And, not even the miming part, using back up-tapes most (all?) of the time. The so called 'band' simply playbacking to them.

I have recently seen a recording on TV of a 'live' concert by MJ in germany during the history tour.

It was a pathetic, totally fake event IMO: MJ playbacking all of the songs. The music of the band (judging on the sound quality) obviously pre-recorded on tape.

I can understand you admire MJ for the songs he wrote, the dance moves he invented, the things he has done on record, but to label him a 'great live-artist' based on these kind of shows, that goes far above my head.

Any MJ-fans can explain this to me?
[Edited 7/18/09 14:17pm]

because at his peak he was the best that there ever was

Riverpoet31 said:

I think Michael's drug problems started to affect his performances on stage after some point.

After 1988, things changed a lot.
[Edited 7/18/09 14:28pm]

He WAS a great live artist

J5 days - Bad tour

There's a sticky for MJ stuff.

Jackson miming to prerecorded vocals for "the largest part of his career" is simply a false claim.

I guess the love-fest is about thiiiiis close to being over

novabrkr said:

Yeah because besides from live performances where he was obviously lipping (except a few selections like the Flip Wilson Show, the Oscars, the Grammys, the American Music Awards and some very early TV appearances on Ed Sullivan and the like), he was a great live performer from 1969 until 1984. Afterwards, he'd still have great shows but it wasn't soundly like it was before.

mj is DEAD get over yourself and grow up. you have no excuse to bash him anymore he's gone and can't possibly do anything to upset you now.

I am not bashing him here. I just think that some people have problems seeing things in perspective.

MJ did start to mime to pre-recorded backing tapes since the BAD-tour i think.

I just don't understand why are people are willing to pay lots of money for a play-back show, and most of all, why they even have the guts to call someone who has done that for the last 20 years or so: a great live-artist.

Riverpoet31 said:

I totally agree here.

I had absolutely no idea why he was praised that much for his "live" shows for the last 20 years.

Exactly. This is one of the reasons I stopped following him after Thriller. I noticed this way back in the 80s. Prince was/is the best performer since 1984 hands down. Neslon George, the writer, broke this down really well in an interview on why Prince was better performer than MJ or Bruce Springstein since the late 80s. I think that when people die there is a tendency to exaggerate certain aspects of their career or life in a postive and negative way. Don't forget how many people were running around calling Tupac a modern day Malcom X

candy2277 said:

Don't get me wrong 2pac was cool and all, but I can think of a lot of rapper BETTER than him, personally I'm a Prince fan and I think he's better but you can compare them they're completely different and I never was a MJ fan I actually like him more as a person than an artist but he was still a great entertainer of our time.

candy2277 said:

Double

Is this really true? I haven't seen much live footage... the stuff I've seen had him singing live...

MJ - up until THE BAD TOUR - perfectly LIVE, after that, not so much.

Thanks, at least someone else is noticing the same thing.

Next to that, that whole History tour was so awkward on every level.

His female 'guitarist' wearing a mask to hide her face... why?

Michael appearing like some drug-addict who was not aware of what he was actually 'meaning' most of the time....

Back-up dancers with zombie-like make-up, Why? what is it about?

A very fake, detached and uncomfortable experience IMO, that had nothing to do with what music is about, and what a live-concert should be.
[Edited 7/18/09 19:52pm]

I thought MJ was know for his ability to make things a visual spectaclular with dancing and choreography; not so much for musical chops.

Nah, he starting lip-synching "in concert" during "Dangerous"....Check out my podcast....it's Michael LIVE in 1987 from the BAD tour.

I'm not an expert on MJ's live concerts, but from the Bad Tour footage I've seen (Yokohama '87 - it's on youtube), it's all live. The Bucharest Dangerous Tour DVD (1992) is probably half live and half lip-synched - but it's mainly the more hardcore choreographed songs that are lip synched.

MJ was a great live artist from 1969 until c.1990. In fact, I would say up until Dangerous he was simply spectacular. If 20 years of legend isn't enough to reward him the status of "great live artist", then I don't know what is.

Of course, if you compare him with Prince, well, anyone is going to pale in comparison next to Prince (pun intended ). Prince was/is on another level in that regard, but that's not fair to say MJ wasn't great simply because he wasn't "the best".

Post-Dangerous... well I think we all know how things panned out. I think the child abuse allegations, the plastic surgery, the skin disease, and (ultimately) his fame, really wreaked havoc on his health from there on in. He was never the same after all that. He could still dance like a MF right up until the end though!
[Edited 7/18/09 21:15pm]

PAPAROBBIE said:

This has been gone over a million times before but Michael was completely live on the Japan leg of the Bad tour in 1987, but the '88 leg he was starting to introduce lipsynching into his shows and became more progressively reliant on it for each subsequent tour. Why he managed to dodge alot of flak for it, I don't know but he was never really taken to task for it. The dancing and 'show' aspect of his concerts overtook the reason people fell in love with him in the first place, his beautiful voice.

mynameisnotsusan said:

Yea, but they don't even question no-talent singers who dance, like Britney Spears & the like. So why would they do Mike for it - at least they know he can really sing, he just chose not to for whatever reason (which is more aggravating). It's like putting on a big show where people can just be in the same room w/ the mf is enough for people these days. Fuck the artistry - they wanna see outfits & bad choreography it's ridiculous

CalhounSq said:

I think Britney has been slammed for it (her MTV VMA performnce for Gimme More that she mimed and fumbled through comes to mind) and nobody is calling her the greatest entertainer that ever lived
People definitely knew Michael could sing because he had for the first 20 years of his career, but you have to admit he was riding the height of his fame and previous reputation rather than challenging himself. I was SO hoping the O2 shows were going to show something else because he could have...

mynameisnotsusan said:

My point is lots of "performers" were doing it & selling tickets/albums all the while. No one's talent is questioned anymore, people just go w/ whatever is out there.

& sadly I don't think the O2 shows would have been any different. Mike hasn't put in any live vocal effort in quite a while, which is a shame. You don't bury that voice for pyrotechnics & dumb shit, you just don't. I lost a good amount of respect for his performances later in his career b/c he was coasting vocally. Dancing, yes, but I never gave much of a shit about that

For all of his live performances up to and including (the majority) of the BAD tour he was singing 100% live.

From there on, and most noticeably in the Dangerous and HiStory tour he relied on a mix of backing tapes and live vocals.

A long time back I went through each concert set list and did a break down of what was live and was backing tape.

As a fan I never denied his use of backing tapes. I have my own opinion as to why he used them but that is by the by.

I got to see him at both ends of the spectrum in 1987 in the BAD tour and again in 1996 in the HiStory tour. Both shows were amazing. BAD for the pure energy and vocal prowess, and HiStory for the dance routines and staging. The later part of his career was about perfectionism and about putting on a spectacle. That said there were a lot of live vocal moments in the shows - even within songs that were to backing tapes.

You mention the Germany show, and another poster on here also references that as an appalling show. I haven't seen it so take your word for it. Everyone is allowed a bad day at the office.

Like many fans who had tickets to the O2 show we were keen to see what Michael would present. How he would sound. How we would move. Sadly we'll never know exactly.

But as someone who has seen many people live, I have to say the isn't anything like seeing a Michael Jackson show in person, and being in that moment.

Hope that helps and clears up the issue for you.

Swa

Riverpoet31 said:

I didn't see the History show as awkward but respect it if you saw it that way.
The female guitarist - Jennifer Batten - wore the mask for one or two songs as part of the theatrics.
Likewise the "zombie" dancers were for Thriller (makes sense).

And again it all comes down to what you expect from a concert.
HiStory was like a theatrical show and a concert meshed into one.

Unfortunately Michael's music became known for as much the visual element as the music itself. People WANT to see Billie Jean with the Motown 25 routine, Smooth Criminal with the whole dance and lean, Beat It with the gang dance, Thriller with the Zombie dance etc etc. As I have stated before it ended up being a lose/lose situation for Michael and his fans.

Those of us who wanted to see something new would be let down with the classic routines. Those who wanted to see the classic routines would be let down with new ones.

Although it was mentioned prior to Michael's death (and mentioned again since) that Michael was going to be doing more singing this time around and was incorporating new moves into the routines, giving them an updated feel.

Like I said, sadly we will never truly see the show as it was intended. Any footage that does get released will be of Michael still 3 weeks out from opening night and probably still just doing 60-80% energy.

Those that want to pick at his legacy will no doubt use that as a way of showing a star that was fading, rather than admitting that he wouldn't be going 100% for a rehearsal 3 weeks out.

Swa

CalhounSq said:

Agreed. It's like he lost confidence that his voice was enough. And while I never expected his O2 show to be anything like his peak vocally, there were definitely ways of performing that would have been mindblowing. Shit, he only needed to talk the intro to Dont Stop 'til You Get Enough with the bass coming in and people would have gone apeshit. As for the dancing, he really could have left the hyper energetic moves to the back-up dancers and thrown a few poses and done the moonwalk and peeps would've loved it. I need to stop talking about this because it's pissing me off.

mynameisnotsusan said:

Please it's understandable

The "miming" wasn't the only thing that worked my last nerves...the frequent ten minute pauses where he'd just stand there and pose, allowing people to scream, cry and faint. Ugh. Janet does that shit too. And it seems like it drags on forevvvvver. Just sing the damn songs, man.

Riverpoet31 said:

I think you have to take into consideration the different timelines in which some people saw Michael. It always makes we wince just a lil' when some at start at the "Off the Wall" and "Thriller" albums. I saw him from 68 till the 80's .. with his brothers of course and when he was solo. At that, I've always thought his concerts with his brothers were better. I'm not sure why but it appeared (at least to me) he seem to feed off their energy and maybe it was comforting or at least less stressul to know the entire show wasn't all on his shoulders. I can't speak of what or how he preformed /sung the past twenty years and I'm sure others share the same experiences.

I do whole heartly agree however, I don't get paying top dollar to hear/see someone lip-syncing through a concert. To each his or her own and as long as the customer(s) have been informed of such... if you are willing to pay, fine.










_____
[Edited 7/19/09 5:52am]