BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion [Closed] please cont. discussion in BAD25 Announcement thread

[maviefly]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Just as a reminder: BAD was originally conceived as an 3-LP album.
Also: Some songs were reworked with Rodney Jerkins.

There's a lot to choose from for an 25th anniversary...

I hope you're right

I also hope they let the original songs untouched.

 

[Mj4ever23]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Just as a reminder: BAD was originally conceived as an 3-LP album.
Also: Some songs were reworked with Rodney Jerkins.

There's a lot to choose from for an 25th anniversary...

Cheater 2001, Chicago 1945
Wow!

 

[Galactus123]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Wembley, Rome or MSG please

L.A. 89 too

 

[T.N.A.]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Also: Some songs were reworked with Rodney Jerkins.

That's right. They reworked those tracks back when the two were working on Invincible, right?

I think it was Cheater, Chicago 1945 and Get Around (?), correct me if I'm wrong on that last one.

Either way, I'd love to hear those versions, but also the original versions from the Bad sessions. They just have so much material here from the Bad session, I hope we get as much of it as possible.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

That's right. They reworked those tracks back when the two were working on Invincible, right?

I think it was Cheater, Chicago 1945 and Get Around (?), correct me if I'm wrong on that last one.

Either way, I'd love to hear those versions, but also the original versions from the Bad sessions. They just have so much material here from the Bad session, I hope we get as much of it as possible.

You are right. Those are the 3 songs re-worked in 2000 for the Invincible album.

 

[GreenEyes]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Sony Music is going ALL out for the 25th anniversary of Paul Simon's Graceland.

Considering what we already know, surely they will do at least the same for Michael's BAD25.

25th ANNIVERSARY OF PAUL SIMON'S GRACELAND CELEBRATED WITH THEATRICAL SCREENINGS AND PRIMETIME TELEVISION SPECIAL OF "UNDER AFRICAN SKIES" DOCUMENTARY; RELEASE OF 25TH ANNIVERSARY EDITIONS: CD/DVD, BOX SET, VINYL AND BLU-RAY DISC​

"Under African Skies," New Documentary About Graceland From Two-Time Emmy, Peabody Award Winner And Oscar Nominated Filmmaker Joe Berlinger​

A Premiere Television Event on A&E Following Limited Theatrical Run

http://www.legacyrecordings.com/new...5th-anniversary-editions-be-released-june-5th

http://www.paulsimon.com/us/graceland25
​

​

This makes me feel more optimistic for a theatrical release. If they are doing it for Paul Simon, why would they not do it for Michael Jackson?? That would make no sense not to capitalize on the demand by his worldwide fans.

 

[GreenEyes]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

 

[mj58smooth]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

:woohoo: MICHAEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *faints*

 

[Zakk]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

The Bad Tour 1988 defines the legacy of the BAD Album in my opinion, 103 concerts were performed during the second leg from February 23rd 88' in Kansas City and ended January 27th 89' in Los Angeles, California. Just to have one of these wonderful concerts in my Michael Jackson collection would be a dream come true. I know all of the fans desire this footage as we have been demanding it since August 2005, sony please make my dreams come true. Thank you.

 

[muhammed]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

I Hope they release MSG 1988 ON VHS

 

[Lucilla]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

This makes me feel more optimistic for a theatrical release. If they are doing it for Paul Simon, why would they not do it for Michael Jackson?? That would make no sense not to capitalize on the demand by his worldwide fans.

and Nothing would make more sense than to have Bad Tour in theaters, NOTHING!

 

[Rudolf]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Just wondering, did michael perform The way you make me feel & Man in the mirror on the July 14th concert at wembley stadium in 1988 in front of 72,000 screaming fans?

Yeah, he always performed those songs except few Spain shows I think and one Gothenburg night. (if I remember correctly)

 

[Zakk]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Bad Tour 1988 on Blu-Ray/DVD & in cinemas would seriously be a dream come true for me so please wet our appetites and give us this incredible tour. also I am very excited indeed to hear Don't Be Messin' Around from the BAD recording sessions I hope they don't mess with it I'm sure they won't as streetwalker and fly away were released untouched on the 2001 special edition I also would love to hear more unreleased BAD songs too.

 

[Zakk]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Yeah, he always performed those songs except few Spain shows I think and one Gothenburg night. (if I remember correctly)

thanks man

 

[dam2040]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

That'd be amazing, but I doubt they'll release 9 unreleased songs total

Why not? SC could have the early demo and so could TWYMMF.

 

[Rudolf]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

You must compare the DVD/Blu Ray containing the recordings from the source having the same quality. Bear in mind that both DVD and blu ray are digital. As I said earlier of course blu ray is always better than DVD, but you start noticing it with your bare eyes only from the moment the picture gets too much stretched for the DVD (which means on big screens).

