HAPPYPERSON said:

Are u guys sure their tour is sold out, I've just checked their official website for tickets and only 4 of the 27 dates are sold out and three of them are at the casinos.

Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Albuquerque, NM

The Club at Cannery Casino Hotel in Las Vegas, NV

Greek Theatre in Los Angeles, CA

Chinook Winds Casino Resort in Lincoln City, OR

I dont think the OP suggested that the tour has sold out. I think they are just saying that the general public is buying the tickets and the tickets are saling.... The fact that the 4 shows are sold out is rather impressive.

You have to admit though, the title did seem to make it seem like they were "doing the damn thing". Not surprised they're doing the casino route though in some stops. I think they also set to perform at the Apollo too, least that's what Jackie said.

Timmy84 said:

You have to admit though, the title did seem to make it seem like they were "doing the damn thing". Not surprised they're doing the casino route though in some stops. I think they also set to perform at the Apollo too, least that's what Jackie said.

Yea it did!!! I had to read through it

LittleBLUECorvette said:

mjscarousal said:

Got my bags packed

I was coming to you, I'm on vacation.

Sounds good to me

lowkey said:

kibbles said:

i don't know why they couldn't have done this while mj was alive instead of trying to guilt him into 'family reunion' concerts.

i don't care for them w/o mike, but i hope they do well.

how would that have worked? long as mj was alive there was no reunion without him. i wouldnt call it trying to 'guilt' him, they wanted to tour and he was the unquestionable leader of the group. performing was all they knew so they held out hope their brother/leader would get back on stage with them.i never understood why mj fans found it so terrible that his brothers wanted him to tour,in hindsight it probably would have been the best thing for him to do.

because mj made it clear to them that he was a solo performer and had no desire to be part of the group anymore. what's so terrible about them continuing to ask mj for a reunion, is that they continued to ask him for the reunion even after he had told them 'NO'. whatever his reasons, good, bad, or indifferent, mj had a right to live his life the way he saw fit.

the commodores and miracles didn't stop performing b/c lionel richie and smokey robinson left. the supremes also kept going after diana, at least for a few years, and mary wilson is keeping on keeping on to this day. if performing was all they knew, then why didn't the brothers keep performing? who says they had to remain a 'family' group? they could have chosen a new leader if they felt it necessary, and done something different. instead, they chose to live in the past and hope mj would want to join them there. well, no, why would he?

of the 40 years mj was in the public eye, 25 of them were spent as a solo performer. he was on his own far longer than he was in the j5/jacksons. his solo audience is far greater than the group audience. why exactly would it have been better for him to return to the group, thereby immediately relegating himself to being a 'nostalgia' act? b/c whether j5 fans want to admit it, that's what the jacksons are at this point. it would have been a huge step backwards for mj, not forward.

i just wanted to imply that some folks are buying tickets and it wont be a complete disater

and greek La is a very big venue so to be sold out is impressive..i think its 5,500 or 6000 seats which for their standards is impressive

kibbles said:

lowkey said:

how would that have worked? long as mj was alive there was no reunion without him. i wouldnt call it trying to 'guilt' him, they wanted to tour and he was the unquestionable leader of the group. performing was all they knew so they held out hope their brother/leader would get back on stage with them.i never understood why mj fans found it so terrible that his brothers wanted him to tour,in hindsight it probably would have been the best thing for him to do.

because mj made it clear to them that he was a solo performer and had no desire to be part of the group anymore. what's so terrible about them continuing to ask mj for a reunion, is that they continued to ask him for the reunion even after he had told them 'NO'. whatever his reasons, good, bad, or indifferent, mj had a right to live his life the way he saw fit.

the commodores and miracles didn't stop performing b/c lionel richie and smokey robinson left. the supremes also kept going after diana, at least for a few years, and mary wilson is keeping on keeping on to this day. if performing was all they knew, then why didn't the brothers keep performing? who says they had to remain a 'family' group? they could have chosen a new leader if they felt it necessary, and done something different. instead, they chose to live in the past and hope mj would want to join them there. well, no, why would he?

of the 40 years mj was in the public eye, 25 of them were spent as a solo performer. he was on his own far longer than he was in the j5/jacksons. his solo audience is far greater than the group audience. why exactly would it have been better for him to return to the group, thereby immediately relegating himself to being a 'nostalgia' act? b/c whether j5 fans want to admit it, that's what the jacksons are at this point. it would have been a huge step backwards for mj, not forward.

