you saw the reality show, then simply think back to how the recording of a mere ONE song played out. Remember how the brothers had one agreement about the song, only to arrive at the studio to discover that despite having agreed to finish it together, that the song had already been done.

Now in many groups, that has proven to be true. In this case if that scenario is true, imagine being Michael who has a very strong idea of how he wanted his music to sound. It's obvious that his instincts as regards his music has proven to be correct. Now imagine placing yourself into a scenario where you have to deal with a guy who has never written, much less produced a hit on his own & he's telling you how it SHOULD be done.

Can you imagine Michael tolerating the nonsense that was shown in that studio on that show?

I can't.

Furthermore, can you imagine what it must feel like to be viewed as a "bread winner" & to know that the fortunes of family members most likely hinge on your willingness to work with them, or not & not really wanting to deal with things that only those involved know about, things which fans are not privy to?

Beyond that, I don't believe that it was any conspiracy on behalf of Michael that held the brothers back. What I believe happened is that after "Thriller" their little brother had become so huge that they didn't believe that they could possibly top that without him.

So since I've said that much, I might as well go all the way with the 1st post that I wrote, but held back. And if we're being honest, then much of what I say is going to have the ring of truth to it. SO, I'll close this one & go straight back to 1983-84 & reminisce about how things seemed to be playing out back then...

[juicefree20]

WHOAAA!!! Time's slipped by pretty fast. Gotta go visit my mother in the hospital. When I get back I'll finish up. I haven't been here in awhile & have been enjoying this dialog.

And despite a difference of opinion, no one's even getting mad in this thread

Gotta love it :)

[dvus7]

WHOAAA!!! Time's slipped by pretty fast. Gotta go visit my mother in the hospital. When I get back I'll finish up. I haven't been here in awhile & have been enjoying this dialog.

And despite a difference of opinion, no one's even getting mad in this thread

Gotta love it :)

@ juicefree.. hope that you Mother recovers with Godspeed!!! No, I am not going to get mad, cause this is a "healthy" discussion!!

[dvus7]

@ juicefree...In regards to "tell me I not dreaming", It WAS not released as a single!! And a video was not made!! i.e. Michael's power move..I had read in the Waker Yinekoff[[sp) book, that Michael came to him and told him to tell Arista they could not release it as a single, casue he was afraid of "over-exposure"!!!THE END of "tell me I'm not dreaming"!!!

[smark21]

Maybe one reason why the brothers didn’t tour until after Michael died was because the offers they got were on the oldies/county fair/Indian Casino circuit and they wanted more and/or were holding out for Michael to rejoin them so they could do another “Victory” tour. Not that the Victory tour wasn’t something of a PR disaster, especially in how tickets were sold for that show.

[juicefree20]

Smark...

Now we're getting closer to the truth. A tour without Michael simply wouldn't have made economic sense. When you're going to book a group minus it's primary lead who is as dynamic & had the charisma & stage presence that Michael had & expect to replace that energy with a lead singer who simply wasn't Michael would've been an exercise in futility.

And despite their various talents, the truth is that most in any audience wouldn't be thinking nor focusing on the 4 or 5 brothers whom were onstage, but rather, moreso on the one brother who WASN'T onstage.

And the comparisons would've been coming fast & furious, as would've people lamenting the fact that Micahel wasn't there. Unfortunately for them the truth is that they needed Michael on that stage in order to be viable. Michael didn't need to do that & it must've been a bitter pill to swallow for at least one of them as my next post will illustrate.

[juicefree20]

Dvus,

Thank you for that positive vibe, it's much appreciated & tough gal that she is, she seems to be coming along nicely. Frankly, I enjoy going back & forth with you because you never turn these discussions into a personal war. We just toss around out various viewpoints & if we don't agree, it's not the end of the world & it's nothing personal, just varying opinions & that's cool.

Now what I plan to do is kinda give a synopsis of what I believe happened to the brothers & their careers, beginning with Jermaine, then The Jacksons. But before doing so, I just want to leave you with a few lines from a song that you mentioned earlier. And I want to to think about what those words are really saying, as well as why they were ever said where the public could hear them before they were altered. I believe that they revealed more about the person uttering them, than they do about the person whom they were written about. I'll add my commentary as I go along.

