Latest on MJJC

Performances

I don't know. He sang live during "ABS's 50th" didn't he? Either way, one also has to factor in that, again, singing and dancing live at the same time is hard as hell. I can't even walk and talk at the same time, lol, let alone sing and dance. And I'm 23, Michael's 50. When the History tour happened, he was already in his late 30s. People thought he would be too old to tour when he was in his late 20s.
 
I agree on the unplugged performances thing, especially now more than ever, 10 years ago MJ was still the biggest thing about, now he has to make a comeback. It doesn't matter how you look at it, realistically, he's not going to come out and suddenly sell 30 million records again. What he has to do is prove he has still got it. Now I know your all gonna say of course he does hes Michael Jackson and whatever point I make may it be critical or slightly negative I'll probably always be wrong, but the music industry is about selling records and if Michael comes back and isn't on A game, you know hes going to get attacked by critics and the etc. He needs to do small performances and such. I mean come on some of his best performances were mimed, Ben on American Bandstand? Motown 25? 1995 VMAs? But then, it didn't matter, now however it does. Now I know if I bring James Brown into this (performed till the day he died) I'm probably get the argument that they're two different people and bla bla bla. But I don't think age should be an excuse. Michael has said hes got more to offer than he has before, so I say he brings it to the table and quite frankly I cant wait to see it.

Nice first post if I do say so myself :D May the bashing commence.
 
Jabz said:
I agree on the unplugged performances thing, especially now more than ever, 10 years ago MJ was still the biggest thing about, now he has to make a comeback. It doesn't matter how you look at it, realistically, he's not going to come out and suddenly sell 30 million records again. What he has to do is prove he has still got it. Now I know your all gonna say of course he does hes Michael Jackson and whatever point I make may it be critical or slightly negative I'll probably always be wrong, but the music industry is about selling records and if Michael comes back and isn't on A game, you know hes going to get attacked by critics and the etc. He needs to do small performances and such. I mean come on some of his best performances were mimed, Ben on American Bandstand? Motown 25? 1995 VMAs? But then, it didn't matter, now however it does. Now I know if I bring James Brown into this (performed till the day he died) I'm probably get the argument that they're two different people and bla bla bla. But I don't think age should be an excuse. Michael has said hes got more to offer than he has before, so I say he brings it to the table and quite frankly I cant wait to see it.

Nice first post if I do say so myself :D May the bashing commence.
Click to expand...
Michael started performing from the age of 5. He broke every record possible before he was 30. He has every right to slow down or retire or do as he pleases at this stage of his life, esp since he owns half the music industry and never has to work again. Smokey Robinson retired from performing and wrote hit songs for artist. He earned more money that way. Only people who are desparate for money continue to work till a ripe old age. Don't you ever think it's because they want to. MJ doesn't need to perform again. That is not where the real money is. Tonight when all those performers go on stage and sing MJ will be paid more than they will for each song they perform. He has got it that way.:D
 
Of course he doesn't have to keep performing. The point I was making is people try to use his age as an excuse for him not being able to do what he does best, which I disagree with (and by the sounds of it so does he), but isn't the purpose of this thread to discuss how his comeback performance will be if he returns to the stage?
 
Jabz said:
Of course he doesn't have to keep performing. The point I was making is people try to use his age as an excuse for him not being able to do what he does best, which I disagree with (and by the sounds of it so does he), but isn't the purpose of this thread to discuss how his comeback performance will be if he returns to the stage?
Click to expand...

Michael will not be coming back. HE HAS NEVER LEFT>
I do not expect anything of Michael. He has given enough. I appreciate his willingness to continue working in the industry that almost distroyed him. I would have packed my bags and left a long time ago and take all my music with me. I swear I would be singing in some jungle in the Congo, if that was me. So I do not care if Michael never perform again,. In a sense that would be very good. Serves the ungrateful lot right.
 
Never left?

Never left what? The stage? The music scene? His home? The country? lol

Jokes aside he has left and all these re-releases prove it. People don't talk about comebacks if you haven't left, back in the day MJ was sh*ttin out albums there was a new one every three years or so or at least fresh material. I don't believe we are waiting now because he is being too much of a perfectionist, (partially still), in fact I heard that sony said he hasn't come up with any single material yet and thats what the hold up is. Whether thats the reason or not I'm waiting for new material, I'm not saying he owes it to me or anything but at the same time I dont have to buy another rehash of Thriller with Fergie *shudders* on it. I could care if it takes another three years to see something new as long as it comes out and its done right, unlike some other albums of these decade*cough*Invincible*cough*
 
Michael never "shit out" albums, as you so elequently put it. He always takes a long time and if you count the time from when "Invincible" came out to 2006, then you just simply aren't being fair to Michael at all.
 
Come on, the fact that Thriller the biggest selling album of all time was made in three months is ludicrous.

