History Tour

[R1chard]

I can't imagine going to a concert where the singer doesn't actually sing. Much less one that costs hundreds of dollars. It's totally and utterly unacceptable.

I didn't know at the time it wasn't live, so I wanted to go, but didn't.

 

[PRINCESS MJ]

Why do people say that the History Tour was his worst Tour ever if they weren't there? Please explain!

I didn't even think about this until today, but I've realized that a lot of people's criticism comes from them simply not understanding anything about being a performer at all.

They can't grasp what it was like being Michael or being someone like him because they don't know anything. Giving accurate criticism or informed opinions requires knowledge, and most people don't have any knowledge about contracts; the behind the scenes of creating shows; the experience of being a live performer on stage; going on grueling tours; or anything else that Michael had to do. They simply don't have the ability to think deeper so they can only come up with surface level opinions that lack depth.

This is why you should never listen to a person who's trying to tell you how to fly the plane; when they've never been in the cockpit a day in their life. You listen to them and, yeah, your butt is gonna crash. LMFAOO!

It's easy for folks to give their opinions on things they don't understand; and then believe in their own mind that their opinions have weight, even though they actually don't.

For example: It recently became clear to me that people don't understand that performing was Michael's JOB. I expect people who aren't productive, are unemployed, or haven't worked a day in their life to not get it; but anyone who works anywhere should be able to grasp what Michael was going through.

I'd like for anyone who critiques HWT to simply imagine any day in their life when they were SICK AS FVCK, but still had to clock in anyway. I wonder if anyone has ever experienced having to go into work while doing stuff THAT THEY HATE HAVING TO DO, and they can try to not do their job if they want, but all they'll end up doing is be at work waiting to get FIRED if they do that.

I don't know if maybe the concept is too advanced for people or something; but, the fact that Michael (THE PERFECTIONIST) went on tour with his voice sounding TERRIBLE, is a sign that he was obligated to tour against his own desires. To not be able to sing and dance at the highest quality possible always made Michael feel like he'd let the audience down, and the thought of that was something he always tried his best to avoid at all costs. Too bad for him though, that he was a human, so sh¡t happens. It's not possible to stop every hiccup or bump lol. But, that crazy man always tried anyway.

Don't listen to the opinions of people who don't actually know sh¡t about the thing that they're critiquing. Or, if you're like me and like to laugh for the giggles, you can simply listen for fun but don't take them seriously.

Michael shouldn't have been on tour at all because he was extremely under the weather, among all of the other things like his weight and the contractual obligations, but he was still putting on better shows than other folks in the industry performing at full health!

With that in mind, I give HWT grace because none of his critics out here could ever survive through what he had to. It's easy to talk mess when you've never had to do anything like that tour. A lot of the folks wouldn't even be able get into the audition stage.

There's a difference between those people who don't truly give a damn about their performances and just throw their work together for the checks having rough shows; versus Michael who was literally willing to almost die for his work in order to make it as great as he could having some. Those just aren't the same.

 

[kreen]

I've often wondered why he did not just lip sync to new pre-recorded live vocals on the History tour?

Because that would have been extra work when it wasn't needed: people still bought tickets and apparently didn't notice or mind the lip-synching. But it's lucky for MJ the HIStory tour happened before social media, because in this day and age an artist of his stature -- and known for his voice! -- could not get away with such obvious, low-effort, wall-to-wall lip-synching without some sort of backlash.

 

[8th wonder]

The reason MJ didn’t prerecord the vocals was because he thought the fans came to the show expecting the vocals to sound just like the record which would’ve been difficult to do given his age/lupus and all the dancing the fans would’ve expected. Some people prefer the amazing shows from Bad & Dangerous since they blended live vocals and dancing together and some prefer the more theatric shows with more dancing from History; just a matter of personal preference.

Would’ve been great if MJ sung live more given how great he sounded for some shows and how creative/unique the ad-libs were but the brilliant/energetic dancing alone makes the shows interesting to watch imo (love the lighting and band as well). Glad that I’ve grown to appreciate the tour more after watching all the footage since completely disregarding it would’ve significantly reduced the amount of MJ shows there are to watch.