Leaving out the most offensive lines, let's start by analyzing the following lines...

''It didn’t matter you always play me off. You only care about what you want
You don’t care about how it’s done, You only think about you, your throne
Be it right or wrong...''

Now understand that this was written by someone who had his own career happening. Someone who chose NOT to follow his brothers toward their own destiny, no pun intended [[well maybe just a little!) With that as fact, if you have your career & I have my career, exactly why would I be wrong for focusing on my career while you focus on yours? No one's joined at the hip & we're not kids anymore. What seems to be being suggested here pretty much can be suumed up thusly..."I want you to do something that you don't want to do & you're wrong because you won't do what I want you to".

Moving along...

''It ain’t about you takin’ my pie. You been takin’ for a long time
If you don’t care, I don’t care If you keep
Well I ain’t thinkin’ ’bout you''

Well obviously there's more than a little thinkin' 'bout going on & there's an awful lot of denial happening for a person who says that they don't care. Nevertheless, skipping the repetition, let's move forward a bit...

''Thinkin’ about that pie that you’ve been takin’ from me
From a brother to another brother hard to believe
Lost and don’t know it yet you still show it
Givin’ seems to be harder than it is to receive''

Now considering that we're talkin' about 2 grown men who have separate careers, exactly what pie is anyone taking from anyone? Consider that statement for a moment & think about what it's really saying. What I get from that statement is that Michael wouldn't tour with them, didn't want to be bothered with the trip that was sure to follow if he did & somehow, that equated to ''someone taking his pie''? Which is basically saying nothing less than "Yo, I can't make this money without you & since you won't do it, you're cheating me out of what I deserve to get".

So much for "God bless the child".

And keeping it brief, let's simply skip to the end which is straight out of the book named "How NOT to win friends & influence ones sibling to see things your way"...

"But meanwhile, I continue to smile, cause in the back of my head,
I know you’re still a child
You say that your a man, but that will never be..."

Now after reading this edited & sanitized version of the song that you mentioned earlier, who really seemed to have the vendetta here & honestly, when you read those words, what do you think was really behind them?

I believe that the answer is clear & I believe that it was not so much anything that Michael did, but the fact that he had become so large & didn't choose to play any reindeer games that precipitated this salvo.

What do you think?

Here's a link to the lyrics as written for reference...

http://thecount.com/2009/08/07/jermaine-jackson-word-to-the-bad-lyrics/#fji1341363358255

[juicefree20]

Now let's discuss the music & try to come to a consensus as to why things went the way that they did. I'll give my opinion about what I believe happened with Jermaine's career, followed in another post by what I believe happened with The Jacksons. It may not necessarily be sweet, but I believe that it's honest, fair & I believe that what's on the vinyl will support what I'm saying. First...Jermaine's career & sticking purely to what's in the grooves in relationship to what was happening musically back then. Let's forget the 1st LP & deal with the 70s by moving directly forward to 1973.

To begin with, I want to give some major props to Jermaine because as regards his music & his talent, Jermaine was no joke at all. So here's an overview of his career from 1973 up to the "Thriller"/"Victory" era.

As far back as his "Come Into My Life" LP from 1973, it was obvious that he was talented. I liked his versions of "You're In Good Hands Now" & "Does Your Mama Know About Me". In the bicentennial year, this brother rocked N.Y.C . with his LP "My Name Is Jermaine" which featured a pretty nice-sized club hit named "Let's Be Young Tonight" which if you hooked it up just right, went pretty well with "Down To Love Town" by The Originals. "Bass Odyssey" was another favorite, as was "My Touch Of Madness".

His 1977 LP felt like a bit of a drop-off to me, with only "You Need To Be Loved" catching my attention. I thought that it was one bad-assed jam & it seemed to me that "There'll Never Be" by Switch did more than borrow than borrow from it. Either way, in my opinion, this was one hell of a song.

Now to me, he hit his 70's peak with 1978's "Frontiers" LP. I liked the Disco-Funk of "The Force", a song that judging from their exit from the dance floor, none of the customers in my club seemed to like as much as I did. He did a credible cover of Stevie's "Isn't She Lovely". But for me, the true gems from that LP were the ballads "Je Vous Aime Beaucoup" & the beautifully arranged & sung "Castles Of Sand".