1979: Off The Wall
1980: Triumph
1982: Thriller
1984: Victory
1987: Bad
1991: Dangerous

Need I say more? If thats not shit then I don't know what is. That is "THE Shit" Thats six albums in twelve years, all toured for promoted and with side projects in between. I even include HIStory as a full album, because it has a full disc of new material, tour and a cool beverage :D
Invincible was just Invincible, meh, even before the allegations, what were we getting? A greatest hits album. Since Invincible theres been a new compilation album every year. Im not asking for the biggest show on the earth, just something new, I wont even be that bothered if its not better than Thriller or Off the wall. I just want him to do what he does best and thats make good music.
 
Just throwing my 2 cents here...

First of all, it's up to Michael if he wants to perform or tour again. He's spent virtually his whole life performing on stage, so I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't want to do it again.

I don't think he'll be doing a big tour like the HIStory Tour again. Maybe some concerts here and there, but not a 1-2 year long world tour.

If he does decide to perform again, either smaller intimate shows or a big tour, I'd like to see him sing live for the whole concert. I know the big "he mimes because he dances so much" argument, and all I can say is: Don't dance so much then! :bugeyed

In my opinion, I'd prefer to see him sing live and do a few dance steps here and there, instead of seeing him do big dance routines and lip-sync to 20-25 year old studio recordings of his own vocals. If he decides to lip-sync, it would be a good idea to record brand new vocals for the old songs and lip-sync to that. At least that would sound more "live" rather than him lip-synching to the old studio recordings of songs like "Billie Jean" and "Smooth Criminal" again. :scratch:
 
"Trimuph" and "Victory" are Jacksons albums and Michael had practically zero input on "Victory". Didn't "Thriller" take 8 months? What difference does it make. His routine time between solo albums is 4 years, 5 between "Thriller" and "Bad". Since "Invincible", Michael had to deal with being subected to a truly messed up smear campaign in the form of a documentary, numerous law suits, health problems and a 2 and a half year ordeal which nearly cost him his life. That isn't including the time it took to recover, just physically. Emotionally he's probably still reeling. Michael didn't start work on anything with any sort of plan until two years ago. Seems right on schedual to me.
 
MJ Tempest said:
Just throwing my 2 cents here...

First of all, it's up to Michael if he wants to perform or tour again. He's spent virtually his whole life performing on stage, so I wouldn't blame him if he doesn't want to do it again.

I don't think he'll be doing a big tour like the HIStory Tour again. Maybe some concerts here and there, but not a 1-2 year long world tour.

If he does decide to perform again, either smaller intimate shows or a big tour, I'd like to see him sing live for the whole concert. I know the big "he mimes because he dances so much" argument, and all I can say is: Don't dance so much then! :bugeyed

In my opinion, I'd prefer to see him sing live and do a few dance steps here and there, instead of seeing him do big dance routines and lip-sync to 20-25 year old studio recordings of his own vocals. If he decides to lip-sync, it would be a good idea to record brand new vocals for the old songs and lip-sync to that. At least that would sound more "live" rather than him lip-synching to the old studio recordings of songs like "Billie Jean" and "Smooth Criminal" again. :scratch:
Click to expand...

Word! I don't think I could have put it better.
 
2001 was Invincible.
By 2002, I doubt he had planned for a new album.
2003-2005 - Trial and such
2006-2008 new album planning/recording

2003-2005 really don't count the way I see it. So we have 2002, and 2006-2008. That's 4 years.

I believe he can still dance, and sing live, at the same time. He did it 2002 for Dangerous, and that's pretty much all dancing.
 
Jabz said:
Never left?

Never left what? The stage? The music scene? His home? The country? lol

Jokes aside he has left and all these re-releases prove it. People don't talk about comebacks if you haven't left, back in the day MJ was sh*ttin out albums there was a new one every three years or so or at least fresh material. I don't believe we are waiting now because he is being too much of a perfectionist, (partially still), in fact I heard that sony said he hasn't come up with any single material yet and thats what the hold up is. Whether thats the reason or not I'm waiting for new material, I'm not saying he owes it to me or anything but at the same time I dont have to buy another rehash of Thriller with Fergie *shudders* on it. I could care if it takes another three years to see something new as long as it comes out and its done right, unlike some other albums of these decade*cough*Invincible*cough*
Click to expand...

ur a newbie so im goin 2 be nice and inform u on a little info...dont u ever take a stab @ invincible EVER. got it? good carry on lol
 
lool. I will stab at whatever I please because I enjoy stabbing. But Invincible would have been Invincible with eight tracks on it. Don't get it twisted, I never said it was shit, in fact a few of my all time faves are on it, but, it wasn't great. Come on, be honest, two singles (in the UK) and two videos. This from the man that releases five or six per album? Tut tut, besides, there were too many fillers.
 
Well to be honest I thought Invincible is pretty good, despite the fact that I only knew it existed just last month (yes, I'm serious). It wasn't promoted properly at ALL. I like a lot of the songs on there, they have a different groove than a lot of his other stuff, but still in keeping with his style.

regarding lip-syncing, yeah, so what? I would too if my voice was ill (for whatever reason). He had to make some choices, decided to go for the dancing, and wooed his audience.