Having the weaker shows of the tour being released contributes to the narrative of MJ’s vocals being poor and him having no energy but plenty of shows suggest otherwise. Wish Lavelle didn’t tape Basel over Bremen since it could’ve been the best show of the tour but Basel has great energy so can’t complain much and at least Kuala Lumpur is also available given it’s one of the better shows of the tour.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

I am aware.. like most of the shows we have aired on tv in different countries. But Munich was the one that was shown all the time and was used as an example of what kind of performer MJ is..

I actually remember Bucharest 92 being far more televised than Munich. Also whenever they did reruns of MJ’s show here in Sweden they either showed Gothenburg or Bucharest. It’ll be interesting to find out the extent of how much Munich 97 was shown and how much exposure it really got and in what countries.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

I’m sometimes disappointed Michael continued touring after the bad tour. He would have been one of the all time greatest live performers if he had stopped. Now imo his performing is tainted because of the two tours that followed. I’m not saying this to be controversial, it is simply my opinion about it.

He still is considered as one of the greatest live performers in the history of music. Don’t alter history.

 

[mj_frenzy]

I've often wondered why he did not just lip sync to new pre-recorded live vocals on the History tour?

It would have sounded more convincing than the actual studio tracks and at least would be more exciting hearing new vocals that sounded like they were performed live.

I agree but in a way lip-syncing to the original song is actually more genuine since it is so obviously the (well-known) recording.

And lip-syncing the original songs was/is pretty normalized, in contrast to lip-syncing new vocals, since firstly it was done more often with singers who also danced and secondly was also very common for performing on tv shows.

Even if he lip-synced to new pre-recorded live vocals on the HIStory Tour, some problems would have remained the same.

For example, while lip-syncing to new pre-recorded live vocals:

He would again try to cover his mouth with his hands/fingers.

He would again try to cover his mouth with his long hair curls.

He would again try to cover his mouth with his body posture (by leaning forward and lowering his head).

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

Even if he lip-synced to new pre-recorded live vocals on the HIStory tour, some problems would have remained the same.

For example, while lip-syncing to new pre-recorded live vocals:

He would again try to cover his mouth with his hands/fingers.

He would again try to cover his mouth with his long hair curls.

He would again try to cover his mouth with his body posture (by leaning forward and lowering his head).

Sorry I can’t help but to laugh. This reads like it was written by ChatGPT.

 

[analogue]

Just look at the opening to the Dangerous Tour compared with the HIStory Tour.

The spaceship intro looked cool but still felt very underwhelming when compared to the epic toaster intro. Also Jam is a much more exciting and energetic song to start with. Scream is fine but it just didn't have the same oomph that Jam did.

 

[filmandmusic]

He still is considered as one of the greatest live performers in the history of music. Don’t alter history.

performer yes, live singer probably not

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

performer yes, live singer probably not

The history tour doesn’t erase almost 30 years of live singing and performing since the age of 7. He has already proved himself, his talent and what he could do as a performer and a singer both on stage and on record. I’m so tired of this revisionist narrative and this topic,

 

[kai]

performer yes, live singer probably not

He sung most of his career live.

 

[filmandmusic]

The history tour doesn’t erase almost 30 years of live singing and performing since the age of 7. He has already proved himself, his talent and what he could do as a performer and a singer both on stage and on record.

It does to me. It is like a football player continuing his career when he simply doesn’t have the stamina anymore to do so. It is why some artists or athletes decide to end on a high.

I’m so tired of this revisionist narrative and this topic,

Opinions differ, you have to deal with it.

 

[Blues_Away2023]

Just look at the opening to the Dangerous Tour compared with the HIStory Tour.

The spaceship intro looked cool but still felt very underwhelming when compared to the epic toaster intro. Also Jam is a much more exciting and energetic song to start with. Scream is fine but it just didn't have the same oomph that Jam did.

Such an iconic moment.

Even today, there are artists out there using the same toaster entrance to parts of their show but don't look as cool as MJ.

