What you think about the 30th Anniversary concerts?

[analogue]

That was rather impossible, considering his very few solo, studio albums that he had released.

Apparently because the 2001 MSG shows were meant as a celebration of some of his greatest hits.

'Give In To Me' was certainly not a greatest hit, and thus it would have looked out of place in those 2 shows.

I wasn't talking about the 30th anniversary. I just meant in general like a one off performance at an award show. I went off topic a little bit

 

[Hiker]

I wasn't talking about the 30th anniversary. I just meant in general like a one off performance at an award show. I went off topic a little bit

Ya, that would have been great, e.g. in the Michael and Friends show. But then probably Michael would have wanted all the electricity and fireworks as in the video making it dangerous

 

[mj_frenzy]

I wasn't talking about the 30th anniversary. I just meant in general like a one off performance at an award show. I went off topic a little bit

The same goes also for that.

'Give In To Me' was certainly not a greatest hit in order to perform it in a one-off performance at an award show.

Besides, there was also a technical problem: Slash had to be not only available but also willing to perform.

 

[PurpleThriller]

Yawn. Couldn't pay me to listen to that tripe. Yet again Mr Thomson speaks garbage.

MJ himself spoke about wanting to change Billie Jean etc and why he couldn't.

He could. He just didn't want to.
None of his fans would have been dissapointed.

 

[PurpleThriller]

Besides, there was also a technical problem: Slash had to be not only available but also willing to perform.

Huh??That most likely wouldn't have ever been a problem.
Slash performed with Jackson at the 1991 10th Anniversary of MTV show,aka a special one-off performance.
Slash as well showed up to perform with Michael at the 1995 VMA,an awards show.
So why wouldn't Slash show up?

 

[PurpleThriller]

Give In To Me' was certainly not a greatest hit in order to perform it in a one-off performance at an award show.

Neither was the song "Dangerous ".
Yet it got performed a lot ,including at several awards shows.
Soo ...

 

[analogue]

Neither was the song "Dangerous ".
Yet it got performed a lot ,including at several awards shows.
Soo ...

And Dangerous was never released as a single but Give Into Me was.

 

[PurpleThriller]

And Dangerous was never released as a single but Give Into Me was.

Exactly

 

[filmandmusic]

MJ had the misconception that we always wanted to see his greatest hits sound and performed exactly as they were conceived.
He couldn’t be more wrong.

Throw in Motown hits, do a James Brown/Jackie Wilson medley, sing album tracks instead of hits, do different arrangements, do an unplugged concert. Options a plenty and we got zero of it all and that is why my main interest in MJ concerts lies in the 70s because I want to see him perform something else than dangerous or billie jean.

 

[Hiker]

MJ had the misconception that we always wanted to see his greatest hits sound and performed exactly as they were conceived.
He couldn’t be more wrong.

On this I will have to agree , It would have been nice to see some verity, songs adapted to live performance, but that's way more difficult than being said. And who knows if he had done that the other half (or maybe even we!) would have complaint how different those songs sound from the album, so well

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Yeah, MJ's obsession with his live performances sounding the same really limited what could be done and by the time of the HIStory tour really just made the live versions sound a bit dead imo.

 

[PurpleThriller]

MJ had the misconception that we always wanted to see his greatest hits sound and performed exactly as they were conceived.
He couldn’t be more wrong.

Throw in Motown hits, do a James Brown/Jackie Wilson medley, sing album tracks instead of hits, do different arrangements, do an unplugged concert. Options a plenty and we got zero of it all and that is why my main interest in MJ concerts lies in the 70s because I want to see him perform something else than dangerous or billie jean.

I will sound maybe crazy, but the 70's Michael isn't anything special to me.
An awesome performer,but nothing innovative or never seen/done before.
He "became Michael Jackson " in 83 for me.

 

[zinniabooklover]

MJ had the misconception that we always wanted to see his greatest hits sound and performed exactly as they were conceived.