Well that's obvious. I have myself DVDs and Blu-Rays of same movie, for example, Lord Of The Rings which I love.
But what I certainly like more about Blu-Rays is that they remaster them properly. I'm talking about rather old footages from 70s & 80s right now. Some DVD releases are really crappy. Plus with Blu-Ray is that it's always gonna be great quality while some DVDs can be quite crappy made. Obviously, not all cases, but some really do. Some old footage DVDs have artifacts like on VHS. Blu-Ray never is gonna have that. Cause it's new transfer, or remaster, whatever it is. It's just more ''real''. Obviously, it also matters if footage was shot on film or just crappy video format but still, I expect great quality for official release in all cases. I'm not talking now about how DVDs & BRs look on different sized screens, but how better BR is just in itself. Hands off to Moonwalker DVD. It's just amazing DVD quality. That's what I expect from DVDs. And even old footages shot on video can be remastered well, but too bad most don't do that and just leave crappy old video transfers that looks like VHS.

Official DVD release (crappy done. looks just like VHS lol. they could have easily made it better with paying more money for restoring and fresh transfer) -

Official Blu-Ray release (screenshots resized. while in screens above you can easily notice it's a video, here it looks almost like real life even though i resized them almost to DVD resolution. this is what i would LOVE to see Michael in. he deserves a quality like this) -

 

[thiron]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

also I am very excited indeed to hear Don't Be Messin' Around from the BAD recording sessions I hope they don't mess with it.

At least MJ was smart enough to name his song "don't be messin' around"^^

 

[Rudolf]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

both DVD and blu ray can have the same audio quality.

I think DTS-HD Master Audio wasn't for DVDs, was it?

I thought blu ray wasnt only about image quality but also about a better audio quality, am I wrong?

You're wrong. It's firstly about TON better video quality which looks almost like real life compared to usual video. (not talking about goood DVD transfers for people who watch it on small screen, yes, it's gonna look good in that case, Bumper )

 

[Rudolf]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

I ask because some of the crowd shots in the Another Part of Me video seem to be out doors door the afternoon and I certainly don't want an outside concert shot during the day.

Why? It gets dark towards end of concert so for me it's ok.

 

[Rudolf]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

It would be cool if there would be like 3 concerts released and then additional DVD & Blu-Ray called ''Live BAD''. That means it's the full concert but its edited and mixed like each song from other city - performance plus ton of extras in bonus

 

[Zakk]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

It would be cool if there would be like 3 concerts released and then additional DVD & Blu-Ray called ''Live BAD''. That means it's the full concert but its edited and mixed like each song from other city - performance plus ton of extras in bonus

I wouldn't like that, and the reason is because I want to see one full concert from one day/and or night, my peticular choice for the possible Blu-Ray/DVD would be Live in Wembley. I just hope they don't dissapoint us and don't release any concert at all, all the fans want it and I'm excited to see what they have in store for us with this anniversary.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

That'd be amazing, but I doubt they'll release 9 unreleased songs total

10.

In some countries Speed Demon single was released too, back then. So that makes it a total of 10 out of 11.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Just as a reminder: BAD was originally conceived as an 3-LP album.
Also: Some songs were reworked with Rodney Jerkins.

There's a lot to choose from for an 25th anniversary...

According to Quincy Jones MJ was working on 66 songs for BAD and wanted a double LP.

 

[Rudolf]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

I wouldn't like that, and the reason is because I want to see one full concert from one day/and or night, my peticular choice for the possible Blu-Ray/DVD would be Live in Wembley. I just hope they don't dissapoint us and don't release any concert at all, all the fans want it and I'm excited to see what they have in store for us with this anniversary.

It would be cool if there would be like 3 concerts released AND THEN additional DVD & Blu-Ray called ''Live BAD''. That means it's the full concert but its edited and mixed like each song from other city - performance plus ton of extras in bonus

:big_boss:

 

[Zakk]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

:big_boss:

yeah, sorry I read it wrong. which 3 concerts would you want to be released? I want MSG, Wembley and L.A but any concert would please me i just hope Sony give it to us.

 

[Zakk]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Audio Snippet from Working day and night live in Wembley July 14th silver mic concert.

 

[Rudolf]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

yeah, sorry I read it wrong. which 3 concerts would you want to be released? I want MSG, Wembley and L.A but any concert would please i just hope Sony give it to us.

I'd like Wembley July 16, MSG March 3, LA last night January 27 and Rotterdam June 5.

 

[T.N.A.]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Official DVD release (crappy done. looks just like VHS lol. they could have easily made it better with paying more money for restoring and fresh transfer) -

Official Blu-Ray release (screenshots resized. while in screens above you can easily notice it's a video, here it looks almost like real life even though i resized them almost to DVD resolution. this is what i would LOVE to see Michael in. he deserves a quality like this) -

Well, of course there's a big difference between these two. First of all, Live at The Bowl - Milton Keynes '82 wasn't shot on 35mm, while Montreal '81 was.

For example, Wembley '86 wasn't shot on 35mm either, and the quality of it even more 'awful' than Live at The Bowl. Live at The Bowl isn't that awful actually, comparing it to Wembley '86. Sure, with a little bit of extra work on it, it might have looked better buy screw that, the main point of Queen's live releases are for the... live music (you guessed it!). The video quality doesn't really matter that much as long as the audio is good. I mean, I'd rather hear Roger bang his drums like an animal in good quality, than seeing his dimples in HD or hear Freddie sing his ass off on songs like Dragon Attack, rather than seeing the detail in his mustache.