 

[filmandmusic]

I personally liked the spaceship entrance more as well as the scream performance, he does some very good gliding there. Jam is a bit chaotic for me, the performance being jam packed with a best off moves list.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

It does to me. It is like a football player continuing his career when he simply doesn’t have the stamina anymore to do so. It is why some artists or athletes decide to end on a high.

Opinions differ, you have to deal with it.

Your logic is absolutely flawed. Let’s break it down by first looking at the sports analogy:

Saying the History Tour diminished his legacy is like claiming Messi’s achievements doesn’t matter anymore just because he now plays for Inter Miami and is no longer a top contender for the Ballon d'Or. Messi's legacy as one of the greatest footballers of all time is already cemented because of his entire body of work—his years at Barcelona, winning multiple Ballon d'Ors, and leading Argentina to victory. Similarly, Michael’s legacy as one of the greatest live performers can't be erased by a tour impacted by health issues. His decades of groundbreaking live performances, innovation in music and dance, live singing and his influence on the industry are what define his greatness, not just a brief period in his career where he couldn't perform exactly as he did in his prime. The greatness of an artist or athlete is measured by their entire career, not just the later stages when they may not be at their physical peak."

Your opinion is anchored in confirmation bias by selectively using a small strata of data to confirm the narrative that you have settled with which does not correlate with the overall consensus when it comes to MJ as an artist. Your claim that Michael’s later performances “tainted” his legacy reflects a revisionist narrative. The overwhelming consensus among fans, critics, and music historians is that Michael Jackson remains one of the greatest live performers of all time. Just because one part of his career was affected by health issues does not invalidate the entire body of his work. MJ had nearly 30 years of live performance experience under his belt, where he sang and danced at an elite level. To focus only on his later years while ignoring the vast majority of his career is intellectually dishonest and skews the narrative.

MJ’s legacy is a combination of his innovation in dance, his singing, his artistry in music, and his ability to mesmerize an audience, regardless of the degree to which he lipsynched in his later years.

 

[filmandmusic]

Your logic is absolutely flawed. Let’s break it down by first looking at the sports analogy:

Saying the History Tour diminished his legacy is like claiming Messi’s achievements doesn’t matter anymore just because he now plays for Inter Miami and is no longer a top contender for the Ballon d'Or. Messi's legacy as one of the greatest footballers of all time is already cemented because of his entire body of work—his years at Barcelona, winning multiple Ballon d'Ors, and leading Argentina to victory. Similarly, Michael’s legacy as one of the greatest live performers can't be erased by a tour impacted by health issues. His decades of groundbreaking live performances, innovation in music and dance, live singing and his influence on the industry are what define his greatness, not just a brief period in his career where he couldn't perform exactly as he did in his prime. The greatness of an artist or athlete is measured by their entire career, not just the later stages when they may not be at their physical peak."

You couldn’t have picked a worse player to make your point. Messi still plays at the highest level otherwise Argentina would not have win the world cup and the Copa America. Messi at the world cup was simply incredible.
A better player would be Wayne Rooney who shone very bright for a number of years and then continued playing like an amateur when he should have called it quits long before.
There is also no need to bring up influence or dance when I’m exclusively talking about his live singing ability.

Your opinion is anchored in confirmation bias by selectively using a small strata of data to confirm the narrative

Perhaps but it is also practically the only era where several audio and video files exist of. When random people youtube MJ live most they get is HIStory tour footage. I’m pretty sure they would not understand what the fuzz is about when they finally realize he isn’t actually singing.

Your claim that Michael’s later performances “tainted” his legacy reflects a revisionist narrative.

It is not, it is my opinion. Over the years I grew to hate these performance, I didn’t even like them live when I saw him twice on the HIStory tour. I was simply not impressed because I heard the same voice from the albums.

The overwhelming consensus among fans, critics, and music historians is that Michael Jackson remains one of the greatest live performers of all time.

source?

Just because one part of his career was affected by health issues does not invalidate the entire body of his work. MJ had nearly 30 years of live performance experience under his belt, where he sang and danced at an elite level.

Sure but where can we judge it when it is widely unavailable?

To focus only on his later years while ignoring the vast majority of his career is intellectually dishonest and skews the narrative.

