homesquid said:

Saying someone is the best of all time, in any area, is always problematic. What criterion do we use? How many artists have we seen live?

I've been to many live concerts, one thing I can is that Prince is the best artist I've ever seen live. And let me leave you with these words from music journalist Nik Cohn:

"I'd seen some heavy hitters on stage. Elvis, James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, the early Rolling Stones - all, in their different ways, were spellbinding. None hammered me like Prince that night at the Ritz. I can't remember what he wore or what songs he played, just that it felt as if all the music in creation poured from him, unstoppable. By the time he was through, I was convinced he was the largest, most protean raw talent that rock had produced. A quarter-century on, I still believe it.

"Issues of greatness are always subjective. Whose body of work ranks supreme?"

"Others will nominate the Beatles or Bob Dylan or Springsteen or even U2. For me, Prince tops them all, but that's a matter of taste. What's undeniable is his influence."

[Edited 4/3/19 17:18pm]

[Edited 4/3/19 17:18pm]

radici27 said:

Bruce has the stage presence of a drunk mechanic. (Not that there's anything wrong with that). When he was sleep acting dreams, Prince had more stage presence than Bruce.

RodeoSchro said:

By the way - there is no right or wrong answer to the OP. Whoever you like the best, that's the best as far as you're concerned. I can't tell you that you're wrong about that any more than you can tell me I'm wrong about my favorites.

agreed...BUT as P said at the NME awards...Prince...Live..best !!

If you want to see Prince in his prime his 1986 birthday show in Detroit is the Crown Jewel...

steakfinger said:

skywalker said:

1. Freddie: Not a good dancer. Not as athletic as Prince. Dabbled in guitar, but left the heavy lifting to Brian May.

-

2. MJ: Couldn't play instruments live. STuck to the same dance routines for decades. Lip Synced WAAAAAY to much.

-

3. Bruce: He's got the stamina, the crowd control, and is a marathon man. That said. He didn't move/dance for shit. His voice has got two gears. You've seen one Springsteen show, you've seen them all.

Prince did the same dance moves for decades, too.

I'm not talking moves, I am talking routines.

If you watch MJ"s "HIStory" Tour, Michael Jackson is doing the same routines he did on The Victory tour for his Thriller Era Songs.

If you watch Prince's 2004 "Musicology" tour, his "Purple Rain" material is not presented in the same way as it was on his 1985 tour. Understand?

homesquid said:

skywalker said:

1. Freddie: Not a good dancer. Not as athletic as Prince. Dabbled in guitar, but left the heavy lifting to Brian May.

-

2. MJ: Couldn't play instruments live. STuck to the same dance routines for decades. Lip Synced WAAAAAY to much.

-

3. Bruce: He's got the stamina, the crowd control, and is a marathon man. That said. He didn't move/dance for shit. His voice has got two gears. You've seen one Springsteen show, you've seen them all.

Your criteria is irrelevant to the central question in my opinion. I'm past tired of this "prince could play so many instruments" brag. So what? He didn't have the charisma nor stage presence as the three I listed. His perfomance was technically great but just not as exciting as his music. I saw Prince. Biggest disappointment of any concert I'd been to. I was a mega-fan at the time and it was just boring. Prince can play his ass off but no special connection with the audience

Freddie, MJ and Bruce easily top Prince. Prince wouldn't even be in my Top 10 when it comes to live.

[Edited 4/3/19 10:42am]

So my criteria doesn't match up to your totally (and apparently unchanging) subjective opinon? Okay. If you give me some objective criteria to compare/support your claims, I'll play. Otherwise... you seem like you are just trolling.

Listen, I agree that the three you mentioned are some of the best liver performers of all time. Yet, I wouldn't claim that because I once got bored during a Springsteen concert that it negates his greatness as a live performer.

prince performed WITH/AS the music...all them others performed TO the music. probably the greatest i've ever seen.

dave gahan might give him a run for the money. i saw peter murphy once. he commanded the stage/crowd pretty well. i like the way john frusciante plays live, but i don't think there's much performance to what he does...

RJOrion said:

RJOrion said:

NorthC said:

RJOrion said:

LMAO @ "Bruce Springsteen has the stage presence of a drunk mechanic"... funny because its so true.. i NEVER understood AT ALL, the hype around him or his music... it must be cultural...i dont even have any friends or family who like his music...ive never heard a Springsteen song in anyones cd player or streaming...ive never met anyone who said, " i saw a springsteen concert"... or, "i gotta get that new Springsteen joint"... hes not the greatest live performer if more than half the people on earth dont even know the name of a springsteen song or album... the TRUE great live performers transcend race and culture, and other signifying demographics...James Brown, MJ, Prince, EWF, Elton John, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Diana Ross, Madonna..

More than half the people on earth? Wow! You have a BIG family! Seriously, just because you don't like Bruce doesn't mean he is inferior to the acts you mentioned. I don't like Queen, but I know Freddy & the boys were great on stage.

