It just makes me annoyed, it's like Prince isn't a big enough star in his own right..and it's like everything is a competition.. why is it so many people still fail to recognise they are two different types of genius/performer/musician-singer? Loved the part about "Jackson has released three albums in 20 years; Prince put out three albums in April" though! Brilliant.

Michael Jackson is in tune with the mood of the country.

He got into a bit of trouble with his spending (a pricey $750,000 a month), had to sell his house - yes, even the zoo - and narrowly avoided having the seized contents sold at a humiliating public auction.

Now he's on the comeback trail. I'm worried. It would obviously have been amazing to have seen Jackson back in his prime, but now? Nothing says "great night out" like a 50 year old man dancing to recoup his debts.
But people were excited. The ticket sale was a record-breaking phenomenon. The first 10 dates sold out immediately and quickly ballooned to FIFTY nights, monopolising the flagship London venue for July-September and again next year until February 2010. A million people are expected to see him.
Prince - © PA
The obvious comparison is Prince's 21 Nights In London residency at the same venue in 2007. For one long summer, it seemed that everyone in London was going to see Prince. Diehard Prince fans would buy tickets for the aftershow party at the small Indig02 to see their hero perform funk jams into the night.

Some nights, though, Prince wouldn't make it to the aftershow. He was too tired. Some fans were extremely angry about this.

That's right, Prince was tired. This doesn't bode well for Michael. Prince and Michael are the same age. In the '80s, when they were at their commercial peak, it would be hard to say which was the more energised performer. Over the past decades, though, Prince has shown himself to be the one with the stamina. Jackson has released three albums in 20 years; Prince put out three albums in April.
Michael Jackson - © PA

So if Prince was worn out by 21 nights, how is Jackson going to play these 50 gigs? Four of the first shows have already been postponed well into 2010. That includes the opening night, which is a great way to annoy your most loyal fans.

The Sun have quoted Jackson as saying that he only agreed to 10 dates, then woke up the next morning to find he'd been booked for 50 and kissed goodbye to his planned world tour.

This is a multimillion dollar global event, it sounds scarcely credible that things could work like that - but if anyone could be that mixed up, Jackson could.

Worse, the papers say he's got skin cancer. His office says it's just the vitiligo that's making his skin whiten. What is indisputable is that he hasn't toured, or even sung live, for years.
There's a feeling of unreality about it all. It seems inevitable that a lot of people are going to be disappointed. So much is riding on it for the music industry as a whole.
Michael Jackson in 1984 - © PA
"Star of records, radio, rock video. A one-man rescue team for the music business." That was Time magazine in 1984, as Thriller was just proving itself to be the biggest album of all time.

"The best thing for a record company is to have a hit. The second best thing for a record company is for somebody else to have a hit."

Thriller revitalised the industry in the 80s after the punk wars and set the template for how to promote and mass-market mega-selling stadium artists for the next decades.

When these new gigs were announced, some in the music industry hoped it would be like that again – with live music again taking the place of record sales.
Michael Jackson - © PA
But this time, it's not just the music industry that needs saving, it's the economy itself. Live music is big business and many people make their careers on the back of it.

As Joe Cohen (one of those hangers-on promoting his ticket exchange company) says, "There's gonna be somewhere near on a billion pounds worth of economic activity brought to London through hotels, restaurants, shops, pubs, people coming to see Michael Jackson. It's the Michael Jackson economic stimulus package that the tax payer isn't paying a penny for."

The figure of a billion pounds is made-up tabloid fare to grab the headlines, of course, but it is true that these shows will have an effect on the local economy. Even if Jackson cancels all the shows and gives the fans a full refund, someone somewhere will have gotten even richer on the year's interest.

It's also a make or break moment for Jackson's career. Like it or not, he's now best remembered for being "wacko" and the two child abuse accusations. He really was an incredible performer all those years ago and if there were any chance he could reclaim any of that magic, he would prove us all wrong and it would be magnificent.

But let's face it, that isn't going to happen. And ultimately, it probably won't matter. Because the fans will love him unconditionally whatever he does. He has one of the most dedicated fanbases in all of Heat magazine, and any of them reading this will doubtless think I haven't given him the chance to prove himself.