I’m not ignoring the vast majority of his career, in fact I am ignoring just the mid 90s till early 2000s.

MJ’s legacy is a combination of his innovation in dance, his singing, his artistry in music, and his ability to mesmerize an audience, regardless of the degree to which he lipsynched in his later years.

It is still very disappointing to see a high profile artist mime this much. He would get massacred on social media and rightly so. I don’t understand what part of performing “live” he didn’t get. He did a playback show, something impersonators do to get some pennies in the street but us fans payed big money for something phoney. If you go to a 5 star hotel and get a 3 star treatment you will be disappointed about the money you dissed out too.

Anyway we’re going to run around in circles here, there is no way I can change your mind and there is no way way you can change mine and I have absolutely no interest in this becoming a fight so here is where I leave it.

 

[Blues_Away2023]

Whilst I'm not keen on the History tour, I wouldn't say it necessarily hurts his legacy. As a fan, I extremely dislike the amount of playback used on it and that's my biggest issue.

He wasn't as electric and he was almost approaching 40 so the slower dancing was to be expected. The live vocals we did hear were atrocious.

It's a bloody disgrace we never got to hear him sing a song like Stranger in Moscow or even You are not alone live?

At the VMA's 95 the mic was turned on at the end of YANA and he sounded amazing , that was my fave part.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

You couldn’t have picked a worse player to make your point. Messi still plays at the highest level otherwise Argentina would not have win the world cup and the Copa America. Messi at the world cup was simply incredible.
A better player would be Wayne Rooney who shone very bright for a number of years and then continued playing like an amateur when he should have called it quits long before.
There is also no need to bring up influence or dance when I’m exclusively talking about his live singing ability.

Perhaps but it is also practically the only era where several audio and video files exist of. When random people youtube MJ live most they get is HIStory tour footage. I’m pretty sure they would not understand what the fuzz is about when they finally realize he isn’t actually singing.

It is not, it is my opinion. Over the years I grew to hate these performance, I didn’t even like them live when I saw him twice on the HIStory tour. I was simply not impressed because I heard the same voice from the albums.


source?

Sure but where can we judge it when it is widely unavailable?

I’m not ignoring the vast majority of his career, in fact I am ignoring just the mid 90s till early 2000s.

It is still very disappointing to see a high profile artist mime this much. He would get massacred on social media and rightly so. I don’t understand what part of performing “live” he didn’t get. He did a playback show, something impersonators do to get some pennies in the street but us fans payed big money for something phoney. If you go to a 5 star hotel and get a 3 star treatment you will be disappointed about the money you dissed out too.

Anyway we’re going to run around in circles here, there is no way I can change your mind and there is no way way you can change mine and I have absolutely no interest in this becoming a fight so here is where I leave it.

Regarding point nr 1:

You said I couldn’t have picked a worse player, but your argument actually supports my point. You reference Messi's recent World Cup win, but you're focusing on a specific success while ignoring that his best years, physically speaking, were behind him. Messi no longer runs the same distance, makes as many sprints, or plays with the same intensity he did a decade ago. Despite this, his contribution on the field is still invaluable, and that’s the essence of my point. You don't measure greatness solely by peak physicality or whether someone is still at the "highest level" at all times. Messi has evolved as a player, much like MJ did as a performer. The comparison with Wayne Rooney doesn’t work because Rooney’s decline was tied to a lack of effectiveness and impact, while MJ, even in his later years, continued to captivate audiences with his stage presence, choreography, and overall showmanship. He adjusted based on his physical constraints but didn’t become ‘amateurish’ as you implied with Rooney.

Regarding point nr 2:
ou mention I shouldn’t bring up his influence or dance because you’re exclusively talking about his live singing ability, but that’s an incomplete evaluation of MJ as a performer. His legacy was built on much more than just his vocal performance. It was the combination of his dance, music, visuals, and stagecraft. MJ was a performer in the truest sense, not just a singer. Evaluating him purely on live vocals strips away the context that made him an all-time great. Michael innovated live shows, creating experiences that very few artists have ever matched, even if parts of it were lip-synced. Dismissing the totality of what he offered his audiences is like criticizing an action movie for using special effects to enhance the experience. It doesn’t make the movie any less thrilling. Remember that you're making the argument that his legacy as an artist has become "tainted".

