Brother, no one's disputing that but your posts are comic relief.

dirtyman2005 said:

Sure...But I don't think anyone is being stupid here (except for the random folks totally shitting on Mike as a performer)...I have been one of MJ's biggest supporters when it comes to his musical impact...But one of my main criticisms of the man has been his lipsynching during concerts....I know what the man was capable of...I was there for the Triumph tour...That was one of the best live gigs I have ever seen...The only concert that I've seen live that equaled it and at times surpassed it (in my opinion) was Prince's LoveSexy show...

So other than a few assholes taking advantage of the question by totally disrespecting MJ's legacy as a live performer, I don't think it's bullshit to talk about why one of the greatest live concert acts of all-time started lipsynching...Maybe that's because I held MJ to a different standard than the likes of Britney Spears and others...

Oh, and cute jab at Prince: "for him to wair an outfit that shows his bare ass cheeks or shove a guitar up his arse..."

murph said:

Yep and we have great evidence of seeing Prince as a live performer, he's great too. Michael was great too but you have to get the full spectrums of both artists, covering only one half of it is not gonna work when trying to base an opinion.

Both MJ and Prince are two of the greatest live performers of all time. And we have evidence that MJ was too going back to the Jackson FIVE days of the late 1960s.

Since camera angles and quality/clarity has been mentioned, here are two of his best captured performances, in terms of cinematography (as well as live singing):





The camera and editing crews for this concert (Yokohama '87) were excellent.

murph said:

Alot of people here would have been either too young for the Triumph tour or just living outside America at the time of the tour, that tour is better than any of his solo tours including Bad. Infact most people that have seen Michael with his brothers and then seen him solo will tell you that that he was better with his brothers on stage. The concerts were more organic, you knew you were at a live concert if you saw the Jacksons live.

StillDirrty said:

Yeah, it was just a shame the voice was going. Vocally, he was at his all time best on the first leg of the Bad Tour in 1987. Unfortunately, the setlist on that leg of the tour sucked. By the time he finally put it right for the second leg, his voice was damaged, and not quite such an easy listen.

BTW, the setlist on the Dangerous Tour never did get put right. That would've meant rehearsal and we all know how Michael felt about rehearsals, don't we? So it meant he was still performing songs like WDAN and SOOML which should've been dropped by that point.
[Edited 7/20/09 19:06pm]

bboy87 said:

What's funny about this performance is that throughout the show Mike's singing lacked the usual passion, yet on this one duet with Jermaine he's in the form of his fucking life. It's like he did it just to fuck Jermaine up. This performance shows why Mike at his best is one of the best vocalists of all time. His tone, his phrasing, the drama of his voice. All the things that were missing from the rest of the concert. He's walking all over Jermaine here. I swear he was doing it for fun.

dirtyman2005 said:

midnightmover said:

Rock With You and Remember The Time was to be included but dropped when the show launched. He did Bad during the first shows then dropped it THEN brought it back when the tour reached Japan....then dropped after the first 3 shows

Timmy84 said:

@ Timmy

Timmy84 said:

I think Dirtyman2005 is just funny , even tho i do not agree with the insults to other people ,I love reading his posts, they have a certain rhythm I agree with most of what he said about MJ as a live performer.

Enough with disrespecting MJ as a live performer, I see that happening only on the ORG

Whats that kind of nonsense. Can't you talk normal? I mean: by simply using arguments in a discussion.

Of course i was chargating a bit by using the words 'the largest part', but the fact remains that in the last 15 - 20 years of his career MJ was mostly playbacking on stage, and - something that seems to remain undiscussed on this topic - most of the music by his so called 'band' was precorded too.

Does that have anything to do to with live-music?

Or is MJ sinply such a 'saint' in your eyes, judged on his earlier career, you are willing to pay 100 bucks for a playback-show with precorded music?

I am not slamming the entire artist MJ in here, i am just wondering why so many people seem to lose a sense of reality when 'judging' him as a live-artist.

I just dont get it why so many people did buy tickets to the 02-shows when it is clear what could have been expected: a playbacking MJ, turned into a very wooden danser allready (the History shows were proof), 'recreating' video-clips on stage.

To me that has nothing to do what music is about, let alone live-music.
[Edited 7/21/09 14:01pm]

Riverpoet31 said:

Because you created a entire bised argument based on one of his lame concerts he performed in his 45 year career. You havent seen the Triumph Tour? bad Tour? Victory Tour? The tours before that? Even Dangerous was pretty good...but no one knows WHAT he was going to do today. History was a span of 1995-1996. You based your whole Live argument on what he did in the span of a year and a half. This thread should have been called The History concert was a shamble....

Thats just not right.

I have seen parts of his Bad-tour and his Dangerous-tour on TV / the net (luckily not the entire shows) and what I saw there was an artist often playbacking, in front of a band using prerecordings: without soul, without any real spontanity, often 'showing' off with his back-up dancers and some phoney heavy-metal guitar solo.