Fair enough: Just playing all the shows without getting sick would confound my expectations. Fancy a bet? But the old Michael Jackson back to his past best, that would be a real shock. So much hope and expectation resting on such slender shoulders. I think there will be tears.

http://entertainment.uk.m...=147889678
[Edited 6/23/09 23:40pm]
[Edited 6/23/09 23:41pm]
[Edited 6/23/09 23:42pm]

The better question is 'Why do people keep starting Michael Jackson threads when they just get locked by moderators?'

Like it or not, and I don't. These 2 are always gonna be compared to each other. Here the comparison is fair, because Prince had a lengthy residency at the same place where Michael is "scheduled" to have his.

It's making a point in saying while Michael's fans have been waiting years and years for at least a concert and album. Prince releases music and plays live about as regularly as he did in the 80's.

BriaVelveeta said:

same type of mentality in the media.....same type of mentality on the org

are you being ironic on purpose?

Firstly, we don't know that he was too tired to play an aftershow after every concert. Maybe he didn't because he didn't feel like it? Maybe there wasn't a club venue that could accommodate each night?

Fans getting angry that he didn't do an aftershow is a bit odd. He's not obligated to do any at all. And besides, afterparties are suppose to be spontaneous affairs--not commitments. Whatever his reasons, we don't really know.


As far as MJ not being able to do 50 shows. I'd be surprised if he did 10, and certainly will be surprised if they kick off this summer.

And if they do kick off, it'll be a lip syncing, pyrotechnic, mess.

As said above, the comparison is fair, since it compares the O2-residency. And either way, who cares!

Imago said:

He had the Indigo2 at his disposal every night he played the O2. I believe he said himself he wanted to save himself for a show the day after. Hence no afters on friday, if he played on saturday.



Tickets for the aftershow were sold some weeks before the date. So, spontaneity don't fly. I wasn't angry though, I lucked out, I'm pragmatic like that!

Ps. Aftershow: showtime.
Afterparty: DJ.
Tickets were sold as aftershow.

Go here: http://prince.org/msg/8/309751

Imago said:

i disagree, Prince IS obligated! if you charge for an aftershow you should show up ..people PAY to see PRINCE, not showing up is a slap in the fans face...I said it b4, MJ is known for giving his fans theire moneys' worth and Prince could learn a thing or 2 from him on that...and the MJ/Prince comparison? its all good to me ,nothing wrong with it, they are different styes yes, but they have alot in common,the era, age, level of stardom, and the fact that theres no one else in theire league to compare them with.They are/were the 2 greatest ever.
Its always going to be like this just deal with it...
Jackie Chan vs Jet li....Leno vs letterman....Maradona vs Pele...Pac vs Biggie.
One thing i find disturbing on the org, is people who HOPE for the worst when it come to MJ...put aside his personal life and drama...he is a giant in the music biz..I respect him for the positives,great music, great videos, tons of charitable donations.i like to remember him that way. I am a Prince fan, but MJ is not the enemy..I will never say the nasty things some people would on here, because he made a bigger BANG than Prince doesnt make him a villain in my book.
[Edited 6/24/09 5:10am]
[Edited 6/24/09 5:10am]

It's not only the Press.

3232 said:

I might agree with you, but... When I constantly read the comparing and contrasting of the two, both here and in the mainstream media, I am sometimes compelled to voice my opinion on said comparisons. And, when comparing the two, I often come down hard on MJ. Now, I wouldn't start such a conversation, but I don't always ignore it either. The same could be said for comparing Prince back in the day to Prince today. I love Prince today. But, if I allow myself to be drawn into such a discussion, in order to expound on my opinion, I will point out the reasons Prince today is lacking, IN COMPARISON TO, Prince of old. That's not the same as hating on Prince's current stage of his career just out of spite, now is it?
[Edited 6/24/09 9:12am]

Cause the press likes to

I believe the indigo aftershows were billed as Prince PARTIES, not aftershows. so he was not obligated to play. although he did at least 50% of them!!!! (anyone got the actual figures?). Not bad for someone who was doing 21 full shows!


..

[MJ --> Music Non-Prince sticky just waiting for all your MJ ballad needs. -luv4u]