PurpleMedley122 said:

Ok I feel this has been done now.

Obviously there are many Prince fans who think Prince is the greatest live performer - and fair enough.

Also there are Michael fans who think MJ is - and likewise fair enough.

The original question was why do people call MJ a great live artist - and I guess people have given their opinion on why MJ was a great live artist.

Some people will never be swayed - and really nor should they. They are entitled to their point of view.

So lets just leave it now. It is turning into a pointless Prince V MJ debate that is redundant as both are great artists and performers in their own right.

Swa

Shango said:

I like both. I actually prefer Never Can Say Goodbye with older Michael. He sang it so much better imo.

They were so different, it's hard to compare. Michaels extroidinary dancing and use of his body as insturment was his undoing as a live performer, had he lived people would have canned the O2 run and it wouldnt have been fair. He's a classic talent who shouldnt have to rely on elaborate dance routines, but he put that pressure on himself. Prince was always more versitile, able to sit at a piano or just stand there and rip guitar solo's, ultimately his deep base in musicianship allowed him to maintain the mantle of greatest live performer.

toejam said:

Serious now.. whats the one show? Yokohama '87 - Thats the one? Thats the 100% live show that is his best? I want to see it.

Because I saw on VH1 the Bucharest Concert and it was horrible! The show just didnt have a flow, the live parts he sounded awful! "Human Nature" live in that concert was horrible!

Im not looking for a clip here or there from a moment in a concert a full concert to buy - What is MJ's best 100% live concert? Yokohama '87

If not what?

BaileyWalker said:

If you are looking for MJ in his element as a live singer, dancer, entertainer - then Yokohama 87 is it.

Swa

Swa said:

Ok I will buy it and put it in my collection of concerts. If that is the one that shows all and is live. Im going to order it.

Can someone suggest a 1970's concert - 100% live.

?

BaileyWalker said:

All his 70' and 80's concerts were live. (Not counting TV performances).

His best performances was before Bad IMO although they are often in bad quality. But we can only hope that they will put out something from second leg Destiny tour (wich includes Off the wall cuts) or Triumph tour in good quality. The J5 tours were also incredible but I have yet to see something in prima quality.

This give you a glimpse of how good they were:

Riverpoet31 said:

Its because his cock was huge, and when you have a huge cock, thats a lot of weight to carry around on stage.

But i'm sure you could do better yourself Riverpoet, since you have a hardon for anything MJ.

I bet you would ejaculate if Prince shoved a wine bottle up his anus like Bruno does.

Like Nike said, "Just Do It"!

Wonderful!

Riverpoet31 said:

Because BEFORE the History Tour mostly EVERYTHING he did was live...if you dont have the tours to prove your comment..you should shut up. Bad - all live, Dangerous..most live, Triumph Tour - live, Victory Tour live...all tours before ALL LIVE...

BaileyWalker said:

Here's another great live clip from the 70's (100% LIVE)

MJ was a better dancer, but Prince had so much more creativity. Every year he would tour with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SHOW! Every damn year. MJ would tour every four years with almost the same show every time. Truly disgraceful. I always enjoyed watching him (up until the History Tour when his dancing went down the toilet), but his shows often felt like museum pieces because they never changed. Prince's shows were so much more ALIVE! So much more fresh.

What I also preferred about P was that he engaged with the audience more. He treated the audience like they were co-conspirators. Like they were in on it with him too. MJ basically ignored the audience. His personality was nowhere to be seen in his shows.

However, he was one of the best movers and singers in his day. He had a lot of fire that very few others (perhaps no others) can match. Unfortunately, the Victory Tour in 1984 was the last time he did a mime-free tour. As a dancer he reached his peak on the Dangerous Tour, but people often don't realize it because most of the footage is filmed so badly (particularly the Bucharest concert which looks flat). The Bad Tour was filmed much better. The colours look more vibrant, which effects the viewer's perception of the show (also, Michael himself looked better on the Bad Tour, but his moves were at their sharpest on the Dangerous Tour).

So basically, he was a great performer, but not such a good constructor of shows. I put this down to his rehearsal phobia which seemed to afflict him after Thriller. His judgement was appalling. But who else could light up a stage like he could?

midnightmover said:

which show do you have exactly? I got the Yokohoma 87 one and the quality isnt all that

paisleypark4 said:

What you say!