you cant compare their situation to those other groups for the simple fact that they were a family act, they couldnt replace mj with some random singer. regardless if you feel mj was above getting on stage with his brothers or not they had a right to ask him and he had a right to say no,there was no reason for mj fans to act like they were doing something terrible because they wanted to performer. you act like mike was making new music burning up the charts over the last 15 years or so, he wasnt doing jack shit besides getting accused of molesting kids,buying some kids for himself,becoming the punchline for many jokes and hiring greedy doctors to drug him up. yeah i guess i can see how his life was so much better off then it would have been touring and performing with his brothers, i mean its not like thats what he did best right?

kibbles said:

of the 40 years mj was in the public eye, 25 of them were spent as a solo performer. he was on his own far longer than he was in the j5/jacksons. his solo audience is far greater than the group audience. why exactly would it have been better for him to return to the group, thereby immediately relegating himself to being a 'nostalgia' act? b/c whether j5 fans want to admit it, that's what the jacksons are at this point. it would have been a huge step backwards for mj, not forward.

Love the brothers, but never had an interest in seeing MJ reunite with them for a tour. A performance here and there, but not no tour.

I only wanted MJ. And I remember as a kid so many thinking the same way about the Victory tour.

kibbles said:

lowkey said:

how would that have worked? long as mj was alive there was no reunion without him. i wouldnt call it trying to 'guilt' him, they wanted to tour and he was the unquestionable leader of the group. performing was all they knew so they held out hope their brother/leader would get back on stage with them.i never understood why mj fans found it so terrible that his brothers wanted him to tour,in hindsight it probably would have been the best thing for him to do.

because mj made it clear to them that he was a solo performer and had no desire to be part of the group anymore. what's so terrible about them continuing to ask mj for a reunion, is that they continued to ask him for the reunion even after he had told them 'NO'. whatever his reasons, good, bad, or indifferent, mj had a right to live his life the way he saw fit.

the commodores and miracles didn't stop performing b/c lionel richie and smokey robinson left. the supremes also kept going after diana, at least for a few years, and mary wilson is keeping on keeping on to this day. if performing was all they knew, then why didn't the brothers keep performing? who says they had to remain a 'family' group? they could have chosen a new leader if they felt it necessary, and done something different. instead, they chose to live in the past and hope mj would want to join them there. well, no, why would he?

of the 40 years mj was in the public eye, 25 of them were spent as a solo performer. he was on his own far longer than he was in the j5/jacksons. his solo audience is far greater than the group audience. why exactly would it have been better for him to return to the group, thereby immediately relegating himself to being a 'nostalgia' act? b/c whether j5 fans want to admit it, that's what the jacksons are at this point. it would have been a huge step backwards for mj, not forward.

Excellent post. I agree.

Can we now say people were checking for the bros too and not just MJ?

lowkey said:

kibbles said:

because mj made it clear to them that he was a solo performer and had no desire to be part of the group anymore. what's so terrible about them continuing to ask mj for a reunion, is that they continued to ask him for the reunion even after he had told them 'NO'. whatever his reasons, good, bad, or indifferent, mj had a right to live his life the way he saw fit.

the commodores and miracles didn't stop performing b/c lionel richie and smokey robinson left. the supremes also kept going after diana, at least for a few years, and mary wilson is keeping on keeping on to this day. if performing was all they knew, then why didn't the brothers keep performing? who says they had to remain a 'family' group? they could have chosen a new leader if they felt it necessary, and done something different. instead, they chose to live in the past and hope mj would want to join them there. well, no, why would he?

of the 40 years mj was in the public eye, 25 of them were spent as a solo performer. he was on his own far longer than he was in the j5/jacksons. his solo audience is far greater than the group audience. why exactly would it have been better for him to return to the group, thereby immediately relegating himself to being a 'nostalgia' act? b/c whether j5 fans want to admit it, that's what the jacksons are at this point. it would have been a huge step backwards for mj, not forward.

you cant compare their situation to those other groups for the simple fact that they were a family act, they couldnt replace mj with some random singer. regardless if you feel mj was above getting on stage with his brothers or not they had a right to ask him and he had a right to say no,there was no reason for mj fans to act like they were doing something terrible because they wanted to performer. you act like mike was making new music burning up the charts over the last 15 years or so, he wasnt doing jack shit besides getting accused of molesting kids,buying some kids for himself,becoming the punchline for many jokes and hiring greedy doctors to drug him up. yeah i guess i can see how his life was so much better off then it would have been touring and performing with his brothers, i mean its not like thats what he did best right?

so what if they WERE a family act? WERE is the operative word here. WERE. did you miss the part where i said they DIDN'T NEED TO BE a family act? where is it written that they had to be a family act? if this was about performing b/c they loved performing or wanted to perform or it was all they knew, then why weren't they doing it? (b/c it was never about that).