I understand your disappointment with the lip-syncing, but let's put it in context. Artists like Beyoncé, Britney Spears, Madonna, and even Whitney Houston at times used lip-syncing in their performances, yet their legacies remain intact. Lip-syncing, especially in large-scale productions with intricate choreography, doesn’t diminish an artist's ability to captivate and move an audience. MJ wasn’t the only artist doing this, but what separated him from the rest was that even when he wasn't singing every note live, he gave fans a performance that no one else could replicate his energy, showmanship, and presence were unmatched. No one went to a Michael Jackson show expecting just live vocals, they went for the entire experience. And MJ always delivered an experience that few, if any, could match.

Your 5 star hotel analogy also doesn’t work. People who went to MJ’s concerts weren’t just paying for the vocals. They were paying for the total performance, the choreography, the production value, the entertainment. And MJ, even in his later years, still provided that at a level no impersonator or street performer could ever hope to achieve.

Regarding Point nr 2 about sources:
The claim that MJ is widely regarded as one of the greatest live performers is not a niche opinion, but a well-documented fact, supported by decades of critical acclaim, awards, and fan devotion. For example, Michael received numerous awards throughout his career for his live performances, including MTV’s Video Vanguard Award (1988), multiple Billboard Touring Awards, and recognition from institutions like the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, where he was inducted twice, once with The Jackson 5 and once as a solo artist. His tours, such as the Bad Tour, were praised by critics globally. Major publications like The New York Times hailed it as a groundbreaking mix of spectacle and raw performance power. Rolling Stone and other major outlets consistently ranked his concerts as some of the best in history. Beyond critical recognition, Michael holds the Guinness World Record for the most successful concert series, with the Bad Tour drawing over 4.4 million attendees across 123 shows. The Dangerous and History tours continued to sell out stadiums around the world, which speaks to the massive demand for his live performances, despite any physical limitations MJ faced later in his career. Numerous artists, including Beyoncé, Justin Timberlake, Usher, Chris Brown, and Madonna (even his peers) have openly cited Michael as a key influence on their live performances, frequently referring to him as the greatest live performer they had ever seen. When we talk about Michael being regarded as one of the greatest live performers, it’s a fact that’s deeply ingrained in popular culture. It’s similar to stating that the Beatles were revolutionary in music, this is something universally acknowledged, not dependent on one particular source or opinion. His contributions and legacy are supported by decades of historical significance and influence, as well as recognition from both critics and fans.

I can also provide specific articles or reviews, but hte recognition of Michael Jackson as an iconic live performer doesn’t rely on any single source. It's a matter of public record, documented through the massive impact he made across several decades of performances, sold-out tours, and cultural influence. This status is widely recognized in critic reviews, documentaries, award shows, and pop culture alike. This is the first time I encounter a fan, on a fanboard dedicated to MJ, asking this question.

Regarding the last few points:

You argue that the HIStory era is what people mostly find when they search for Michael Jackson on YouTube. That’s true for today’s generation, but it’s a skewed perspective. People who care enough to understand MJ’s career have countless other tours and performances to draw from. If someone only watches one tour and forms an opinion, that’s not Michael's fault, but a lack of research. The Bad Tour alone, for example, is a masterclass in live performance. You can’t reasonably dismiss an entire career based on one or two eras. You’re focusing on this later period while ignoring the overwhelming body of work that established MJ’s greatness, and here is also where you veer into revisionist terrority. While you’re entitled to dislike the later performances, that’s a personal preference, it becomes revisionist when you argue that this “taints” his legacy. Your personal opinion doesn't change the objective fact that MJ is globally regarded as one of the greatest performers in history. Disliking something doesn’t erase its historical significance. You’re right that opinions can’t be changed, but opinions don’t override the broader, established narrative of his greatness.

You’re right that neither of us will change our minds, but it’s not about "winning’ an argument." It’s about understanding the full scope of a performer’s legacy. MJ’s later performances may not have been for you, and that’s fine. But to argue that these later years somehow 'taint' his legacy is where I strongly disagree. His body of work, his influence, and his impact as a performer are so vast that they transcend any one tour or period of time.

 

[filmandmusic]

@Themidwestcowboy

Just wanting to let you know I read your last reaction out of respect. You haven’t gotten me convinced but I respect your view on the matter and it is probably more nuanced than I will ever be. I am a harsh critic because I know what he was capable or maybe my fantasy was just unrealistic.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Sorry I can’t help but to laugh. This reads like it was written by ChatGPT.

Yet, you seem to agree with that post of mine.

Just look at the opening to the Dangerous Tour compared with the HIStory Tour.

The spaceship intro looked cool but still felt very underwhelming when compared to the epic toaster intro. Also Jam is a much more exciting and energetic song to start with. Scream is fine but it just didn't have the same oomph that Jam did.

There is a storyline behind the spaceship intro that should be taken into account.

The spaceship emerges from beneath the stage because it had just crash landed (as shown in the video segment).

Also, there is a continuation that connects the end of each Dangerous concert with the start of each HIStory concert (Michael Jackson flies off the stage on a jetpack, and then he lands on the stage via a spaceship).

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

@Themidwestcowboy

Just wanting to let you know I read your last reaction out of respect. You haven’t gotten me convinced but I respect your view on the matter and it is probably more nuanced than I will ever be. I am a harsh critic because I know what he was capable or maybe my fantasy was just unrealistic.

No problem at all. This is a dicussion forum after all and that's the beauty of it, we all have our own opinions and beliefs and I too can be quite hard headed sometimes.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

Yet, you seem to agree with that post of mine.

Yeah. I do agree that Munich 97 should not act as the representative for the History Tour, so imo it's a good thing the dvd was cancelled.

 

[SeeingVoices]

performer yes, live singer probably not

There are many live vocalists who trump Michael in that department (even in his prime). I don't think he'd make the top 20 list of live vocalists tbh.

 

[Blues_Away2023]

There are many live vocalists who trump Michael in that department (even in his prime). I don't think he'd make the top 20 list of live vocalists tbh.

When I was younger I used to think Michael was the best live singer I ever heard in my life, it's only as I grew up and my taste in music evolved and expanded beyond MJ that I realised there was better live singers out there.

MJ is still my number 1 by a massive margin though, his overall stage presence and the way he performed trumps them all.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

When I was younger I used to think Michael was the best live singer I ever heard in my life, it's only as I grew up and my taste in music evolved and expanded beyond MJ that I realised there was better live singers out there.

MJ is still my number 1 by a massive margin though, his overall stage presence and the way he performed trumps them all.

I had quite literally the same experience as you. It’s funny how music tastes expand and evolves throughout the years.

 

[MonkeyCheater]

There are many live vocalists who trump Michael in that department (even in his prime). I don't think he'd make the top 20 list of live vocalists tbh.

That is an honest expression that will probably offend the more close minded fans here who think MJ was the best and biggest at everything.

Personally, I am inclined to think MJ was a world class live vocalist in the 70s and 80s, and demonstrated incredible vocal abilities when considering his dancing. But even at his peak, to your point, could he be considered one of the very best live vocalist of all time? Realistically, no.

 

[MonkeyCheater]

Whilst I'm not keen on the History tour, I wouldn't say it necessarily hurts his legacy. As a fan, I extremely dislike the amount of playback used on it and that's my biggest issue.

He wasn't as electric and he was almost approaching 40 so the slower dancing was to be expected. The live vocals we did hear were atrocious.

It's a bloody disgrace we never got to hear him sing a song like Stranger in Moscow or even You are not alone live?

At the VMA's 95 the mic was turned on at the end of YANA and he sounded amazing , that was my fave part.

The HIStory tour certainly does not destroy MJ’s legacy, BUT it must surely hurt his reputation as a live performer, especially for many younger generations who probably find HIStory tour clips on YouTube more than clips from the Bad or Dangerous tour.

Youtube users when searching for MJ live clips will come across HIStoury tour footage and they will find clips of a man who is a great dancer, but that is something they already know from the promo videos they find of his on YouTube. But they will not appreciate that at his peak, he was capable of more than just some dance moves, but also incredibly energetic truly live performances (as per his earlier tours).

i do think fans and much of the wider public from the pre internet age may have more appreciation of MJ as a live vocalist and performer from the Bucharest broadcast (which was huge), and also promo videos like APOM and the opening of Moonwalker.

 

[MegaMix12”]

Regarding point nr 1:

You said I couldn’t have picked a worse player, but your argument actually supports my point. You reference Messi's recent World Cup win, but you're focusing on a specific success while ignoring that his best years, physically speaking, were behind him. Messi no longer runs the same distance, makes as many sprints, or plays with the same intensity he did a decade ago. Despite this, his contribution on the field is still invaluable, and that’s the essence of my point. You don't measure greatness solely by peak physicality or whether someone is still at the "highest level" at all times. Messi has evolved as a player, much like MJ did as a performer. The comparison with Wayne Rooney doesn’t work because Rooney’s decline was tied to a lack of effectiveness and impact, while MJ, even in his later years, continued to captivate audiences with his stage presence, choreography, and overall showmanship. He adjusted based on his physical constraints but didn’t become ‘amateurish’ as you implied with Rooney.

Regarding point nr 2:
ou mention I shouldn’t bring up his influence or dance because you’re exclusively talking about his live singing ability, but that’s an incomplete evaluation of MJ as a performer. His legacy was built on much more than just his vocal performance. It was the combination of his dance, music, visuals, and stagecraft. MJ was a performer in the truest sense, not just a singer. Evaluating him purely on live vocals strips away the context that made him an all-time great. Michael innovated live shows, creating experiences that very few artists have ever matched, even if parts of it were lip-synced. Dismissing the totality of what he offered his audiences is like criticizing an action movie for using special effects to enhance the experience. It doesn’t make the movie any less thrilling. Remember that you're making the argument that his legacy as an artist has become "tainted".

I understand your disappointment with the lip-syncing, but let's put it in context. Artists like Beyoncé, Britney Spears, Madonna, and even Whitney Houston at times used lip-syncing in their performances, yet their legacies remain intact. Lip-syncing, especially in large-scale productions with intricate choreography, doesn’t diminish an artist's ability to captivate and move an audience. MJ wasn’t the only artist doing this, but what separated him from the rest was that even when he wasn't singing every note live, he gave fans a performance that no one else could replicate his energy, showmanship, and presence were unmatched. No one went to a Michael Jackson show expecting just live vocals, they went for the entire experience. And MJ always delivered an experience that few, if any, could match.

Your 5 star hotel analogy also doesn’t work. People who went to MJ’s concerts weren’t just paying for the vocals. They were paying for the total performance, the choreography, the production value, the entertainment. And MJ, even in his later years, still provided that at a level no impersonator or street performer could ever hope to achieve.

Regarding Point nr 2 about sources:
The claim that MJ is widely regarded as one of the greatest live performers is not a niche opinion, but a well-documented fact, supported by decades of critical acclaim, awards, and fan devotion. For example, Michael received numerous awards throughout his career for his live performances, including MTV’s Video Vanguard Award (1988), multiple Billboard Touring Awards, and recognition from institutions like the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, where he was inducted twice, once with The Jackson 5 and once as a solo artist. His tours, such as the Bad Tour, were praised by critics globally. Major publications like The New York Times hailed it as a groundbreaking mix of spectacle and raw performance power. Rolling Stone and other major outlets consistently ranked his concerts as some of the best in history. Beyond critical recognition, Michael holds the Guinness World Record for the most successful concert series, with the Bad Tour drawing over 4.4 million attendees across 123 shows. The Dangerous and History tours continued to sell out stadiums around the world, which speaks to the massive demand for his live performances, despite any physical limitations MJ faced later in his career. Numerous artists, including Beyoncé, Justin Timberlake, Usher, Chris Brown, and Madonna (even his peers) have openly cited Michael as a key influence on their live performances, frequently referring to him as the greatest live performer they had ever seen. When we talk about Michael being regarded as one of the greatest live performers, it’s a fact that’s deeply ingrained in popular culture. It’s similar to stating that the Beatles were revolutionary in music, this is something universally acknowledged, not dependent on one particular source or opinion. His contributions and legacy are supported by decades of historical significance and influence, as well as recognition from both critics and fans.