You might think its great, thats your opinion, but it dont touches me at all. Its a plastic fake experience, that has nothing to do with real live music: Musicians giving their best, interacting with eachother, trying to create some kind of artistic ´magic´.

IMO MJ is a pop-idol, not a great live musician.

Riverpoet31 said:

Oh man, this is some of the funniest fucking bullshit I've read in a long while. You checked it out on you tube did ya? lovely. that surely must be definitive! LMAO.

I'm with many others here - I prefer the Triumph Tour (which I actually went to rather than watching on you tube ) and not because of the brothers, it's just a personal favourite. I also saw all the other tours. For real, not on you tube. It's a great shame the "real" Bad tour (88) isn't available in decent quality, then peeps would give it more respect. I saw five of these shows and it kicked ass plain and simple.

Are you seriously suggesting that Greg, Don, Jennifer, Ricky fucking Lawson, Chris Currell, Jon Clark, never mind Mike singing 95% of the show wasn't "Musicians giving their best, interacting with eachother, trying to create some kind of artistic ´magic´." It's so laughable.

There is a ton of spontenatey in these shows. You just gotta listen to the boots to hear it all across tunes like heartbreak hotel, rock with you and many others. Of course something like smooth criminal is a different story - because that was staged as a musical number with the whole dance and everything. Even so, the dancing ain't the same every nite. That whole thing is a total myth.

Sure dangerous got worse in terms of the amount of playback, but in other aspects its far superior. It's daft to me that this (or bad) would have been better with the brothers, but that's a personal opinion. Victory tour staging of BJ and Beat It was rubbish - especially the brothers "dancing" on Beat It. Oh dear.



But besides the premise of thread is ludiocrous becuase Mike sang live for the largest part of his career, not the other way round as you suggest.

Riverpoet....why does it matter to YOU what MJ does onstage? Most likely,he's not the type of artist that you would go and see in concert anyway.From your comments on this thread and other MJ threads,I assume that you're not a fan? So why do you care what goes on in a concert that you didn't pay to see anyway?? Millions of fans have paid to see MJ in concert since the early 70s,so obviously there must be something amazing about his shows.If it's not your cup of tea,that's fine.Focus on the artists that you actually like.

Riverpoet - you have a right to your opinion, and it is obvious that you don't want to be swayed from it. I guess your request to be enlightened wasn't one.

Oh and for the record - the band never played over backing tapes - you are now accusing them of miming? You'd be incorrect on that one.

You obviously feel michael wasn't a great live artist - that's cool, its one person's opinion.

But as you have seen a lot of people disagree.

Swa

SoulAlive,

The last weeks MJ has been praised in here like some kind of semi-god.

That also means that people in here have been busy with exaggerating his artistic benefits.

My simple view and complaint is that MJ is seen as a great live artist, when i think otherwise.

dirtyman2005 said:

...Blah blah blah....but James Brown, Jimi Hendrix & Jim Morrison always sang live in concert until they breathed their last breath...Mike paid his dues, but after '87 or so, he was "cheating".

Swa.

Listen to the History tour, thats not a live band, but a 'band' using prerecorded tapes.

What annoys me a lot in here, is that people whine about Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake and sometimes Madonna, being fakes who playback and use backing tapes, when their so called 'enlightened' MJ has done the same for the last 15 or so years.

Riverpoet31 said:

That's your opinion and that's fine, but millions of people disagree with you.MJ soldout 50 shows at the 02 Arena.so obviously there are tons of people who think he was an incredible performer.

I still don't see why this bothers you.I heard that Britney Spears lip-syncs 90% of her shows,but why would I care? I'm not a fan.Why would I waste my time trying to convince her many fans that she is a crap performer?

Riverpoet31 said:

God, Did I miss something or what? Exaggerating his artistic benefits? I saw the Opposite here,some orgers have been ripping him to shreds in the past couple of days , some many insults thrown at him despite his death..

guys ..anyone saw any exaggerated artstic benefits about MJ?

Maybe i simply don't get it.

People going to a show of a their pop-idol, recreating video's on stage, playbacking the songs, when the music is coming from prerecorded tapes.

Riverpoet31 said:

LMAO (again)! Yeah sugarfoot and isaih saunders and batten and don and david williams are using loops!!!!!

LMFAO.

seeingvoices12,

Sorry. But it has been the other way around. People talking about 'saint Michael' most of the time, and anyone who dares to be a bit critical about 'it' being ridiculised often, or banned even.

Riverpoet31 said:

Here's a suggestion:If these types of shows bother you,go and see artists who DON'T lip-sync.Problem solved

Even better, they were pretending playing drums and keyboards, when everything was on tape.

I guess when it pays well, it doesnt matter. Right?

Riverpoet31 said:

Wrong.

David Williams or Sugarfoot "pretending"? boy are you out of your depth here.

Riverpoet31 said:

err i dont think you saw the history tour

anyway...your knowledge of MJ seems to be limited anyway. it can be understood from your topic title. MJ sang live for most of his life