Latest on MJJC

History Tour

For all its multitude of sins and the one which we fans love to lament about the ‘live singing’ ( I’ll get onto that in a minute as to why that doesn’t bother me the least bit) - I find myself watching history tour footage much more than any other tour - it really brought the more mature human side of Michael with worts and all and there was something so endearing about the history tour for me.

He was also polished , not trying too hard by this point he had less to prove and worked on the connection with the fans much more - so I love the history tour. When I watch the BAD tour I am in awe of his physical prowess just pure energy from a 20 something year old machine - some bits you think he isn’t even human! There is no way to replicate that level of energy 10-12 years later that’s just the reality of it.

Live singing - the absolute obsession with it im not sure - the kind of 70 000 capacity stadiums Michael sold out time and time again - live singing becomes less important - we know he has the vocal range to surpass any modern artist so im not sitting here crying about him not singing live at Wembley trying to nail the choreography and theatrics!!
Just my tuppence! Xxx
 
If you go to a concert, the singer should be expected to sing live, no ifs or buts.

Give me a new vocal performance where certain lines are sung differently rather than the same boring play back.

Michael was a very poor live singer by the History tour, very weak and could not project
 
TeaMJ said:
Live singing - the absolute obsession with it im not sure - the kind of 70 000 capacity stadiums Michael sold out time and time again - live singing becomes less important - we know he has the vocal range to surpass any modern artist so im not sitting here crying about him not singing live at Wembley trying to nail the choreography and theatrics!!
Just my tuppence! Xxx
Click to expand...

This is just nonsense.
Sure, there is no doubt that Michael was an incredible singer in so many ways. But the idea that he had a vocal range surpassing all other modern artists is simply wrong.

Off the top of my head, the likes of Prince and Axel Rose are two male singers that surely demonstrated greater vocal ranges - both of who also never resorted to miming on tour (though Axel Rose’s voice is now truly shot).
 
Last edited:
TeaMJ said:
He was also polished , not trying too hard by this point he had less to prove and worked on the connection with the fans much more - so I love the history tour.
Click to expand...
It was too polished. Nothing felt spontaneous. Also what fans connection? He hardly ever addressed them... Shouting I love you 2 dozen times per concert isn't a connection imo. At least his irritating shouting and I love you's were live.

The HIStory tour was Michael doing the things he did 10 years before on autopilot but with half the energy and more theatrics.
 
Im always amused at the difference in views between those who experienced a History concert in real life and those who only have seen it on a screen.

The concerts were meant to be an experience, a real life event. They were never meant to be over analyzed and scrutinized, and the minute details zoomed in on.

They were of the the time, before the internet, before social media, before mobile phones. People went to the concert, enjoyed it on the day.

Afterwards, if we found a low quality bootleg video of the concert, we cherished it, as a way to remember a once in a life time experience.

It was seeing Michael on stage, hearing the music loud and sharing the experience with the crowd that made the concerts magical.
 
filmandmusic said:
It was too polished. Nothing felt spontaneous. Also what fans connection? He hardly ever addressed them... Shouting I love you 2 dozen times per concert isn't a connection imo. At least his irritating shouting and I love you's were live.

The HIStory tour was Michael doing the things he did 10 years before on autopilot but with half the energy and more theatrics.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, but….I am not even sure there were ‘more theatrics’? The History show looked less spectacular than the Dangerous show, imo.
 
MonkeyCheater said:
Totally agree, but….I am not even sure there were ‘more theatrics’? The History show looked less spectacular than the Dangerous show, imo.
Click to expand...
U2's- Popmart tour around the same period was way more innovative and more spectacular from a staging point of view.

Just as their 360 tour in 09 was.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
U2's- Popmart tour around the same period was way more innovative and more spectacular from a staging point of view.

Just as their 360 tour in 09 was.
Click to expand...

U2 are 4 guys on a stage, a singer and a band. They HAVE to do elaborate set pieces for their stadium tours. They are very different to Michael, who is an all round entertainer, whose dancing and recreation of music videos is a main part of his stadium tours. Very different artists who create very different types of concert experience.
 
Moonstreet said:
U2 are 4 guys on a stage, a singer and a band. They HAVE to do elaborate set pieces for their stadium tours. They are very different to Michael, who is an all round entertainer, whose dancing and recreation of music videos is a main part of his stadium tours. Very different artists who create very different types of concert experience.
Click to expand...

