bboy87 said:

That's what I'm saying. Jermaine was beneficial in the early years but his role when he came back was not as important as it seemed. Even when all six of them reunited, you could feel more of the love between MJ, Jackie, Tito, Marlon and Randy (even with that little fight) then you did with MJ and Jermaine.

bboy87 said:

Well, Jermaine was solo most of the 80s and didn't participate in their big group projects.

daPrettyman said:

I meant onstage.

Timmy84 said:

I'm not talking about on stage....I'm thinking more on record. Think about it, when a person turns a certain age, they change musically. They don't do the youthful dance music. I think that is because they aren't 20 anymore. It's not a diss to their stage performances.

Shit, go see some of the old funk groups in concert nowadays. They throwdown. The problem is, when they get into the studio to do a new album, that's when they sellout. And when the album flops in sales, I laugh my ass off because that's what they deserve for selling out.

daPrettyman said:

That's the problem. I wouldn't mind old artists trying to match what they did back then. Chaka Khan and Labelle did in some songs on their last albums so I can see the Jacksons doing it but without MJ and Randy it's impossible.

And Andy's right. Just because they're old doesn't mean they should be doing lazy music. You actually think I'll be OK with a legendary R&B/funk/disco group doing a lazy contemporary urban album? Hell no.

No, not at all. Back when Rick James was at his biggest, he was in his 30s while a lot of his competition was in their 20s and his ass out-funked all of them. The Chi-Lites were older when they did "Bottoms Up" in 1983, Diana Ross was older in the 1980s and still jamming.

No, it's the adult contemporary and shit hop eras that changed everything for the worst. The age of the artist has nothing to do with it. If that's the case then why are teenagers and people in their 20s these days listening only to shit that's slow enough to be played in a nursing home?

Timmy84 said:

Didn't u buy albums like Rave in2/un2, NPS, and Emancipation?

I don't think it's lazy. I think it's the mindset. Most of the people in their 40s and 50s that are still making music (Prince included) don't associate with 14 - 25 year olds on average. Hell, most of them have kids that age that think their new music is lame. To me, for someone to produce upbeat dance and funk music, they have to live that "lively" lifestyle and most of them don't.

I'm not saying on stage they don't tear it up, because they do. Hell, Maze is the headliner for the Essence Music Fest every year and they haven't released an album in nearly 20 years.

BTW, the last time I saw Lakeside, they sounded good, but they looked like they needed walking canes to help prop them up.

daPrettyman said:

I only bought Rave.
[Edited 12/15/09 13:20pm]

Man Rufus Thomas was doing funk music at 45!!!!

So if he could do "The Funky Chicken", why can't the Jacksons still shake their groove thangs?

They have more limber than some acts and hell those acts still GET DOWN!

Timmy84 said:

How could u put "The Funky Chicken" and The Jacksons in the same post?

Here's a performance from Lakeside a few years ago. You see what I mean about the

daPrettyman said:

Because that shit is FUNKY!

Timmy84 said:

I hate Rufus Thomas. He annoys the hell out of me.

daPrettyman said:

I might agree that they were getting old and couldn't cut it like they used to except for one thing....the young acts ain't doing no jams. So it's not like they can't keep up with the young crowd. The problem is, they are slowing themselves down to keep up with the young crowd.

Everybody I know that's my age listens to the "urban adult contemporary" stuff because that's all there is for them unless they want to listen to shit hop which is just as slow if not slower. Everybody I know would like to have some jams again because they go wild when I make them CDs of old stuff and it's always me that has to go out to the car and bring in something that's going to liven the party up. I think that's why most people my age in my area listen to mainly blues these days (it's a regional thing...most of the blues artists live in my area) because they are the only ones that even attempt to liven things up a little. And when I was a teenager, my mother was going to clubs that played the exact same type of jams that were being played in the skating rinks for us teenagers. And she didn't go to no teeny bopper clubs either. Everyone in the clubs were her age which is around my age now. Times were different. People knew how to party and wanted to party. It wasn't till the 1990s that the clubs she went to played mostly blues. Before then, it was funk. And it wasn't special occassions either. These were hole in the wall "juke joint" type clubs that were open even in the daytime up until all hours of the night.

vainandy said:

I get your point, totally.

Another thing is we have to remember that radio and media tend to put music into categories. All of the music you hear on radio (old and new) are constantly tested to see if the audience loves it. What they fail to realize is that certain songs cause you to give certain reactions. A song like "Dance 4 Me" might test well, but not as well as a song like "Love TKO". Therefore, TKO will get the spin/test.

When record companies and artists start working on projects, they go into it trying to please their core audience. For a group like the Jacksons, their average fan is going to be 45 or so in age. Well, when you test a bunch of 45 year old women (which is who they are trying to appeal to anyway), they are going to pick the mid-tempo and slow stuff.

It's sad, but true.