I love bruce, absolutely love him maybe as much or more as I love prince or elvis but i've been teased by everyone for that. I've been told that that's regional, i live in seattle and people from other parts of the country sort of see him like a legend whereas seattlites have always been posey. Either way, I'll be a fan forever and am just glad he's one of the guys we have left.

homesquid said:

Absolutely not.

Better than Prince:

1. Freddie Mercury

2. Michael Jackson

3. Bruce Springsteen

MJ was great, but Prince was another level.

Crowd interaction alone would put Prince on top, without being a multi-instrumentalist and mixing up sets etc.

Hmm, I am curious now, if Mike could do a Jumpin Jive routine in his 20s without breaking something. Prince, I have no question could. Better athlete, probably.

PS: I like Bruce, RJOrion , just don't think he has much rock star aura/stage presence. The smell of oil and grease does turn me on, though...

[Edited 4/4/19 17:40pm]

Prince was the best to me in my own HEART. The one you never get tired of looking at, listening to, with a song that describes well your every emotion & desire. Not without faults, but in the arena of music, the artist that always brought something new to the table each and every time.

"My songs are my children........". And we get to enjoy them from now on.

No other artist stirs my imagination like he did. Not really a debateable topic for me, but was interesting to read your posts.

One great thing about Prince as a live performer is how he could do his entire regular show then show up unannounced at a club later that night and put on a completely different show and completely kill it for both shows.

RJOrion said:

LMAO @ "Bruce Springsteen has the stage presence of a drunk mechanic"... funny because its so true.. i NEVER understood AT ALL, the hype around him or his music... it must be cultural...i dont even have any friends or family who like his music...ive never heard a Springsteen song in anyones cd player or streaming...ive never met anyone who said, " i saw a springsteen concert"... or, "i gotta get that new Springsteen joint"... hes not the greatest live performer if more than half the people on earth dont even know the name of a springsteen song or album... the TRUE great live performers transcend race and culture, and other signifying demographics...James Brown, MJ, Prince, EWF, Elton John, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Diana Ross, Madonna..

.

The Beatles as one of the greatest live performers of all time? The BEATLES? Oh man... Even if we disregard the fact that they haven't even performed for half of their group career at all, you're still cracking me up... LOL Are we even talking about the same band? Have you ever seen a film of them performing live?...

.
Just like with most of the other names on your list (Madonna? Are you kidding me?), with the exception of James Brown and Little Richard. But I still wouldn't call Richard one of the greatests. JB was one, but not the greatest.
.

And let me just add that most of you guys seem a little narrow-minded when it comes to music. How about at least mentioning Sammy Davis Jr? Not THE greatest ever, but certainly amongst them. How about Dean Martin? How about Paganini? Louis Armstrong? Duke Ellington? Again, neither of these can be called the greatest, but they most certainly have far more right to be at least considered than MJ, EWF, Elton, Elvis or Diana Ross...

the beatles were great and they had that thing that the greats have, the zeitgeist, in rock we don't just consider how technically great musicians are, we count the energy they can bring too. Madonna sucked, i saw her live, don't ask me why. Little richard had the purest and greatest rock voice and sounded every bit as good as ever when i saw him in 89, not a dancer but definitely an inspiration for just about every major rock act since, that counts as far as the jazz acts, criteria would change a bit, jazz artists like ellington weren't entertainers so much as artists, of course satchmo was a great entertainer and sammy davis was one of the greatest talents to ever come along, someone whom michael stole at least as much from as he did James Brown. Jazz artists tend to be much more into the technical aspects of playing, singing, composing than rock artists so, of course a herbie hancock or oscar peterson is going to have to be better than any of the great rock pianists, Sinatra and billie holliday and the rest of the premiere jazz vocalists are for the greats of later music to be measured against because not too many did their thing as well. The jazz vocalists put so much thought, technique and emotion into what they did, a guy like sinatra has no real comparison in the rock world in that regard.

Kares said:

RJOrion said:

LMAO @ "Bruce Springsteen has the stage presence of a drunk mechanic"... funny because its so true.. i NEVER understood AT ALL, the hype around him or his music... it must be cultural...i dont even have any friends or family who like his music...ive never heard a Springsteen song in anyones cd player or streaming...ive never met anyone who said, " i saw a springsteen concert"... or, "i gotta get that new Springsteen joint"... hes not the greatest live performer if more than half the people on earth dont even know the name of a springsteen song or album... the TRUE great live performers transcend race and culture, and other signifying demographics...James Brown, MJ, Prince, EWF, Elton John, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Diana Ross, Madonna..

.

The Beatles as one of the greatest live performers of all time? The BEATLES? Oh man... Even if we disregard the fact that they haven't even performed for half of their group career at all, you're still cracking me up... LOL Are we even talking about the same band? Have you ever seen a film of them performing live?...

.
Just like with most of the other names on your list (Madonna? Are you kidding me?), with the exception of James Brown and Little Richard. But I still wouldn't call Richard one of the greatests. JB was one, but not the greatest.
.