you've never seen me post that mj was too good to perform with his brothers. the only thing i have stated - and logical so - is that mj had no desire to do it, and therefore, they should have MOVED THE FUCK ON. yes, again, they were doing "something so terrible" by trying to guilt him into performing with him in the name of "family". after that shit storm otherwise known as the victory tour, who would blame him?

your ad hominem attack doesn't even make sense. it's curious that you have such a low opinion of mj but yet and still, you feel he should have toured with his brothers. if he was so yesterday's news, a punchline, and not doing shit, it wouldn't have been a good idea to tour with or without his brothers, right? who would have wanted to see him? (except for the people who helped him sell out the 50 night stand at 02 arena.)

false equivalency: if mj had stayed with family, his life would have been better. no, it wouldn't have. he would have likely grown resentful of being made to tether himself to four (or five) people that weren't as driven (according to mj) or talented as him (according to most people), in the name of "family".

[Edited 4/28/12 22:02pm]

smoothcriminal12 said:

Can we now say people were checking for the bros too and not just MJ?

I don't know. I wanna say they were but I think if we have to look back, go to Motown. Motown's plan from day one of signing them was to make the youngest one (Michael) the superstar. Berry Gordy didn't want shit to do with Jackie, Tito and Marlon. He took a liking to Jermaine because Jermaine showed a determination of sorts to be a star on his own merit but he felt Michael was the next Frankie Lymon, the next James Brown, the next big Motown star (after Diana Ross) so while Motown allowed Jermaine almost as much lead spots as Michael, Motown more than often focused on Michael. Onstage, the band was a cohesive unit however and pulled their own weight though it could also be argued that whenever Michael did something, he attracted the loudest screams from the audience (which was natural). The other guys were basically sex appeal to the ladies (especially Jermaine and Jackie).

When the Jacksons finally left Motown, there was more focus on the other brothers like Jackie but it still remained in the court of Michael but all five brothers were determined to share at least equal shares. I'm sure between 1976 and 1981 people were really checking for the Jacksons as just opposed to Michael but that began shifting after Off the Wall came out and even more so when Thriller, that's when the brothers tried to seek an opportunity to share equal billing and that backfired during the Victory tour. But I think Motown sowed the seeds to the dysfunction that made the Jackson brothers distant to the point that even without Michael, they were still arguing over who was to lead the group.

So honestly it's 50/50.

PatrickS77 said:

lowkey said:

i never understood why mj fans found it so terrible that his brothers wanted him to tour,in hindsight it probably would have been the best thing for him to do.

Hmm, well... because they are stupid and shortsighted. His return to performing would have been so much easier had he done something with his brothers beforehand.

I would have loved for him to tour with his brothers and gone for sure, I was cool with seeing him solo or with the group. However once I learned that family was bringing him grief about not touring with them, and how that almost stopped him from his own solo ventures with all the stuff going on in 2009, it did not sit well with me and I'm sure it put him on edge too. I thought they still had it at MSG and it was exciting.

Timmy84 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Can we now say people were checking for the bros too and not just MJ?

I don't know. I wanna say they were but I think if we have to look back, go to Motown. Motown's plan from day one of signing them was to make the youngest one (Michael) the superstar. Berry Gordy didn't want shit to do with Jackie, Tito and Marlon. He took a liking to Jermaine because Jermaine showed a determination of sorts to be a star on his own merit but he felt Michael was the next Frankie Lymon, the next James Brown, the next big Motown star (after Diana Ross) so while Motown allowed Jermaine almost as much lead spots as Michael, Motown more than often focused on Michael. Onstage, the band was a cohesive unit however and pulled their own weight though it could also be argued that whenever Michael did something, he attracted the loudest screams from the audience (which was natural). The other guys were basically sex appeal to the ladies (especially Jermaine and Jackie).

When the Jacksons finally left Motown, there was more focus on the other brothers like Jackie but it still remained in the court of Michael but all five brothers were determined to share at least equal shares. I'm sure between 1976 and 1981 people were really checking for the Jacksons as just opposed to Michael but that began shifting after Off the Wall came out and even more so when Thriller, that's when the brothers tried to seek an opportunity to share equal billing and that backfired during the Victory tour. But I think Motown sowed the seeds to the dysfunction that made the Jackson brothers distant to the point that even without Michael, they were still arguing over who was to lead the group.