As for a new tour? Yeah, right...we'll see about that. It would be great for usand for his career if he did, but he HATES touring, he has said so time and again. Plus, he has 3 kids to raise. They are his priority. I wouldn't expect much of a tour, if at all. I'd rather just sit back and be surprised what what transpires over the next few years. :) If there's a tour, i'd certainly like to go to a concert. I've never been to anyone's concert in my entire life (and here I am pushing 30). It would be neat if my first were an MJ concert.
 
Michael sang live in 2002? Thats not true people, that performance as beautiful as it was, was mimed as far as I can hear. It sounds like the mic came on for a few seconds and it went back off when Michael seemed like he was out of breath. I am ofcors talking about the Bandstand performance, Apolla aperantly is not available.
 
Last edited:
hi, i've a question about bad performances from bad tour & dangerous tour, in wikipedia it is said that he sung live every bad performance, but i can't tell if it was. Sometimes ( like Yokoham & Osaka ) it's obvious that he's singing live but in other performances he sounds hmmm too clean and too much like a studio version. Can someone tell me if bad was always sung live? Btw. i think he still can sing live, but he couldn't sing & dance at same time, if he would sing&dance at same time every song in a show, he would probably have laryngitis again, because his singing technique his very harmfull when he dances. But he's not the only one who had laryngitis, for example Axl Rose had to stop singing for couple of years because of laryngitis.
 
michaelsson said:
ur a newbie so im goin 2 be nice and inform u on a little info...dont u ever take a stab @ invincible EVER. got it? good carry on lol
Click to expand...
Invincible was sh!t, deal with it.

Got it? Good. Carry on lol

As for his future performances, I can bet my house that he's gonna mime at least 90% of the time (and he'll say it's 'cause of laryngitis lol)
 
Last edited:
There is a ameatur youtube clip I once saw from MSG which confirms Michael can still sing beautifully live! It was an interval between BLACK OR WHITE and BILLIE JEAN and Michael was singing spontaneosly into the mic. He actually sounded way better than he did throughout that whole night. Do ya'l know of the video I'm refering to? I cant seem to find it on Youtube.
 
hmm i've heard that at MSG he was high on painkillers because he had a recent sergury. btw. i think that the best it would be for him not to dance so hard but sing ~70% of show live. Btw2. :D if you have seen heal the world in bahamas he didn't want to sing, i don't know, maybe he want to sound perfect, maybe he doesn't want to make mistakes in his singing, but he sang Heal The World great. Personally i would rather hear his true voice, even if he does some mistakes in singing, nobody is perfect.
 
wojciszek said:
i've heard that at MSG he was high on painkillers
Click to expand...
lol, you learn something new everyday, apparently.
---

His future performances are more likely than not going to be like previous ones. Although I'd prefer the dancing to be at a minimum, it's very doubtful.

Agree or not, Michael's dancing is what steals the show and he knows it.
 
I would personally prefer he sing songs live that don't require him to dance the entire time. Songs like Billie Jean, if he at least would sing the end live that would be fine by me. I understand how difficult it is to sing perfectly and dance as well as you would like. Its not easy keeping your breath when you dance like that.

I just can't stand when he does mime or whatever and stands and holds the microphone and covers the top with his other hand. It looks like hes trying to test to see if its live without being obvious. But i never thought it looked good since he does it so much. I'm referring to the MSG performances. If he mimed and then focused on dancing that would be great. But I dont know. I always wondered why he did that.
 
I think Michael will lipsync to songs like Heal The World, MITM, and such because they require such perfect sound, and going off key or something would make it sound bad. It's not as important for more fun songs and dance songs.

Michael will never let up on the dancing. We can get singing from the albums and such, we can't get dancing from those. Delivering the dancing is slightly more important in a live performance than live singing, as much as I love both.
 
he had laryngithis during the history tour... he was sick...he should have cancelled his tour.. but he still went on with it... WE ALL KNOW! Michael can sing live... I actually think he sounds better live that the actual track...:)
 
mekhaila said:
he had laryngithis during the history tour... he was sick...he should have cancelled his tour.. but he still went on with it... WE ALL KNOW! Michael can sing live... I actually think he sounds better live that the actual track...:)
Click to expand...

And what about every performance after that?
 
It's hard to sing and dance at the same time people. Why don't you try to keep it up for two hours straight before judging?
 
i've heard that at MSG he was high on painkillers
Click to expand...
u would have to be to walk around with liz taylor on your arm with your fly wide open LOL
 
No, but it's one or the other. You're going to sacrifice the quality on something depending on which one you choose to concentrate on. No one complaines that Michael lip synced to "Billie Jean" on Motown 25, or that he did the same during his 1988 Grammy performance. When he wants his dancing to be on point, he lip syncs. He apparently suffered a great deal from laryngitis during both the "Dangerous" and "History" world tours. You could hear it in his voice when he did sing live, so that makes sense. He even had it supposedly nearing the end of the "Bad" tour. Touring can really tear your voice to shreds. And then just keeping it up for any extended period of time, while you dance as hard as Michael does, is incredibly difficult, every other night, for months on end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top