No, a band did mot have to put on a spectacle for a stadium show back in the 90s - e.g Guns n Roses Use Your Illusion stadium tour in the 90s was very stripped back and the shows were made off the back of their spontaneous set lists and high energy performances. Ditto for the stadium shows Def Leppard did in the 90s.

Also, how exactly did MJ recreate his music videos on the History tour? A change of jacket and half hearted run throughs of the choreography? Hardly impressive, right?
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
U2's- Popmart tour around the same period was way more innovative and more spectacular from a staging point of view.

Just as their 360 tour in 09 was.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, my girlfriend through my time in university attended both the History tour and Pop Mart tour at Wembley in 97. She was a huge MJ fan but was far more impressed with the U2 show in every way despite not owning a U2 album!
 
Monkey cheater - it’s apparent you feel absolutely hard done by the History tour and I’m howling at your disappointment with the costume changes how dare he just faff about with Michael Bush’s beautiful jackets ( and Axl Rose vocal range! Christ almighty have you heard the dude ‘ sing’?! Makes your ears bleed!! But that’s ok let’s agree to disagree!
 
MonkeyCheater said:
Totally agree, but….I am not even sure there were ‘more theatrics’? The History show looked less spectacular than the Dangerous show, imo.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to pretend I know the Dangerous tour by hard (only seen Bucharest twice) but I have seen the HIStory tour several times (live twice and Munich several times) and I remember the the tank, the rocket entrance, the military styled TDCAU performance, the songs in general being drawn out and out. It could be just a feeling but it felt exhausting.
 
exhausting on the audience or exhausting for Michael? I absolutely love the tank/ earth song routine (very emotive) and TDCAU rendition - I’d say is one of my all time favourite performances … that said I have not had the fortune of watching the HISTory tour live in any city so your experiences are your own and valid.
 
TeaMJ said:
exhausting on the audience or exhausting for Michael? I absolutely love the tank/ earth song routine (very emotive) and TDCAU rendition - I’d say is one of my all time favourite performances … that said I have not had the fortune of watching the HISTory tour live in any city so your experiences are your own and valid.
Click to expand...
Live it wasn’t exhausting but on tv it is.

Maybe concerts are to be experienced and not shown on tv
 
filmandmusic said:
Live it wasn’t exhausting but on tv it is.

Maybe concerts are to be experienced and not shown on tv
Click to expand...
There is that - perhaps a televised performance would have rendered an altogether different show - but these were live shows to be enjoyed in that manner like you said.
 
filmandmusic said:
It was too polished. Nothing felt spontaneous. Also what fans connection? He hardly ever addressed them... Shouting I love you 2 dozen times per concert isn't a connection imo. At least his irritating shouting and I love you's were live.

The HIStory tour was Michael doing the things he did 10 years before on autopilot but with half the energy and more theatrics.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that large-scale tours are always too polished and too calculated.

Also, a connection between the artist and the audience cannot really exist in shows that take place in big arenas/stadiums.

The HIStory Tour was a large-scale tour and it took place in big arenas/stadiums.
 
mj_frenzy said:
Keep in mind that large-scale tours are always too polished and too calculated.

Also, a connection between the artist and the audience cannot really exist in shows that take place in big arenas/stadiums.

The HIStory Tour was a large-scale tour and it took place in big arenas/stadiums.
Click to expand...
True
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
For everyone attending the tour , I have no doubt it would have been amazing, the build up, seeing him come on stage and having that full concert experience.

It's only when you look back at footage that you realise the show itself wasn't all that great, 99% of it due to the lack of live singing.

He's also a bit older and not as energetic plus it's the 3rd tour by this point and he's using the same formula pretty much throughout.

It was also post 93, and I believe he was never the same again so we're watching a wounded MJ.

That's my take of course 🙂
Click to expand...
The show in person absolutely was great. The most refined out of all his tours.
 
Immortal MJJ said:
is this factual,though?
interesting to hear,nonetheless..
Click to expand...
No. It is not. It was said that the show was gonna be released (on VHS, DVD was not a thing then), but then that was cancelled. No reason given. But it was shown on TV. So it was released that way.
 