This always makes me so sad. It doesn't have to be like this.

It's true some of Michael's fans do want exactly this but his fanbase was so huge. There would have been just as many - if not more - people wanting more variety, more adventure, even a little bit of risk-taking. I understand that Michael was a perfectionist but most artists are and yet they don't box themselves into a corner like this. I'm not even talking about the 'live' vocals thing. That's a whole separate thing. Just for starters, there are various health issues which make the live thing possibly more complicated. I just mean, the set list and his approach to certain songs, the arrangements etc.

He couldn’t be more wrong.

Throw in Motown hits, do a James Brown/Jackie Wilson medley, sing album tracks instead of hits, do different arrangements, do an unplugged concert.

All of this, any of this would have been wonderful. I have to assume there was a good reason why he didn't allow himself or felt unable to do any of this stuff. It wasn't for lack of ability. He was the consummate performer, he was brilliant. Always so brilliant. So he had his reasons and I guess we'll never know.

Options a plenty and we got zero of it all and that is why my main interest in MJ concerts lies in the 70s because I want to see him perform something else than dangerous or billie jean.

Yes. Thank goodness for the 70's stuff and Triumph. Shout out for BWT 1987, as well.

 

[filmandmusic]

I will sound maybe crazy, but the 70's Michael isn't anything special to me.
An awesome performer,but nothing innovative or never seen/done before.
He "became Michael Jackson " in 83 for me.

I understand but it didn’t have to be innovative. It was fun, a concert should be fun (and live), the 70s shows offered all that.
Sadly there is probably no full concert available of the early 70s but honestly I believe we would be blown away by it. The Forum live album by the Jackson 5 convinced me of that. It must have been very exciting.
Further into the 70s it should be hugely interesting to watch MJ perform songs like got to be there, never can’t say goodbye and others around the time he did The Wiz.

If footage existed we would have seen it, alas.

 

[AlwaysThere]

But they're still all variations on the same theme, aren't they? Of course he would change things up here and there, but in the end it was all pretty similar, lacking spontaneity. I, personally, am not bothered by this necessarily although, I do wish he would have changed things up a bit more, but I can still understand why other people might be.

Your post reminded me of a funny moment from the MJCast: Jamon Bull mentions the fact that Michael wore a black jacket on the 30th anniversary shows and says that it was a big deal. Charles Thomson had this to say about it:

"It reminds me of when fans say 'oh no the HIStory Tour concerts aren't all the same because in Gelsenkirchen he did the Charlie Chaplin walk in Smooth Criminal' or something. Well, if that's the one thing that you can point to that was different during a show then you're kind of demonstrating the problem. Basically, if you've seen Michael perform Beat It on the Victory Tour, then you've seen every Beat It performance he ever gave and that's kind of a shame."

While I do think he is exaggerating it a little bit, what he is saying is not incorrect either, because the performances were, all in all, very similar to each other and there was never a performance that suffered a radical change over the years.

It’s this reason why I could not humanly care less about seeing another concert. MJ was an astronomical performer, but he refused to differentiate. Every song was performed the same way, with the same choreography, when he very well could have changed things up. Look at the Broadway show—they take nearly every song in a unique direction, and it’s outstanding. Hell, I would much rather watch a 4K cut of the Broadway show than another MJ concert.

 

[filmandmusic]

He had the ability yes but as a live performer I don’t hold him in the highest regard and I hate to admit that. Even at his 80s best his concerts are not even close to the Prince concerts.

I have seen lots of James Brown concerts the past year and honestly he doesn’t blow me away either. I love some of his individual performances but each concert I saw looked the same as the next.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

It’s this reason why I could not humanly care less about seeing another concert. MJ was an astronomical performer, but he refused to differentiate. Every song was performed the same way, with the same choreography, when he very well could have changed things up. Look at the Broadway show—they take nearly every song in a unique direction, and it’s outstanding. Hell, I would much rather watch a 4K cut of the Broadway show than another MJ concert.

