Exactly AT What Point Is An Artis/Artists Debt Paid In Full???

[juicefree20]

This thread came to me as I was thinking about remarks that I've been reading & seeing posted on Yahoo forums & the like for years & somehow, those remarks don't hold much water form me.

As I know that some don't visit the Motown Section of town, I'm also posting it here on the main forum. I'm not posting it for purposes of controversy. I simply want to have a well-thought out discussion about what, if anything, ANY former lead vocalist of ANY group owes his/her former bandmates & why they owe them.

With this premise firmly stated, I hope to read some well-reasoned responses.

[juicefree20]

I created this thread because I keep reading how Michael owes his brothers because of how they "helped" him get to where he ended up. My response is, exactly at what point does ones debt to their former group members end & exactly how can one reasonably quantify the value of their "help"?

If the same kind of logic which many apply to Michael Jackson were applied across the board then wouldn't EVERYONE who ever started out with a group, then moved on to massive success APART from said group, also owe ALL of those former groupmates a piece of their solo pie?

Teddy Pendergrass received his first taste of massive stardom as a member of Harold Melvin & The Blue Notes. Teddy went to to carve out a massive solo career apart from them. So are the folks who believe this idea about "OWING" actually suggesting that because Harold Melvin & The Blue Notes "made" Teddy what he eventually became that he "OWES" Lloyd Parks, as well as the estates of Harold Melvin, Larry Brown & Bernie Wilson because of his SOLO success?

Paul McCartney began his career with The Beatles. So from what is being suggested, as he made his name with The Beatles, is he supposed to kick back a percentage to Ringo & the estates of John & George because they too "helped" him along?

Deniece Williams received her first world-wide exposure as a member of Wonderlove. With that as fact should she have had to give points to Stevie forever because she enjoyed a pretty nice solo career?

Does this mean that because Patti LaBelle received her first taste of global success as a member of LaBelle that after fashioning a rather successful solo career she now owes Cindy, Nona & Sarah for her SOLO success?

Does Diana Ross owes Mary, Cindy & the estate of Flo Ballard because despite her massive SOLO success, her first success happened to be with The Supremes? Does Phil Collins owe his Genesis bandmates? Is Michael McDonald is in deep debt to The Doobie Brothers & should Clyde Orange & the gang be sending their lawyers over to Lionel's home because he had his first taste of success with The Commodores?

Is this honestly what is being suggested? That ANY artist who has greater success on THEIR OWN owes the group members whom he/she started out with because that group was successful?

If this rule doesn't extend to every other person who broke away from a successful group & went on to massive success apart from said group, then why should that "rule" apply to Michael & to Michael alone?

Furthermore, if we apply the same kind of logic which many apply to Michael Jackson across the board to everyone, then shouldn't that same logic apply to those of us in the "real" world?

As an example, all of us who have ever worked must've received some training or help from either a co-worker who helped us or perhaps a supervisor who pushed us along. If you've continued in the same occupation, do you also believe that you owe everyone who helped you along the way & if so, exactly how much of your salary have you generously offered those who helped you along your journey?

Just wondering.

[Kamasu_Jr]

Great question. I think some... like Michael Jackson and Diana, did owe their former groups something because so much of their solo success was based on what they accomplished within their respective groups. Michael repaid his debt by doing the Victory tour with his brothers. Despite some of the problems with the tour- allegedly- the Jackson brothers made a lot of money. They squandered most of it. Michael had a moral obligation to help his brothers if they needed him. The Jacksons are family. But didn't he allegedly give each of his brothers points or royalties from his album sales? Diana has never fully repaid her debt in my opinion. She half-heartedly acknowledges the Supremes and has not even done much for the city of Detroit. She could sponsor or build a performing arts school, award scholarships or build an arts center or something.
On the other hand, TEDDY PENDERGRASS, PATTI LABELLE AND DENIECE WILLIAMS didn't owe their former groups and mentors anything in my view. They proved themselves right from the start and made their former groups and mentors proud. But it took Patti almost a decade to prove herself as a solo act. She and Armstead built Patti's solo career the old fashioned way...she earned it by working hard.
As far as me owing a co-worker. Heck no. They might have offered advice, but I did the work. I MIGHT buy a fellow worker lunch or dinner, but that's all I OWE.
Getting back to family, I have an uncle who has saved thousands - six figures over the years. BUT WHEN MY DAD AND UNCLE - his brothers - both became ill, they did not get any financial support from him. He didn't send flowers or buy them a candy bar and they helped raise him. My dad had to shame his ass into visiting in the hospital.

[imnokid]

I think if someone leaves a group, or a group breaks up, whatever anyone does AFTER the split belongs to them alone. Saying anything different would be as crazy as, say, if Terry Reid went to Robert Plant and told him he owes him millions because he turned down the gig in Led Zepelin but recommended Plant.

Everybody has history. It's what you make of things yourself.

[Jerry Oz]

I don't feel that Michael Jackson or Diana Ross owe their former associates/family members anything. Whether you appreciate the politics of why Diana Ross became the lead singer of the Supremes or not, she was the marquee and she was able to strike out on her own. If they were the true talent of the band, they would have succeeded in her absence. Now, I'm not saying that as a "friend", she should not have looked after them or tried to provide opportunity, just that she had no obligation to do so.

As for the Jackson 4, they simply need to STFU. They were a novelty family act without the one singular talent in the band. He lifted them for years; how much more does he "owe" them? Some of them are worth millions, still. They need to invest it and help those who are broke if they see fit, but to think that they are entitled to money from his estate because they were there as he grew up and contributed greatly to his success is ludicrous.

Should the members of the Deele be pressing L.A. Reid and Babyface for reparations? Speaking of Babyface, doesn't he owe the Callaway brothers for giving him a chance? Maybe Prince should be pressing Terry Lewis and Jimmy Jam for payback, even though he fired them from the Time? The comes a time to move on. The Jackson 4 should realize that their time to do so came years before Michael died.