I can also provide specific articles or reviews, but hte recognition of Michael Jackson as an iconic live performer doesn’t rely on any single source. It's a matter of public record, documented through the massive impact he made across several decades of performances, sold-out tours, and cultural influence. This status is widely recognized in critic reviews, documentaries, award shows, and pop culture alike. This is the first time I encounter a fan, on a fanboard dedicated to MJ, asking this question.

Regarding the last few points:

You argue that the HIStory era is what people mostly find when they search for Michael Jackson on YouTube. That’s true for today’s generation, but it’s a skewed perspective. People who care enough to understand MJ’s career have countless other tours and performances to draw from. If someone only watches one tour and forms an opinion, that’s not Michael's fault, but a lack of research. The Bad Tour alone, for example, is a masterclass in live performance. You can’t reasonably dismiss an entire career based on one or two eras. You’re focusing on this later period while ignoring the overwhelming body of work that established MJ’s greatness, and here is also where you veer into revisionist terrority. While you’re entitled to dislike the later performances, that’s a personal preference, it becomes revisionist when you argue that this “taints” his legacy. Your personal opinion doesn't change the objective fact that MJ is globally regarded as one of the greatest performers in history. Disliking something doesn’t erase its historical significance. You’re right that opinions can’t be changed, but opinions don’t override the broader, established narrative of his greatness.

You’re right that neither of us will change our minds, but it’s not about "winning’ an argument." It’s about understanding the full scope of a performer’s legacy. MJ’s later performances may not have been for you, and that’s fine. But to argue that these later years somehow 'taint' his legacy is where I strongly disagree. His body of work, his influence, and his impact as a performer are so vast that they transcend any one tour or period of time.

This discussion was brilliant. Thanks to both of you. You made some great points that I really appreciate.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

That is an honest expression that will probably offend the more close minded fans here who think MJ was the best and biggest at everything.

Personally, I am inclined to think MJ was a world class live vocalist in the 70s and 80s, and demonstrated incredible vocal abilities when considering his dancing. But even at his peak, to your point, could he be considered one of the very best live vocalist of all time? Realistically, no.

This is an interesting discussion that has many layers. Let’s tackle this.

I’ll start of by saying my that among my favorite live singers of all time, and in no order, are:

Whitney Houston
Luther Vandross
James Brown
Trent D’arby
MJ
Prince
Stevie Wonder
Steve Perry
Karen Carpenter

Now looking at this list it’s a very diverse group of artists. Each artist excels in different things. You have Whitney who is a power house vocalist. There wasn’t nothing she couldn’t do with her voice. A once in a lifetime singer imo. But I also have James Brown, who was a completely different singer than Whitney. He invented his own style of singing but could carry tunes effortlessly. The same for Prince. imo Prince didn’t have the greatest voice, compared to other artist in this list but he used his instrument effectively, putting his freakishly wide vocal range into use. We also have Karen Carpenter who had a very soft and pure tone. She wasn’t belting or doing vocal acrobatics such as Stevie for example or Whitney or even MJ, but her tone and the way she used her voice was second to none imo.

What am I trying to say with all of this? Everyone rates singers differently depending on what they prefer. A person who likes Rnb and gospel music might have Stevie or Whitney as their nr 1 or let’s say Mariah Carey, but a person that likes pop or soft rock may have Karen Carpenter as their nr 1. A good technical singer possesses breath control, pitch accuracy, vocal range, diction, tone quality, resonance and projection, agility and flexibility, dynamic control, vibrato control, posture and alignment, consistency, and vocal health. So If we’re talking about purely on a technical level, MJ excelled in those categories, especially in his childhood up to the 80s, so in my humble opinion MJ does deserve a spot high on this list.

Who are your top live singers?