whatsgoingon said:

Thanks for sharing that clip. This is a great example of why Bob Fosse is one of my favorite choreographers. Ever.

whatsgoingon said:

For me Michael's videos were almost all completely wrong headed from BOW onwards. He got it into his head that the more cameos he had, and the more column inches a video received the better. The result was we had videos that could have been great just becoming a pointless mess. Take that great line in BOW, "I'm not gonna spend my life being a colour". It's a great line, but then you see the video and you've got Mckauley Culkin in hood gear mouthing the words and it suddenly turns into a joke.
The Jam video starts off great, really evoking the apocalyptic feel of the lyric, Michael's dancing great, it looks cool, but then he's suddenly clowning around with Michael Jordan and Kris Kross and all the eerie mood sudenly goes out the window. Imagine if Eddie Murphy had suddenly shown up in Smooth Criminal. It would have ruined the whole thing. Imagine if they'd contrived a cameo for Emanuel Lewis in Thriller. It would have been a total distraction. But that's how desparate and dumb Michael got in the 90s. He was willing to sabotage his own videos purely for marketing reasons.
[Edited 7/26/07 8:51am]
[Edited 7/26/07 8:56am]
[Edited 7/26/07 13:12pm]

pjh1972 said:

You hit the nail on the head. Hardcore fans think MJ is hated, and that's not the point at all. I'm a 70s baby, I remember Michael when he was only 14, and being in awe with this child, even though he was a good 8 years older than me. I saw him go through his rollercoaster career, from teen to the Off The Wall era where the adult Michael emerged full of originality and bloom. And then I saw him hit his peak with Thriller. He virtually took many of us on a journey through his very unique career which has been unforgetable.

I followed Michael religiously up to Dangerous, even though by then I knew the wheels were coming off his life and to a certain extent his career. So please don't call us haters because we see what many of his present fanbase can't see or refuse to see. It's because I remember Michael the way I do that I even still care.

mrsnet said:

Since when is intelligent discussion hate? Show me one person who's "downplaying everything he's ever done". Misrepresenting people like that is just a lazy way to avoid listening to the valid points that are being made.

These MJ and Janet threads...

Off the Wall was first album I ever bought when I was 10 years old and as a result it means a lot to me to this day, as do Destiny, Thriller, Triumph, Goin Places and The Jacksons. Hell, even Victory !

But today, the KOP/HIStory fans (largely teenagers for some reason) can't enter into an argument without thinking that someone expressing disappointment with the way that MJ is today is an attack on him. It's not and that defensiveness just shows how precarious their position is.

Still, at least it's possible to express those views here. Over at the MJ boards you can get banned for suggesting something as outrageous as the possibilty that his album might not come out this year after all.

pjh1972 said:

I stopped going to MJ boards years ago. Could barely mention Prince without venom being spewed.

The Jackson defense team is serious. If you don’t think 20YO was a good album that sounds exactly like her older stuff then you’re a hater and you don’t care about Janet. Right. Despite the fact that some of us have been fans when she was doing Mae West imitations.

JackieBlue said:

Yeah, I should probably stop going to the MJ boards too. It's not good for the blood pressure.

pjh1972 said:

That bit in bold is the key point right there. You know someone is on shaky ground when they avoid listening to someone's argument and start trying to shoot the messenger rather than listening to the message. It ain't just MJ fans though(although they're clearly the worse). There are some rabid P fans who invent all kind of bizarre explanations for people not liking P's recent output. One of them said that people just wanted Prince to "recapture their youth for them". Then when that got shot down he said that these people were just "fronting" when they said they didn't like his latest stuff. It couldn't just simply be that P's music ain't as good as it used to be, could it? It's like people are desparate to block out any negative thoughts so they dance through all kinds of hoops rather than just look at the truth straight on.

One of the most ridiculous pieces of denial I saw on a MJ board was when someone complained about MJ covering his mouth/face whilst lip synching his way through the MSG performance.

They said it was because he was using a new technique to spread his voice around the arena better.
[Edited 7/26/07 8:44am]
[Edited 7/26/07 8:47am]

pjh1972 said:

lol, If that's how funny the MJ boards are then I should probably start going there.

pjh1972 said:

You're kidding! Wow... everyone else was saying either he was sick or he had an operation on his lip or something. The majority (including me admittedly) though he had the flu. I mean he looked a wreck during that era. I mean there's times when MJ looked worse for wear but it wasn't until he did the 30th anniversary thing that I started feeling for him. Poor guy lip-synched his solo part too much...again. I've always wondered what was going on with Mike during that period. This was two years before the second branch of allegations and right along the time he started bantering "Tommy (Motolla) is the devil", y'all remember that?

whatsgoingon said:

Wow, I must admit it's obvious MJ ripped a fair bit from that. Still, he definitely added a harder more electrified edge. His moves are faster and cooler then Fosse's. Fosse's got that poncey Broadway thing going on that straight people find embarrasing. MJ eliminated that and obviously found a way to make it more street. Fosse doesn't make you go, "Wow, how the hell did he do that?" like Michael or James Brown do, but it's obvious MJ found raw material there that he could improve upon.

pjh1972 said:

When he did that for "Human Nature", I was Dude was barely singing in the song yet he was miming (and semi-masturbating if I can recall). Clearly just a year earlier he got in trouble with the "semi-masturbating" at the end of "Black or White" and he cut it off..."if I offended anyone" but go a year later in concert and he's doing the exact thing then get a quick check and see some female fan falling out of her seat going to an emergency room. I just wish he did the song better... like actually SINGING it, lol.

Maybe I'm being too "shameful" of his performances as of late, but now I can see when you talk about how Mike suddenly just went from "organic" to "mechanic". I would DIE to see Mike and the Jacksons perform during the "Triumph" tour. We KNOW Mike was singing back then and singing well. I get chills every time I hear the ending of "I'll Be There" (I got the '81 live album) and he went to church literally on that!!!!

I wish as a fan that he can return to that. I'm not hating, just stating my opinion.

whatsgoingon said:

/

Thanks for linking that!

I will not forget seeing him after all those years to see that he had messed with his face again. The partial paralysis and sleepy looking eyes. My friends and I hoped it was just bad botox and would hopefully wear off by the time the MSG shows came but it was apparent something was still wrong. Those that were up close confirmed something was wrong so we wondered how could he sing properly if his mouth/jaw were jacked up? Then Whitney’s appearance and speculation. It was a weird time.

Remember when tabloids were concerned about Whitney's health? A few of them reported that she was "dying". I felt really bad for Whitney during that period, more so than for Mike. It definitely was a weird time considering 2001 was a weird year altogether.

Timmy84 said:

Like I said earlier, we didn't hear singing in that song, we heard heavy breathing. I love watching Michael cut loose dance wise, but it should never be at the expense of the song. Never. Not only does it mean the singing suffers, but it means that those great moves have less impact as the concert goes on, because people have seen them over and over again. It also means he wears himself out physically for no good reason and has to take five minute breaks between the songs.

He could have learned a lot about mixing it up from Prince. Prince would have songs where he was burning up the stage dancewise. Then in other songs he'd bring a more relaxed approach. Sing a song whilst lying on the piano or just coolly stalking the stage. He had the confidence to make it just as effective. The result was you didn't get bored, and he saved energy in the process. Unfortunately there was no one around to tell Michael this.

Timmy84 said:

I do remember. The whole atmostphere was bizarre really. Aaliyah had just recently died. Prior to her passing, there was a rumor that Britney and Justin were in an automobile accident in which Britney was killed which is why many believed and hoped the Aaliyah story was just another horrible rumor.There were rumors that Whitney was dying, one was that she overdosed after the MSG show. I recall a negative rumor about Mariah during this same time. Then 9/11 happened. I was like WTF is going on?

Since we're talking about the difference between contrived, gimmicky performances and honest, emotional ones, I can't think of a better example of the latter than this. Such a shame this guy ain't around anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...Qxc7L07Rrs

midnightmover said:

That's why I love the J5 in Mexico 75, you may say he was still at that awkward stage when it came to dance, but I felt he had the funk going on there. It was him, his brothers and a great orchestra. He danced. He sang. He even sat down on a stool and told the audience why he prefered singing ballads (how times have changed). And to me those performances were more matured and sophsticated than the Dangerous tour, where there was lots of polish dancing, fireworks and not much else.

pjh1972 said:

I think that it is safe to say that not everyone here hates Michael; however, there is a large number who love to tear the man down for their reasons and agenda. I am one of those long time MJ fans who understands just what this man has gone through in the last 14 years. I know how he has tried to concentrate ONLY on his music for some contrived effort by those with an agenda come in and derail him. There are some fans who are not even aware of what MJ will have to face when he does release a new album. No other artist in history will be subjected to the BS,negativity and crap that Michael will endure. It happened to
his releases BEFORE these fake allegations and can you imagine the $%^& that some in the media and music industry will try and pull to derail him this time. I sit and read what some fans and detractors have to say about what you want Michael to do when he releases a new album. None of you have put any thought into your "wishes". I want Michael to do an acoustic CONCERT; but, I don't want him to release an acoustic album. Michael has always been the one artist who appeals to every age, gender and socio-econonic genre. It is possible to incorporate a well-rounded album that appeals to his diverse fan group and still have an acoustic set to re-introduce his vast talent to the public. IMO, it is silly and unfair to sit and say that if MJ doesn't release the album( an unplugged album) that fans or detractors want him to release that you won't be a fan or that it is doomed to failure. Micheal is not like any other artist in the industry. The media and music industry doesn't treat him the same way as they do other artists. Sadly, there are even fans who treat him with the same DOUBLE STANDARDS that the media and others do. If Michael's next album doesn't sell as much as Thriller, not only will you have some fans saying that it is a failure; but, the media and music industry pundits will have a field day. Can you imagine that type of pressure on any human being? Prince has never had that type of pressure, because no one EXPECTS for him to sell as much as he did with Purple Rain. Prince can go out on tour in a matter of days because he has his own self-contained band. He has never been known for having lavish stage shows; therefore, no one expects for him to have one. However, Michael is known for his lavish stage shows and his fans and others expect that from him. If he did an acoustic set, his fans would accept that. Of course, you also have those newer fans who have never witnessed the feeling that you get from seeing Michael in all of his glory on stage. I feel that he can do an acoustic set, have an album that appeals to his varied fan base and still have a series of concerts that incorporate the flash and style that he is known for.
I am not going to stop being a fan just because he doesn't release an album according to my timetable. MJ has never released an album when fans, media or music industry thought that he would.

midnightmover said:

Please don't talk down Bob Fosse like that to big-up Michael Jackson's dancing... it's not a good look.

whatsgoingon said:

How odd has Michael Jackson reversed. When he was 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 years old, he would do anything to sing a ballad because that's really what he preferred. You can tell the difference between his Jackson 5 recordings and his solo stuff. They were more in the throes of ballads and Mike sung the mess out of them. He is a GREAT singer but I think somewhere between 1981 and 1984, he thought his audience wouldn't appreciate him if all he did was sit on a stool and croon (much like Marvin when he was younger, he wanted to sit on a stool and croon but as he got older he found it harder to keep still because he think the crowd would get bored) so that's when he just started to dance more often to bring excitement. I have to admit I couldn't make the difference when I was young, I was just excited to see this guy dance then you compare it to when he would just fully belt out a song and compare it to 1997 or something like that and it's like two very different people.

Cinnie said:

Boy, I really seem to have gotten under your skin. You're not still pissed about that "cheap" sounding comment are you? It was just a word, jeez. As for Bob Fosse, I ain't "putting him down to big up Michael". Michael obviously "borrowed" quite a bit from him. However, imo Michael improved on what Fosse had, and combined it with other influences to make it more immediately mind blowing. That's not disrespecting Fosse, it's just calling it like I see it. He was obviously a very creative guy.

Yeah, Mike did emulate Bob Fosse but IMO he did do it better than him. Bob's a legend in his field but Michael etched it further than that. He did it so well it's become too routine though. That's why I say that Mike probably needs a change. Hell, Michael is probably already thinking of doing something different, you never know!

whatsgoingon said:

You must have a longer version of the concert than me (my version was less than 50 minutes). I don't remember him telling the audience he preferred ballads (it'd be cool to see that). But I think a better comparison would be with the Destiny and Triumph tours, rather than the Dangerous one. On those tours his dancing had improved (though there was still some way to go), and he still had all the soul. His singing was also much better than in 75.

In some respects the Bad Tour was kind of his peak, except that new problems started to kick in. Firstly, his voice which was at an all time peak at the start of the tour, began to suffer as the tour went on. Also, he hired those silly dancers in their silly punk costumes to take the place of his brothers. They even pretended to sing. That was the start of the fakeness creeping into his concerts. Also, he began to recreate videos onstage instead of taking the time to work out something completely fresh, but make no mistake about it, dance wise he was way better then than he had been in 75. Way better. That doesn't mean I don't still enjoy the 75 concert, I do, but as a pure dancer, Michael was nowhere near what he later became.
[Edited 7/26/07 12:16pm]

midnightmover said:

Oh man, when he did that, I knew those guys were lipping it! But I think he was a better performer in '75 because he was singing clearly and doing a little dance. It won't be as great as his 1968 audition tape but hey.

Why Michael never did splits when he got older? I just notice that he did the split on that audition tape but it was like sometime after 13, 14, he didn't do 'em anymore.

Timmy84 said:

He was singing perfectly clearly at the start of the Bad tour and all through the Triumph and Victory tours. His vocal style had much improved by then and dance wise he was in a different galaxy from 75. Be honest, if Michael had still been performing like that at the time of Motown 25, do you think his performance would have had the same impact? I'll answer the question for you... HELL NO!!
[Edited 7/26/07 12:36pm]

Timmy84 said:

The last time I saw him do to the splits was on the Jacksons variety shows, he was doing a sketch and he did them. I love watching those shows because you truely see how diverse Michael really was as a dancer, from Jazz to tap to just getting down to the funk.
[Edited 7/26/07 13:16pm]