I wouldn't go as far to say I'd rather watch someone pretend to be MJ than MJ himself but yeah his concerts are pretty same-y in my opinion, I think if it was 4k Bad concert or something I'd buy it but apart from that I'm not overly interested generally.

 

[zinniabooklover]

I will sound maybe crazy, but the 70's Michael isn't anything special to me.
An awesome performer,but nothing innovative or never seen/done before.
He "became Michael Jackson " in 83 for me.

Fair point. I don't think this is crazy, at all.

That said, I don't think the Jacksons or Michael needed to be innovative. There are other things to get from the live thing. A gig doesn't always have to be blowing people's minds in that particular way. I saw James Brown in 1973. I wouldn't describe the gig as even remotely innovative. But, my god, he blew the roof off the building that night. I doubt many people who were there have forgotten that show. It was awesome. I've been to literally thousands of gigs in my lifetime and most of them were not remotely innovative. But they were great, great shows.

I understand but it didn’t have to be innovative. It was fun, a concert should be fun (and live), the 70s shows offered all that.

Exactly so. The best gigs give you lifelong memories.

Sadly there is probably no full concert available of the early 70s but honestly I believe we would be blown away by it. The Forum live album by the Jackson 5 convinced me of that. It must have been very exciting.

Agree 100%. The excitement would be fantastic, I'm convinced of it.

Further into the 70s it should be hugely interesting to watch MJ perform songs like got to be there, never can’t say goodbye and others around the time he did The Wiz.

Exactly so. It's so interesting watching him develop as an artist. That alone is fabulously exciting, imo.

If footage existed we would have seen it, alas.

 

[filmandmusic]

It really is like it it described a few pages earlier. When I watch a routine MJ performance and he suddenly does a move he isn’t supposed to do, I’m like heeeeeyyy hat did he do now and it becomes the most exciting thing of the performance. It says enough how samey it all was.

Youtube is full of Dangerous and History tour concerts but the only performances I have seen are Bucharest and Munich (+ Ostend and Amsterdam cause I was there, like to rub that in). I have no intention of watching something else.

I did watch 4 bad tour concerts (3 first leg and Wembley) and 3 Victory tour leaks But at this moment I don’t feel the need to watch more of them because after 3 shows I saw there was not going to be a surprise.

I still think a high quality concert of each tour should be released though ( except HIStory that is a big no no)

 

[Nite Line]

Neither was the song "Dangerous ".
Yet it got performed a lot ,including at several awards shows.
Soo ...

This mj frenzy guy talks so much nonsense honestly.

 

[zinniabooklover]

He had the ability yes but as a live performer I don’t hold him in the highest regard and I hate to admit that. Even at his 80s best his concerts are not even close to the Prince concerts.

I can believe it. Prince didn't do it for me but he did seem to be ahead of Michael with the live thing. As in, he didn't ever want to repeat himself too much. Michael was much more of a showman than Prince but I think he could have given himself more freedom to change things.

I have seen lots of James Brown concerts the past year and honestly he doesn’t blow me away either. I love some of his individual performances but each concert I saw looked the same as the next.

There is always a core of fans who will go to multiple shows but most people don't. Most will see only one show on a tour. And now, with YT or DVD's or whatever, people are seeing multiple shows from the same tour and I think that is a problem. A tour isn't designed to be different every night. I don't mind Michael not doing different stuff across a particular tour - although it's certainly possible to change up the set list a little bit. It's the repetition from one tour to the next that I struggle to understand. Yes, there would be complaints if he dropped a particular song from the set list. But how many other people would be going mad with pleasure to hear him do, oh I dunno, Keep The Faith or some other album track? Or any of the songs he didn't usually perform?

Tbf, I guess there was a bit more variety with the HWT set lists but I still think the basic problem remains.

 

[filmandmusic]

I can believe it. Prince didn't do it for me but he did seem to be ahead of Michael with the live thing. As in, he didn't ever want to repeat himself too much. Michael was much more of a showman than Prince but I think he could have given himself more freedom to change things.

His concerts had largely the same setlists each night, though he changed a few songs sometimes but then his tour the next year for a different album would be completely different and then it gets exciting. He also had really extravagant sets which in itself were already spectacular to look at.

There is always a core of fans who will go to multiple shows but most people don't. Most will see only one show on a tour. And now, with YT or DVD's or whatever, people are seeing multiple shows from the same tour and I think that is a problem.

Yes absolutely, it kills the magic completely

 

[zinniabooklover]

His concerts had largely the same setlists each night, though he changed a few songs sometimes but then his tour the next year for a different album would be completely different and then it gets exciting. He also had really extravagant sets which in itself were already spectacular to look at.

Uh huh. That's my point. A whole tour is mostly going to look and sound the same - although, as I said, it's perfectly possible to change the set list a little bit. Bon Jovi always had 4 or 5 songs that would get changed around. Everyone accepted it bc that's how they did things. But, as you say, the next tour that Prince did - that is when things would change dramatically. And Michael had the back catalogue to able to do that, imo. He had the ability to do it and he was the star so he had the freedom, also. So there's something else holding him back.

Yes absolutely, it kills the magic completely

It can be problematic, I think, when people watch multiple shows from the same tour. I'm not saying it's entirely bad but it's tricky.

 

[PurpleThriller]

His concerts had largely the same setlists each night, though he changed a few songs sometimes but then his tour the next year for a different album would be completely different and then it gets exciting. He also had really extravagant sets which in itself were already spectacular to look at.

I absolutely agree,as a Prince fan as well.
But I have to admit that his "new album centered" setlists sometimes really bother me (when I don't enjoy the particular record).
For example Prince's One Night Alone 2002 tour: the set-list was full of natural diversity but it mostly consisted of songs from his "Rainbow Children" album (an album i'm not a verg big fan of).
But again he has shows like the "Purple Rain Tour" or "Sign o The Times Tour" or "Lovesexy Tour " that have set-lists centered around masterpieces. (tho I have to admit that these were 80's spectacular and innovative shows,and that's the exact same thing I enjoy from Michael Jackson as well.
The 2002 tour was laid back just like the 70's Michael or Triumph,something I don't get excited by. But maybe my age plays a part in my love for "innovative,spectacular,loud,full of special effects and energetic" shows.)

 

[dam2040]

He could. He just didn't want to.
None of his fans would have been dissapointed.

That’s your opinion. The greatest entertainer of all time thought differently and I agree with him.

When I bought my This is It tickets I had people ask if they could come with me if he “did the performance with the hat”. Lots of people bought tickets to see the classic MJ and he knew that. The hardcore fans who were already dancing the new HIStory routines at the front row of Wembley didn’t seem to care either.

It would’ve been very interesting to see where MJ could take it & evolve certain things, but it makes a lot of sense why he made the decisions he did.

 

[filmandmusic]

I absolutely agree,as a Prince fan as well.
But I have to admit that his "new album centered" setlists sometimes really bother me (when I don't enjoy the particular record).
For example Prince's One Night Alone 2002 tour: the set-list was full of natural diversity but it mostly consisted of songs from his "Rainbow Children" album (an album i'm not a verg big fan of).
But again he has shows like the "Purple Rain Tour" or "Sign o The Times Tour" or "Lovesexy Tour " that have set-lists centered around masterpieces. (tho I have to admit that these were 80's spectacular and innovative shows,and that's the exact same thing I enjoy from Michael Jackson as well.
The 2002 tour was laid back just like the 70's Michael or Triumph,something I don't get excited by. But maybe my age plays a part in my love for "innovative,spectacular,loud,full of special effects and energetic" shows.)

I have only seen a couple of his 80s shows (1999 concert, purple rain and sign o the times)and they were spectacular and fun. Very exciting stuff. I am by no means an expert on Prince’s music nor his concerts. I also remember trying one of his 2010s concert and I didn’t recognize any song and got bored really fast so I stopped watching.

As a casual like me it would be tricky to attend a concert but as a die hard fan it should have been exciting.

PS I have been meaning to ask you if Prince released any worthwhile albums for me to listen to post diamond and pearls (that is when I switched off with prince). I did return briefly later with musicology and 3121 which I think are both good records.

 

[AlwaysThere]

I wouldn't go as far to say I'd rather watch someone pretend to be MJ than MJ himself but yeah his concerts are pretty same-y in my opinion, I think if it was 4k Bad concert or something I'd buy it but apart from that I'm not overly interested generally.

It’s not necessarily that I’d rather watch an impersonator over the real deal, but I’d rather see a completely different and unique staging of “Beat It” or “Smooth Criminal,” than watch the official productions that we’ve seen a million times. I think some things should absolutely be preserved (“Billie Jean” being a solo, the “Smooth Criminal” lean, the “Thriller” dance), but there’s still so much you can do with these songs outside of these moments, and MJ just… didn’t. And I think that was one of his biggest faults and failures.

Agreed though. I’ll take a Bad tour in 4K, preferably the second leg. Everything else has no value to me.

 

[PurpleThriller]

PS I have been meaning to ask you if Prince released any worthwhile albums for me to listen to post diamond and pearls (that is when I switched off with prince). I did return briefly later with musicology and 3121 which I think are both good records.

Hmm,you should try "The Gold Experience " album from 1995. I think it is just as great as Diamonds and Pearls in my opinion,if not better lol. It's like an updated version of the classic Prince.
"LotusFlow3r" is a guitar driven album from 2009,and I think it is kinda great. It has some very great songs but some kinda weak ones too. I strongly recommend his cover of "Crismon and Clover" from this album. Just as outstanding as his 83 cover of "A Case Of You".
"Art Official Age"( 2014) is even more modern Prince,and he manages to sound as new,fresh and futuristic as possible while keeping his trademark sound. The song "Breakdown" from this album has strong The Beautiful Ones vibes.
And last but not least ,his last ever album "Hit'n'Run Phase 2" from 2016 is just Prince being back at his old,organic, funky sound. It's like he was back to the old days when he was doing the self-titled and "Dirty Mind" albums in the late 70's-early 80's.
I'm no expert in Prince's music either,but I hope I helped a bit lol.

 

[PurpleThriller]

I have only seen a couple of his 80s shows (1999 concert, purple rain and sign o the times)and they were spectacular and fun. Very exciting stuff. I am by no means an expert on Prince’s music nor his concerts. I also remember trying one of his 2010s concert and I didn’t recognize any song and got bored really fast so I stopped watching.

As a casual like me it would be tricky to attend a concert but as a die hard fan it should have been exciting.

PS I have been meaning to ask you if Prince released any worthwhile albums for me to listen to post diamond and pearls (that is when I switched off with prince). I did return briefly later with musicology and 3121 which I think are both good records.

Btw,you can also try his live version of Radiohead's "Creep" from his show at the 2008's Coachella: the way Prince changes up the song,it's lycris and theme it's pure genius in my opinion. The prime example of his trademark live diversity for me

 

[mj_frenzy]

Neither was the song "Dangerous ".
Yet it got performed a lot ,including at several awards shows.
Soo ...

Note that Michael Jackson was mainly perceived as a dancer.

So, 'Dangerous' got performed a lot, including several awards shows, apparently because it was also a way for him to showcase his dance abilities to the general audience/his fans.

On the other hand, 'Give In To Me' had no choreography at all, and considering that he would have lip-synced it, the performance would have unavoidably given rise to negative criticism.