Now, we hit 1980 & while coming up with some damn fine songs, he hadn't really come up with a blockbuster along the lines of anything that he'd recorded with his brothers & certainly nothing on-par with Michael's "Off The Wall". Enter Stevie Wonde & The "Let's Get Serious" LP.

The single "Let's Get Serious", with all of it's Stevie-tized vocal inflections & azz-kicking groove was a certifiable smash. Number 1 R&B & from the perspective of Motown, a #9 Pop hit, which helped propel the LP to $1 R&B & #6 Pop. I also liked the hot groove known as "Burnin' Hot", as well as the mellow "Where Are You Now" & "You're Supposed To Keep Your Love For Me".

So up to his 1st LP of 1980, things aren't looking too bad & he's still getting his props from the music fans. Lets see what happens from here...

[juicefree20]

Now we're approaching the end of 1980, & the LP "Jermaine" was released& to be honest with you, unlike the title of my favorite song from that LP, the pieces DIDN'T fit. To be perfectly honest with you apart from the song "The Pieces Fit" & the mellow ''All Because Of You'', I can't think of any other song from that LP that did anything for me, nor my crowd. I can tell you that as a DJ, that was a very disappointing development because after "Let's Get Serious" & "Burnin' Hot", we were expecting some serious heat from Jermaine on that next LP.

Instead of giving us heat, we got the singles "You Like Me Don't You" & Little Girl [[Don't You Worry)" which after the heat that was "LGS", were rather curious choices for releases. Obviously I wasn't the only one who felt that way as the LP peaked at #17 R&B & #44 Pop.

Next was 1981's "I Like Your Style" LP & frankly, I didn't at all!

The fall-off in overall quality was frightning, as the music seemed to be seriously adrift in need of a rudder. There was nothing from this LP that I could use for my crowd & frankly I can't rememember a solitary song from this LP being remotely memorable.

1982 gave us the "Let Me Tickle Your Fancy" LP & I have to admit that as I don't care for that particular style of pseudo-New Wave, I hated that song. A Devo fan, I wasn't & never will be. The only song that I really liked from that LP was "Very Special Part". And despite this LP somehow going to #9 R&B, it proved to be his final LP on Motown.

Strangely enough, it was after the "Thriller" Lp that I felt that Jermaine upped his game again, when he moseyed over to Arista & released his "Dynamite" LP in 1984. My favorites from that LP was the oriental-sounding dance cut "Come To Me", which was my jam. The ballad "Do What You Do'' was good, as was "Oh Mother" & his duet with Whitney, "Take Good Care Of My Heart".

Now as for the aforementioned, "Tell Me I'm Not Dreaming". We know that that was the monster from that LP. But truthfully, I didn't really think it strange that it wasn't released as a single & I'll tell you why I didn't.

Back then, record companies had fallen into the annoying habit of sometimes holding off on releasing what they knew to be a hot song in order to drive LP sales. Singles sales were great, but tell me, would you rather sell 2 or 3 million 45's or 12''s for $1 - $4.00, or would you rather sell 2 or 3 million LPs for $6.99?

My belief then was that they knew that on the strength of "Thriller", as well as the fact that the two brothers had joined together to make a hot & very desirable song, that not releasing the song would force our hands, therefore forcing people who only wanted the song to have to buy the entire LP in order to get it.

Having fell victim to that particular brand of record label B.S. before & since that time, today I still believe that that was the reasoning. From a purely economic standpoint, they stood to gain more money by keeping the people waiting for a single release, knowing full well that the demand was going to force people to buy the LP when there was no single forthcoming.

That's called a "win/win" situation for the label, as well as the artist simply because LPs meant "mo' money, mo' money, mo' money". I can't tell you how many times record labels held back hot singles from even those of us whom were in record pools. A lot of record companies began doing that back then & I believe that a lot of DJs from that era can certainly back me up on that.

But while true that it wasn't released as an A-side in its own right, we DJ's bought the 12'' of "Do What You Do" & flipped it because the object of our desire was on the B-side.

When we wanted the instrumental version of the song, we first bought the 45 of Dynamite", flipped it, then taped it to a crappy 12" that we'd gotten from the record pool [[just as we'd previously done with "That Girl" & "Tell Me Tommorrow"), until those LPs were released & in this case, until the 12'' of "Dynamite" was released. And purely on the strength of radio & club play, it hit #4 on the Dance Charts. This song was so smoking that it received the seal of Robert Palmer, who blessed it with one of his synth-funk covers.

As I plan to cover The Jacksons in another post, I'll keep the focus on Jermaine's career, then deal with what was happening with The Jacksons around this time in the post about them. But for now, I'll continue Jermaine in my next & final post about his career...

[juicefree20]

I won't go over the rest of his LPs on an LP to LP basis, but what I remember happening next was that it seemed to me that Jermaine was being steered into a Pop ballad direction ala Lionel Richie moreso than into the edgy street music that Michael & the Hip-Hop & Electro-Funk upstarts were creating.

We began getting duets with Whitney, Pia Zadora & by that time, whatever heat he had created with songs like "Let's Get Serious" & the like had cooled off considerably. He seemed to be being marketed to an entirely different crowd & I believe that THAT, more than any machinations by Michael is what affected his career.

To my ear, it was all about the music & a simple listen to his LPs will show that his music simply wasn't in tune with what was happening in the streets, much less was being played on the radio. It seems as though he was being marketed to a more "upscale" crowd & in the process, they turned him into a MOR/Proto Rock artist.

Not exactly the best way to hang with "The King Of Rock, Pop & Soul", much less Whodini or Doug E. Fresh. Simply stated, it seemed to me as though they were trying to create another Lionel Richie & in the process they took away his heat & they took away his edge. Seriously, what was his last relatively big hit? Yet another ballad, "Don't Take It Personal". A truly great ballad, to be sure, but a ballad nonetheless.

Michael didn't need to conspire to kill Jermaine's career. Why would he have had to do that when sorry-assed song selections & misdirected focus on the part of his label had already effectively killed his career.

As a quote from the book "Sweet Soul Music" stated about the Pop leanings of one of our most prolific Soul singers ever, "It's called upward-mobility honey. Everyone suffers from it."

And unfortunately, many times careers are killed in the process.

Sorry, but the music is what it is & it says what it says. And what it told me then & still tells me these 25-30 years later is that some bad decisions were made as regards his career. It simply seems as though they didn't want to let Jermaine do Jermaine, but simply wanted a male Whitney Houston, hoping that he'd blow up like she did. Michael simply couldn't have stopped anyone's music from being played nor sold if it was what the people wanted to hear & buy. An entire industry was going to buck Clive Davis in order to appease Michael?

That's not how the industry has ever worked. There's no single entertainer who's THAT powerful in a multi-billion industry

Listen to most of those Arista LPs from 1984 forward & tell me what your really think about what you hear. Do you hear "fire" or anything that remotely reeks of "star-quality"? Does that music hit you like compositions by Murphy/Frank, The Calloways, Jam/Lewis, Rod Temperton, Quincy or Kashif? Or do you hear songs which while pleasant enough, are about as spicy as matzo balls soaked in water? By 1989, the thrill of "Let's Get Serious" & even "Tell Me That I'm Dreaming" seemed to have been about as distant as The Nixon Administration was.

Sorry, but the ears don't lie. If anyone conspired to kill Jermaine's career, it wasn't Michael & the relatively tepid sales of his LPs & singles seem to prove that to be the case. His talent was wasted on that label & when he didn't become as large as Whitney Houston, it was too late for him to rebound because he had been left behind by folks who began remembering him more for being a member of The Jackson 5, than a guy who once had a pretty damn promising solo career in his own right.

Can't blame that one on Michael because he didn't write, produce, arrange, nor release even one of those misguided MOR ballads. There was no "conspiracy" involved, if only because they was really no need for one to have existed. It simply wasn't in the grooves & no one has to attempt to kill that which has already been declared D.O.A.

That's what my ears told me, as well as remembering that that's simply the way that it was.

[destruction]

Juicy Juice,

Talking about longevity....dude, you ain't lost a comma over the years......

Holla.

[juicefree20]

Hey Des,

How you been man.

I'll get at cha in the afternoon. Hope that Princess & the gang are well.

Enjoy the 4th & toss a few on the grill for me!!!