What's that got to do with going into the studio and throwing down? Hell, they can sit down in chairs if they want to. Nobody would see them. It's not a matter if they can shake it like they used to. Hell, I'll be shaking ass in a walker as long as somebody is there to catch me if I fall. No, they sellout because they hope these youngsters (who have the tastes of senior citizens) will buy it.

I think they did a new album two or three years ago. I heard them on the radio doing an interview when they were in town to do the Lynch Street Festival. They were on the air trying to get folks to come down and also were trying to promote their upcoming album which they described as having the same old Lakeside sound but updated for the 2000s. Well, we know what that means right there....shit hop drum machines.....which mean what?....cheap. Then, they went on to say it's got some wonderful ballads and such and such person this and such and such person that wrote some of the songs. Not once did they mention that it had some funk on it. Now, how the hell can it have that classic Lakeside sound (which they stated) at all if there's no funk on the album. The Lakeside sound was funk. They should have just gone ahead and told it like it is...."We sold out on this next album because we hope some of these dead asses will buy the album".

I'm sorry but the jacksons are like the temptations without michael and no offense to the temptations because they are Legendary and I groove to them too and I do enjoyed the old school music ALOT but when I was watching it and they was talking about releasing a new album I was like don't bother because most won't buy it because michael is not on it .Michael brought a youthfulness to them and they not even considered old to me but i'm just saying .I'm a fan of the Jacksons too but eh and yes I know my age is showing But who knows maybe I will still cop it

babybugz said:

So, I take it you didn't get 2300 Jackson St?

daPrettyman said:

Can't find it .. I do like nothing that compares 2 u and art of madness

And I had said before compare to alot of Michael's diehards I do enjoy the music he does with his brothers most of the MAIN songs I like are from The jackson 5 to Bad but with no michael are there people interested is what i'm saying :lol
[Edited 12/15/09 16:37pm]

bboy87 said:

When the Victory lp was released their ages were 33, 31, 29, 27, 25, and 22.

Are any of the tracks you listed on the ‘net?

babybugz said:

http://music.shop.ebay.co...86.c0.m282

It's really cheap.

I'm glad you mention The Temptations because they are a perfect example of how a comeback should be. They were old as hell when Rick James got them back together to do "Standing On The Top" and not only was it an ass shaker but the song kicked ass. But then again, the mainstream had taste back then.

I don't think The Jacksons' new album will be a complete flop because of all the media attention that is on them after Michael's death. A lot of the youngsters as well as the old fans will buy it because of all the hype that's going on after Michael's death. But in the long run, when Michael's death wears off, the youngsters will get bored with them and move on. If they were smart, they would focus on the older crowd which has no jams coming which they long for. I'm not saying they will stick with them because a lot of older people have become dull ass "family" types these days but their kids will be graduating soon and moving out and our divorce years will start occurring then....maybe that's when things will liven up....when these dull asses get divorces like the even older blues generation and starts going to the hole in the walls.

But with all the focus on The Jacksons right now, instead of them selling out, they really should try to do something to try to change things instead of being dull idiots and going along with the program. What they need to do is throwdown and throwdown hard! Take the shit hop drum machines out of the studio, load them at the truck, and drop them off at Toys R Us. It's the Christmas season and some four year old would love to have those fisher price toys they are recording with. Get a drummer and a bassist in there, speed things up, and tear the roof of the motherfucker. Tell the dead asses if they can't throwdown, sit down. Hell, they could even throw a chant on the record...."Either throw your ass down or SIT your ass down!".

Timmy84 said:

i agree, timmy.

the 'j4' keep going on and on about the 'magic'. well, if tito, marlon, and jackie really allowed themselves to think about it, the magic they're really talking about is the majic they had as the jacksons, doing their own stuff, not doing what motown was handing them. that isn't to say that i don't groove to the old j5 stuff - love it. but it is the jacksons with mj and randy that gave them their signature sound in the later years.

so i disagree with vainandy that this new album will be a success. i don't think that the three other brothers are going to be able to deal with claymation, who wants to bring them backwards into the past where he maintains a tenacious grip on *his* j5 glory days, when they were boys and he was out front as the second lead.

even though mj was lead on most of the jacksons stuff, there was still this feeling that it was more of a united, group effort in the final product. that's not going to happen with jermaine; i don't think he has a real reference point in his mind for working with the 'background' brothers as talented members of the group capable of providing input. do you really see a 'can you feel it' coming out of him and jackie, or another 'shake your body' coming out of him and randy? mj seemed to be a lot more magnanimous behind the scenes even though he was the front man.

kibbles said:

As long as they don't try to bring in one of their children to sing MJs parts, then they can have a hit.

I agree with Andy that the guys can have a successful album. The public wants one. Good or not.

People tend to forget that Jermaine had a very successful solo career. I still don't get why he just won't try to do his own thing. He'll make more money that way.

daPrettyman said:

Thanks

vainandy said:

I agree with you on some of what you saying ..but most are already moving on from the hype of his death they still on Michael but not enough to be wearing I love Jermaine and Tito shirts though It's just not the same
[Edited 12/15/09 15:09pm]