TeaMJ said:
Monkey cheater - it’s apparent you feel absolutely hard done by the History tour and I’m howling at your disappointment with the costume changes how dare he just faff about with Michael Bush’s beautiful jackets ( and Axl Rose vocal range! Christ almighty have you heard the dude ‘ sing’?! Makes your ears bleed!! But that’s ok let’s agree to disagree!
Click to expand...
I have no problem with you being a fan of the History tour, we can indeed agree to disagree on that.

But your previous claim MJ had a vocal range far superior to other artist is not a matter of opinion but simply ridiculous.
Case in point, you do not need to like Axel Rose’s voice but at his prime he certainly had a far more greater range than Mj, as did the likes of Prince , Steve Tyler and others.
 
Themidwestcowboy said:
He still is considered as one of the greatest live performers in the history of music. Don’t alter history.
Click to expand...
They say that about plenty of people.

And do you know what? Everybody can have an off-day. Some people have concerts that are famous for being so bad. Talking about literally everyone from Dylan, Rolling Stones, McCartney, Who, Elvis, Nirvana, Stone Roses, Guns n Roses, Lauper...

Then you get people people who go on performing for way too long. I've been disappointed by Blondie and a few others.

It's just that with the History tour, you end up making an excuse for every date. One day he has jetlag. One day he has a fever. The next day he has laryngitis...

Maybe if you're not fit enough to tour, then don't tour.
 
R1chard said:
Maybe if you're not fit enough to tour, then don't tour.
Click to expand...
He toured because he had to, in order to promote the album. He hated doing it, and it could be argued his often-stated wish to quit the music industry in his later years was based entirely on his fear of being forced to tour in support of a new album. It’s also impossible to understand the failure of Invincible without taking into account MJ’s refusal to tour in support of it.

He lip-synched because it meant less work and he could get away with it, in the era before social media, and also because, in those days at least, audiences in Europe and Asia were more tolerant of lip-synching.

As to WHY the reality of touring made him so physically and psychologically sick, that is a fascinating question that still needs to be explored in more depth.
 
kreen said:
He toured because he had to, in order to promote the album. He hated doing it, and it could be argued his often-stated wish to quit the music industry in his later years was based entirely on his fear of being forced to tour in support of a new album. It’s also impossible to understand the failure of Invincible without taking into account MJ’s refusal to tour in support of it.

He lip-synched because it meant less work and he could get away with it, in the era before social media, and also because, in those days at least, audiences in Europe and Asia were more tolerant of lip-synching.

As to WHY the reality of touring made him so physically and psychologically sick, that is a fascinating question that still needs to be explored in more depth.
Click to expand...
Singer doesn't like to tour, doesn't like to perform live etc.....

He should have just been a toilet attendant. 😉
 
Here we go again - complicit in the annihilation of this man that was a singing dancing machine since he was a little boy! Stop with the arm chair analysis - can’t tour don’t tour - oh Ofcourse it was that easy. Soz mate MJ didn’t even consider that how silly.

Oh please stop making excuses for flu, laryngitis , sinus infection - why can’t you be fit and healthy and belt out tunes live for 3 hours and also travel the world and deal with the multitude of personal turmoil. Soz again mate.

Its one thing to say HIStory tour was not on par with previous world tours it’s another to be scathing when hopefully unlike the average joe you are aware of the circumstances that took place in that era in Michaels life!
 
kreen said:
As to WHY the reality of touring made him so physically and psychologically sick, that is a fascinating question that still needs to be explored in more depth.
Click to expand...
The answer to this question is very easy and it does not require deep analysis, if one takes into account his sleep problems during the HIStory Tour (and onwards).

Michael Jackson's levels of adrenaline were so high right after each HIStory concert, and this (along with his chronic insomnia that already existed) made it for him even more difficult to sleep properly later in the hotel.

Debbie Rowe testified that, at first, the singer was given certain sedatives (during the HIStory Tour), but they failed to help him sleep.

Debbie Rowe also testified that Michael Jackson then started to be given more powerful drugs (such as, Propofol) via Dr. Allen Metzger in order to get proper sleep right after each HIStory concert.

The fact that Michael Jackson was given so powerful drugs (while touring) led to him getting physically and psychologically sicker (because such drugs deteriorate one's physical, psychological, and mental health).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top