So honestly it's 50/50.

timmy, for someone who wasn't there, i think you've essentially nailed it.

the j5 w/o michael would never have been signed to any label, not even black-owned motown.

i know that jermaine is always billed as "co-lead", but when i think about it, i see him more like a "secondary voice". mainly because i don't think there is a j5 song that was a major hit that didn't have mj on it where mj didn't sing most or half of the song. i think about groups like the tempts or fleetwood mac or eagles or ew&f. those groups have what i call co-leads. fleetwood mac has had number ones with stevie, christine and lindsey, or at least top tens. i say that to show how much the focus was always on mj from the start.

at epic, i think the brothers did work well together, and i remember a right on mag interview where they talked about their desire to put everyone front and center. they succeeded more than anyone thought they would. but really, i think the *public* focus was still on mj. that's my recollection, anyway.

lowkey said:

you cant compare their situation to those other groups for the simple fact that they were a family act, they couldnt replace mj with some random singer. regardless if you feel mj was above getting on stage with his brothers or not they had a right to ask him and he had a right to say no,there was no reason for mj fans to act like they were doing something terrible because they wanted to performer. you act like mike was making new music burning up the charts over the last 15 years or so, he wasnt doing jack shit besides getting accused of molesting kids,buying some kids for himself,becoming the punchline for many jokes and hiring greedy doctors to drug him up. yeah i guess i can see how his life was so much better off then it would have been touring and performing with his brothers, i mean its not like thats what he did best right?

Yeah, I agree pretty much. I wouldn't put it that harshly though! He was out of the limelight/from active working also to raise and be with his kids, that's commandable, but from 2002 on he certainly could have agreed to do one tour with his brothers. That probably would have made a whole difference. I was well within his rights to keep away from the family act from '84 to '97, as then his solo career was certainly in full swing and the main focus.

alphastreet said:

PatrickS77 said:

Hmm, well... because they are stupid and shortsighted. His return to performing would have been so much easier had he done something with his brothers beforehand.

I would have loved for him to tour with his brothers and gone for sure, I was cool with seeing him solo or with the group. However once I learned that family was bringing him grief about not touring with them, and how that almost stopped him from his own solo ventures with all the stuff going on in 2009, it did not sit well with me and I'm sure it put him on edge too. I thought they still had it at MSG and it was exciting.

Yeah! I thought the Jacksons set at MSG was the most exciting part of both shows. And I was there. It would have been amazing, if they'd had done a short tour right after that. They looked great together.

Timmy84 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Can we now say people were checking for the bros too and not just MJ?

I don't know. I wanna say they were but I think if we have to look back, go to Motown. Motown's plan from day one of signing them was to make the youngest one (Michael) the superstar. Berry Gordy didn't want shit to do with Jackie, Tito and Marlon. He took a liking to Jermaine because Jermaine showed a determination of sorts to be a star on his own merit but he felt Michael was the next Frankie Lymon, the next James Brown, the next big Motown star (after Diana Ross) so while Motown allowed Jermaine almost as much lead spots as Michael, Motown more than often focused on Michael. Onstage, the band was a cohesive unit however and pulled their own weight though it could also be argued that whenever Michael did something, he attracted the loudest screams from the audience (which was natural). The other guys were basically sex appeal to the ladies (especially Jermaine and Jackie).

When the Jacksons finally left Motown, there was more focus on the other brothers like Jackie but it still remained in the court of Michael but all five brothers were determined to share at least equal shares. I'm sure between 1976 and 1981 people were really checking for the Jacksons as just opposed to Michael but that began shifting after Off the Wall came out and even more so when Thriller, that's when the brothers tried to seek an opportunity to share equal billing and that backfired during the Victory tour. But I think Motown sowed the seeds to the dysfunction that made the Jackson brothers distant to the point that even without Michael, they were still arguing over who was to lead the group.

So honestly it's 50/50.

Good points.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Timmy84 said:

I don't know. I wanna say they were but I think if we have to look back, go to Motown. Motown's plan from day one of signing them was to make the youngest one (Michael) the superstar. Berry Gordy didn't want shit to do with Jackie, Tito and Marlon. He took a liking to Jermaine because Jermaine showed a determination of sorts to be a star on his own merit but he felt Michael was the next Frankie Lymon, the next James Brown, the next big Motown star (after Diana Ross) so while Motown allowed Jermaine almost as much lead spots as Michael, Motown more than often focused on Michael. Onstage, the band was a cohesive unit however and pulled their own weight though it could also be argued that whenever Michael did something, he attracted the loudest screams from the audience (which was natural). The other guys were basically sex appeal to the ladies (especially Jermaine and Jackie).

When the Jacksons finally left Motown, there was more focus on the other brothers like Jackie but it still remained in the court of Michael but all five brothers were determined to share at least equal shares. I'm sure between 1976 and 1981 people were really checking for the Jacksons as just opposed to Michael but that began shifting after Off the Wall came out and even more so when Thriller, that's when the brothers tried to seek an opportunity to share equal billing and that backfired during the Victory tour. But I think Motown sowed the seeds to the dysfunction that made the Jackson brothers distant to the point that even without Michael, they were still arguing over who was to lead the group.

So honestly it's 50/50.

Good points.

Well, if they were only checking for Michael, then no one would be buying tickets now, because it's safe to assume that Michael won't be at these concerts.

[Edited 4/29/12 4:22am]

PatrickS77 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Good points.

Well, if they were only checking for Michael, then no one would be buying tickets now, because it's safe to assume that Michael won't be at these concerts.

[Edited 4/29/12 4:22am]

IDRAG4MJ said:

i just wanted to imply that some folks are buying tickets and it wont be a complete disater

and greek La is a very big venue so to be sold out is impressive..i think its 5,500 or 6000 seats which for their standards is impressive

Yup. Apparently there's still a bunch of us who liked seeing all of the Jackson perform, not just Mike.

PatrickS77 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Good points.

Well, if they were only checking for Michael, then no one would be buying tickets now, because it's safe to assume that Michael won't be at these concerts.

[Edited 4/29/12 4:22am]

Well unless they have the money to bring 2D Michael...

All I give a shit about, is whether or not they sing "Body".

They just gotta sing "Body".

Cuz that's the bomb.

Even my brother years ago, asked to borrow that cd and bumped that song loud.

Once.

But see, in general my brother typically hates most stuff I like musically so the fact that he dug the song enough to want to hear it, says alot.

kibbles said:

lowkey said:

you cant compare their situation to those other groups for the simple fact that they were a family act, they couldnt replace mj with some random singer. regardless if you feel mj was above getting on stage with his brothers or not they had a right to ask him and he had a right to say no,there was no reason for mj fans to act like they were doing something terrible because they wanted to performer. you act like mike was making new music burning up the charts over the last 15 years or so, he wasnt doing jack shit besides getting accused of molesting kids,buying some kids for himself,becoming the punchline for many jokes and hiring greedy doctors to drug him up. yeah i guess i can see how his life was so much better off then it would have been touring and performing with his brothers, i mean its not like thats what he did best right?

so what if they WERE a family act? WERE is the operative word here. WERE. did you miss the part where i said they DIDN'T NEED TO BE a family act? where is it written that they had to be a family act? if this was about performing b/c they loved performing or wanted to perform or it was all they knew, then why weren't they doing it? (b/c it was never about that).

you've never seen me post that mj was too good to perform with his brothers. the only thing i have stated - and logical so - is that mj had no desire to do it, and therefore, they should have MOVED THE FUCK ON. yes, again, they were doing "something so terrible" by trying to guilt him into performing with him in the name of "family". after that shit storm otherwise known as the victory tour, who would blame him?

your ad hominem attack doesn't even make sense. it's curious that you have such a low opinion of mj but yet and still, you feel he should have toured with his brothers. if he was so yesterday's news, a punchline, and not doing shit, it wouldn't have been a good idea to tour with or without his brothers, right? who would have wanted to see him? (except for the people who helped him sell out the 50 night stand at 02 arena.)

false equivalency: if mj had stayed with family, his life would have been better. no, it wouldn't have. he would have likely grown resentful of being made to tether himself to four (or five) people that weren't as driven (according to mj) or talented as him (according to most people), in the name of "family".

[Edited 4/28/12 22:02pm]

first, why would you assume i have a low opinion of mj just because i stated a few facts about him? whats false is this notion that in order to be a fan of mj one has to act as if he was perfect and basically the second coming of jesus christ. because he wasnt doing shit during that time would have been a great time to get back out on stage.how would you know if his life would have been better had he performed with his brothers again or not? only thing we have to go by is what actually happened,he ended up dead far too soon.

PatrickS77 said:

alphastreet said:

I would have loved for him to tour with his brothers and gone for sure, I was cool with seeing him solo or with the group. However once I learned that family was bringing him grief about not touring with them, and how that almost stopped him from his own solo ventures with all the stuff going on in 2009, it did not sit well with me and I'm sure it put him on edge too. I thought they still had it at MSG and it was exciting.

Yeah! I thought the Jacksons set at MSG was the most exciting part of both shows. And I was there. It would have been amazing, if they'd had done a short tour right after that. They looked great together.

You have no clue how hyper I was when watching all that on TV, you're soooo lucky to have gone! I was finishing up high school and there's no way I had that much to pay for it, I wish I was a few years older! I was really looking forward to a potential tour too and saddened it didn't happen though it almost happened with the o2 when I got tickets

Cool, good for them.