LightOfArt said:

some fans improved the video of Yokohama

LightOfArt said:

ALL THE FOOTAGE is filmed better than the Dangerous Tour. Most likely, you're watching a poor quality bootleg.

The only Dangerous footage I saw that was filmed well was the footage they showed on Def II, BBC2 from the opening of the tour in Spain.

I have to say, the History Tour was filmed better too, but by then Michael had lost it so it didn't matter anyway.
[Edited 7/20/09 14:37pm]

bboy87 said:

it does look good. i should update by old bootleg DVD

arent Japanese fans so cool? compared to these anyway

LightOfArt said:

If you just look at the two still pictures above (without clicking on the links), you'll see exactly what I mean about the different looks. The Bad Tour picture looks much more colourful and vibrant whereas the Dangerous picture looks flat in comparison. That is entirely down to the CAMERAS USED and the film inside the cameras. It has NOTHING to do with what is actually happening on the stage. It's because the Dangerous Tour is filmed so badly that some people don't realize what tremendous form Michael was in dance-wise. Judged purely in terms of dancing, he was in the best form of his life on that tour.

midnightmover said:

terrible angles, colors not up to par.....





[Edited 7/20/09 14:59pm]

bboy87 said:

Aaah, the memories! I was at two of those Wembley gigs. I remember it like it was yesterday! The good thing was that in those pre-internet days you had no idea what you were gonna see so when Michael exploded out of nowhere and just stood there in front of us, it blew everyone's fucking mind! Only Mike could have pulled that off. It was like... "I'm Michael Jackson, bitches! How else did you think I was gonna arrive?"

I was surprised when I saw footage of the tour how it didn't at all capture the excitement. The colours were so flat that it made it all look mundane. Still, just looking at that footage there (which I've never seen before) you can see that Michael was a fucking monster, dance-wise! Just out of this world. Whatever drugs he was taking were obviously working. The man was on fire!

midnightmover said:

Some fans are working on improving the quality on several shows that are in bad quality.

for example


to



the later result, someone uploaded a VHS rip of the show and they went to work on it

BaileyWalker said:

Get your hands on the Triumph tour...That was MJ's best live showing in my opinion....MJ's voice was sick...His moves were more organic and less choregraphed....Just a landmark tour...

i've come to the conclusion that riverpoet, who started this thread is a fucking cock and a dumb fuck with no knowledge of music whatsoever.

the fact is, MJ sang live for more than 30 years.

if that isn't enough to fucking satisfy your bullshit criteria for a "great live" artist, then please go fuck yourself you pathetic piece of cum shot.

you think it is fucking easy to do a live show and satisfy all the millions of fans?

dumb fucks.

grow up and learn some facts before talking garbage.

it takes talent, courage and a big pair of testicles to get up on stage and sing to millions like MJ did, and do each show to perfection.

He had nothing to prove to anyone, he did it already, saw it, sold the t shirt, sold the dvd, and fucking did everything required.

if you think you have to strum a guitar and sing some shitty emo or indie songs on stage to be considered a "great live" artist, then you are obviously thick as horse shit.

MJ belongs alongside James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and the rest as one of the greatest live acts ever.

So back the fuck up before you get smacked the fuck up, as 2pac so kindly put it way back in the 90s.

dirtyman2005 said:

huh?

dirtyman2005 said:

murph said:

its pretty simple.
MJ sang live for most of his career, end of story.

What did people expect, for him to wair an outfit that shows his bare ass cheeks or shove a guitar up his arse to be considered a great live artist?

please! don't be so stupid people!
this thread is more pointless than a Beyonce song.

midnightmover said:

I'm jealous. Performances like Jam is why I prefer later MJ as a performer. It was just so EPIC!
[Edited 7/20/09 16:06pm]

Consdering he sang live since the age of 10 or whatever it was, he was a great live artist, end of story.



next please!

Dirtyman, I can see you're an MJ fan but your posts be wild as shit. Even wild for someone crazy like me!

listen up people!
i might be crazy but i know my shit.

I've watched countless musicians live on stage, and MJ ranks up there alongside anyone of the greats.

He is up there with Hendrix, James Brown,etc

its not rocket science.

would we have preffered to see MJ sing and do less dancing on his new tour?
of course we would, but whats done is done now.

we can't change history.

MJ made history, end of story.

the fact you are all discussing it, shows that he meant something to you.