Montreal '81 was the more 'cinematic' release they had. They had to have at least one Blu-Ray release too, right? (OT: Hopefully they'll release Hammersmith '79 and '75, Earls Court '77 and Hyde Park '76 on Blu-Ray too, but as far as I know, only Hammersmith '79 has a better chance for a Blu-Ray. Still, if they're release live albums of those concerts that'd be amazing too and I wouldn't complain one bit.)

With live releases you have to focus on what's more important for that specific artist/band. If it's the music, you might as well release a live album and not even bother with a Blu-Ray. If it's a very important concert and whatnot, sure make a DVD/Blu-Ray or whatever for it, but the music is what matter the most for say, Queen.

With Michael it's a whole different story. His concerts had a lot of impressive visual effects and whatnot and the visuals were a big part of his shows, while Queen mainly focused on what a rock band usually focuses more, the music.

So a Blu-Ray is indeed very important for an MJ release, obviously, and I hope we get one soon. Hopefully of Wembley or LA.

PS: In the interview Steve Stevens did a few weeks ago he said how he and Michael talked about concerts and how Michael told him he wanted to do a lot of visual stuff for his upcoming Bad Tour after he saw Queen do some visual stuff for their Magic Tour in '86. Michael was of course a big Queen fan.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Well that's obvious. I have myself DVDs and Blu-Rays of same movie, for example, Lord Of The Rings which I love.
But what I certainly like more about Blu-Rays is that they remaster them properly. I'm talking about rather old footages from 70s & 80s right now. Some DVD releases are really crappy. Plus with Blu-Ray is that it's always gonna be great quality while some DVDs can be quite crappy made. Obviously, not all cases, but some really do. Some old footage DVDs have artifacts like on VHS. Blu-Ray never is gonna have that. Cause it's new transfer, or remaster, whatever it is. It's just more ''real''. Obviously, it also matters if footage was shot on film or just crappy video format but still, I expect great quality for official release in all cases. I'm not talking now about how DVDs & BRs look on different sized screens, but how better BR is just in itself. Hands off to Moonwalker DVD. It's just amazing DVD quality. That's what I expect from DVDs. And even old footages shot on video can be remastered well, but too bad most don't do that and just leave crappy old video transfers that looks like VHS.

Official DVD release (crappy done. looks just like VHS lol. they could have easily made it better with paying more money for restoring and fresh transfer) -

Official Blu-Ray release (screenshots resized. while in screens above you can easily notice it's a video, here it looks almost like real life even though i resized them almost to DVD resolution. this is what i would LOVE to see Michael in. he deserves a quality like this) -

I think DTS-HD Master Audio wasn't for DVDs, was it?



You're wrong. It's firstly about TON better video quality which looks almost like real life compared to usual video. (not talking about goood DVD transfers for people who watch it on small screen, yes, it's gonna look good in that case, Bumper )

Blu Ray is of course the best there is.

Just a little thing to remember. DVD and blu ray use exactly the same technology - the digital one. This means that no matter if you transfer the data to the blu ray or to the dvd, in both cases you'll get exactly the same result -- the digital one. (it's like downloading mp3, it doesn't matter on which computer you download, there is no loss of info, contrary to VHS technology prone to have losses of info when transferring data). This means the DVD will never be of VHS quality. This only means that DVD's capacity of storage (and automatically it means of quality of picture thanks to the higher number of pixels and more space for the sound encoding-decoding) is smaller than blu ray's. Blu rays have bigger capacity of storage not thanks to the disc which is of the same size as a dvd, but thanks to the ray that is reading it. Blu ray's ray is much more thinner than the dvd's ray, but they share both the same digital technology.

The bottom line, in any case, it is highly important that the source is of high quality so that that very source of high quality can be digitally cloned on hopefully blu-ray (which is able to display a higher number of pixels = better picture)

And if they do release this, I hope they make a 9.1 dts with high resolution of the picture. Which means that we fans should get big screens with blu ray players and 9 loudseakers and a subwoofer in order to fully enjoy the product.


p.s. wooden loudspeakers are the best (better than the plastic ones).

 

[Rudolf]

Re: BAD 25 - 2012 - General Discussion Thread

Well, of course there's a big difference between these two. First of all, Live at The Bowl - Milton Keynes '82 wasn't shot on 35mm, while Montreal '81 was.

For example, Wembley '86 wasn't shot on 35mm either, and the quality of it even more 'awful' than Live at The Bowl. Live at The Bowl isn't that awful actually, comparing it to Wembley '86. Sure, with a little bit of extra work on it, it might have looked better buy screw that, the main point of Queen's live releases are for the... live music (you guessed it!). The video quality doesn't really matter that much as long as the audio is good. I mean, I'd rather hear Roger bang his drums like an animal in good quality, than seeing his dimples in HD or hear Freddie sing his ass off on songs like Dragon Attack, rather than seeing the detail in his mustache.

Problem is, that if they only put more effort and money in it, they can make a DVD release look awesome even if it was shot just on video. They don't in most cases obviously.