And let me just add that most of you guys seem a little narrow-minded when it comes to music. How about at least mentioning Sammy Davis Jr? Not THE greatest ever, but certainly amongst them. How about Dean Martin? How about Paganini? Louis Armstrong? Duke Ellington? Again, neither of these can be called the greatest, but they most certainly have far more right to be at least considered than MJ, EWF, Elton, Elvis or Diana Ross...

PeteSilas said:

Kares said:

.

The Beatles as one of the greatest live performers of all time? The BEATLES? Oh man... Even if we disregard the fact that they haven't even performed for half of their group career at all, you're still cracking me up... LOL Are we even talking about the same band? Have you ever seen a film of them performing live?...

.
Just like with most of the other names on your list (Madonna? Are you kidding me?), with the exception of James Brown and Little Richard. But I still wouldn't call Richard one of the greatests. JB was one, but not the greatest.
.

And let me just add that most of you guys seem a little narrow-minded when it comes to music. How about at least mentioning Sammy Davis Jr? Not THE greatest ever, but certainly amongst them. How about Dean Martin? How about Paganini? Louis Armstrong? Duke Ellington? Again, neither of these can be called the greatest, but they most certainly have far more right to be at least considered than MJ, EWF, Elton, Elvis or Diana Ross...

.

the beatles were great and they had that thing that the greats have, the zeitgeist, in rock we don't just consider how technically great musicians are, we count the energy they can bring too. Madonna sucked, i saw her live, don't ask me why. Little richard had the purest and greatest rock voice and sounded every bit as good as ever when i saw him in 89, not a dancer but definitely an inspiration for just about every major rock act since, that counts as far as the jazz acts, criteria would change a bit, jazz artists like ellington weren't entertainers so much as artists, of course satchmo was a great entertainer and sammy davis was one of the greatest talents to ever come along, someone whom michael stole at least as much from as he did James Brown..

.

Last time I checked the title of this thread was "THE greatest live performer of all time", not "the most popular", not "the most influential" or "the most crowd-pleasing rock act of all time" – but thanks for your attempt at lecturing me about how "in rock we don't just consider how technically great musicians are", little did I know. (And I must add how ridiculous I find every sentence that ends with "of all time" or with "ever", but that's another story.)

.
Still, the subject is "the greatest live performers", and I don't see any reason to restrict that to pop-rock (neither to restrict it to the last 50 years or so.)
.
I love the Beatles but as live performers, that band was a joke. Try watching any of their performances by ignoring the crowd noise and then tell me they were great live performers. Try to imagine listening to one of their concerts on a soundboard recording that totally eliminates the atmosphere and the audience, hearing nothing but their instruments and singing. It would be a really painful and embarassing experience...
.
And as for "jazz artists weren't entertainers"? LOL. Of course they were. They were amazing entertainers too, especially people like Sir Duke. Or Louis Jordan. Or Cab Calloway. (But again, the title of this thread has the word 'performer' in it, not 'entertainer'.) But more importantly: it always hurts me whenever people try to quarantine different genres of music. It's all MUSIC. There are no walls between genres, there never have been and never will be, despite all attempts by the press and the music industry. I absolutely HATE talking about jazz (and especially: about 'jazz artists') in a way as if it would be something of an entirely different nature. Or about the so-called 'classical' music. It's all MUSIC.
.

[Edited 4/5/19 3:02am]

Kares said:

PeteSilas said:

Kares said:

.

Last time I checked the title of this thread was "THE greatest live performer of all time", not "the most popular", not "the most influential" or "the most crowd-pleasing rock act of all time" – but thanks for your attempt at lecturing me about how "in rock we don't just consider how technically great musicians are", little did I know. (And I must add how ridiculous I find every sentence that ends with "of all time" or with "ever", but that's another story.)

.
Still, the subject is "the greatest live performers", and I don't see any reason to restrict that to pop-rock (neither to restrict it to the last 50 years or so.)
.
I love the Beatles but as live performers, that band was a joke. Try watching any of their performances by ignoring the crowd noise and then tell me they were great live performers. Try to imagine listening to one of their concerts on a soundboard recording that totally eliminates the atmosphere and the audience, hearing nothing but their instruments and singing. It would be a really painful and embarassing experience...
.
And as for "jazz artists weren't entertainers"? LOL. Of course they were. They were amazing entertainers too, especially people like Sir Duke. Or Louis Jordan. Or Cab Calloway. (But again, the title of this thread has the word 'performer' in it, not 'entertainer'.) But more importantly: it always hurts me whenever people try to quarantine different genres of music. It's all MUSIC. There are no walls between genres, there never have been and never will be, despite all attempts by the press and the music industry. I absolutely HATE talking about jazz (and especially: about 'jazz artists') in a way that it is something of a different nature. Or about the so-called 'classical' music. It's all MUSIC.
.

No need being nasty.

I don't think there was anything nasty about that post. You just don't like it because Kares is right.

Top 10 live performer.

.

.

behind.. Mercury, Jagger, Dave Matthews, Elvis, Jackson, Springsteen

RJOrion said: