Motown 25: Brief Rehearsal Clips

[Birchey]

People who worked on the tour confirmed that at least one 1988 show was shot on film, and Will Pecchi said that shows were filmed in 1987 as well as behind the scenes and on tour footage! i'm not saying you're lying Birchey but Dave Powell/Will Pecchi & Warren Eagles were working first hand.

Is this the "lets just pretend Birchey said something he didn't thread" where did I say anything in here about there not being a full show, do people actually read posts before replying anymore? I posted in depth a long time ago on this forum about what was or wasn't shot or even what still exists, there is a thread for that, this is not the place to discuss this.

 

[XscapeTheLies]

Is this the "lets just pretend Birchey said something he didn't thread" where did I say anything in here about there not being a full show, do people actually read posts before replying anymore? I posted in depth a long time ago on this forum about what was or wasn't shot or even what still exists, there is a thread for that, this is not the place to discuss this.

Could you link us that thread? Would love to give that a read

 

[Birchey]

Could you link us that thread? Would love to give that a read

I can't remember which thread my lengthy post was in, think its in the 200 watts section, but here is a thread about the films http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...s-footage-and-what-may-have-been-shot-on-film

 

[Tygger]

Hmm, well I can speak as someone who was actually AT the show. Yes, it was an amazing moment in an amazing show but you know, I couldn't help but wish he had been able to perform it truly LIVE, say on the Grammy's for example.

That is an interesting response as lip-synching was not much of an issue in 1983 and only Billie Jean was not done live. You must have been several years ahead of your time. For those seeing Michael perform at the 1988 Grammys, I have heard no complaints that performance was not 100% live.

Lip-synching became an issue in the later 80's/early 90's particularly for those whose talent was in question. Michael's talent was never in question. Some did consider his performances during the HIStory tour to be a bit lazy however, those same people do not consider his stage shows and the effort they demanded increased with each album.

Adding: I forgot to mention Michael's age increased as well and that plays a part.

 

[AtlasAir]

I'd rather hear a person sound bad live than hear pre-recorded music.

Even more so for a big stadium show.
Not many people can even see him dancing. Even with the jumbo trons, he's just a speck for most people in the venue. That's why a live voice makes a concert like that more special. Even if you can't see much, you can at least hear it.

 

[Tony R]

I'd rather hear a person sound bad live than hear pre-recorded music.

Even more so for a big stadium show.
Not many people can even see him dancing. Even with the jumbo trons, he's just a speck for most people in the venue. That's why a live voice makes a concert like that more special. Even if you can't see much, you can at least hear it.

This. Every time. This.

 

[Tygger]

There are decades of Michael performing (and singing) live in front of stadium-sized crowds to enjoy if that is an issue. It is not an issue for me.

Adding: Birchey, great avi.

 

[krikzil]

Wow, that's amazing. In the house to see history being made. Would you be willing to share more about your experience at the event? Would be great to read.

I'm on my phone at the mercy of ATT's crappy data service right now but I'll post later this evening once I'm home from work. My take might not be exactly what you'd expect.

 

[ChrisC]

That is an interesting response as lip-synching was not much of an issue in 1983 and only Billie Jean was not done live. You must have been several years ahead of your time. For those seeing Michael perform at the 1988 Grammys, I have heard no complaints that performance was not 100% live.

Lip-synching became an issue in the later 80's/early 90's particularly for those whose talent was in question. Michael's talent was never in question. Some did consider his performances during the HIStory tour to be a bit lazy however, those same people do not consider his stage shows and the effort they demanded increased with each album.

Adding: I forgot to mention Michael's age increased as well and that plays a part.

What a load of nonsense. Don't just lump everyone together like that. People have individual opinions and whether or not they're shared by everyone else or represent a general feeling of an era makes them no less valid - nor are they suspicious which is how you seem to treat them.

I'm not getting into another lip-synching debate as I've been down that road several times but if additional demand was placed on Michael then he placed it upon himself. He made choices and he chose to give the audience less on certain aspects to give them 'more' in others. Unfortunately the real artistic integrity and musicianship, the substance of a live show, was what Michael chose to give less of - and he was wrong to do so, IN MY OPINION. I'm fairly sure any fan who feels the same has taken into account the things you said they haven't. You're fine with the lip-synching, and I'm fine that you're fine with that - don't go around devaluing people's opinions, man. Live with them and respect them.

 

[OnirMJ]

He made choices and he chose to give the audience less on certain aspects to give them 'more' in others. Unfortunately the real artistic integrity and musicianship, the substance of a live show, was what Michael chose to give less of - and he was wrong to do so, IN MY OPINION.

He didn't give "more" in other aspects. He did give more without "". Michael chose to give less is live singing aspect and he was wrong to do so, in your opinion. But in MJ's opinion that was the best that he could give (show wise) at the time given all the circumstances. Of course he could have just stand or sit on the stage and outsing everyone else on the planet. But he thought that live show is more than that, it is entertainment. And he considered himself to be an entertainer, not just a singer.

 

[Tygger]

Chris C, please re-read the post. You are referring to lip-synching in general and that was simply NOT an issue in 1983. Again, any issues one may have with Michael performing live in later years can easily be cured by watching Michael perform and singing live in previous years. If that does not help, it is their issue, not Michael's.

The suggestion was that Krizkil wished Michael performed live during Motown25 as done during Grammys performances when Michael had just sung live with his brothers and did a now-iconic performance of Billie Jean NO ONE in the audience knew would happen. In 1983, lip-synching was NOT an issue so if it was indeed an issue for Krizkil, Krizkil was many years ahead of others which is what I said in my post. When Michael did perform on the Grammys five years later - when lip-synching was more popular among artists, talented or not - I did not hear any complaints that performance was not 100% live. In fact, it was one of Grammys top performances. Krizkil may address Michael’s Grammy performance as well; we shall see.

 

[AdamBa17]

In Krizkils defence, I think they are just expressing their personal opinion.

I agree that if Motown 25 was live it would have been even better! Yes, maybe their wasn't a large anti-lip syncing movement at the time. But does that mean that it shouldn't have crossed anybody's mind that it would have been better live?

I don't think Krizkil is trying to belittle or downplays MJs performance at all, unless I missed something?

 

[Tygger]

AdamBa17, only Billie Jean was a lip-synch performance. Motown25 was all live performances. Billie Jean was also the only song that was not on Motown's label.

I have nothing against Krizkil's opinion and have not stated such. I only stated it was several years before it's time.

 

[Birchey]

The Jacksons lip synced their backing vocals

 

[Zakk]

The Jacksons lip synced their backing vocals

Except Jermaine's vocal bridge in 'I'll Be There' Love how Michael let him use his microphone, It is an integral part to the song..

 

[Birchey]

Except Jermaine's vocal bridge in 'I'll Be There' Love how Michael let him use his microphone, It is an integral part to the song..

That's a lead vocal, not a backing vocal. Yes the part where MJ let him use his mic was amazing though, but I am not sure it was planned, I don't think Jermaines mic was on, but its these things that sometimes add that little bit of magic to a performance.

 

[CodaBroda]

I remember Jermaine saying in his book that it wasn't planned, the mic stopped working. But he was glad it worked out that way, since it created a great moment in the performance.

EDIT: Complete side note, but it took me a little while to catch what your sig was about, Birchey, but when I did...

I think I busted a lung from laughing so hard.

 

[AtlasAir]

Slightly off topic, you guys ever notice how some of the wireless mics were huge (like the one MJ had) and some where tiny (very small in a hand)?

Initially, you'd assume the tiny ones were fake dummy mics, but they clearly weren't, as people singing live and talking used the small ones too.

I'm curious why one would be better or worse. And why are wireless mics today giant compared to the 80s?

/techie rant

 

[Birchey]

Slightly off topic, you guys ever notice how some of the wireless mics were huge (like the one MJ had) and some where tiny (very small in a hand)?

Initially, you'd assume the tiny ones were fake dummy mics, but they clearly weren't, as people singing live and talking used the small ones too.

I'm curious why one would be better or worse. And why are wireless mics today giant compared to the 80s?

/techie rant

It may we be preference, we know how picky MJ was about his Mics, plus different mics pick up different voices and tones better. The size difference i am sure with today as well will probably be a sound quality issue.

 

[barbee0715]

Chris C, please re-read the post. You are referring to lip-synching in general and that was simply NOT an issue in 1983. Again, any issues one may have with Michael performing live in later years can easily be cured by watching Michael perform and singing live in previous years. If that does not help, it is their issue, not Michael's.

The suggestion was that Krizkil wished Michael performed live during Motown25 as done during Grammys performances when Michael had just sung live with his brothers and did a now-iconic performance of Billie Jean NO ONE in the audience knew would happen. In 1983, lip-synching was NOT an issue so if it was indeed an issue for Krizkil, Krizkil was many years ahead of others which is what I said in my post. When Michael did perform on the Grammys five years later - when lip-synching was more popular among artists, talented or not - I did not hear any complaints that performance was not 100% live. In fact, it was one of Grammys top performances. Krizkil may address Michael’s Grammy performance as well; we shall see.

I grew up on lip-synching. I cut my teeth practically on MGM and 20th Century Fox musicals-and they were all lip synched. And all the great variety shows I used to watch, and American Bandstand, and Soul Train, etc. were lip synched. The thing was they were all so great at it, you couldn't tell at all through a movie or TV screen. I didn't even think about it. Berry Gordy, for instance, insisted that all his artists be absolutely perfect in that. (He talks about it in his autobiography, which is great, by the way)

When I started going to live concerts, they were all 100% live and I would just be astonished at the talent-they weren't stadium shows, but they were concert halls-and I just was so lucky to see some of the best performers of all time. But I remember vividly in the late 70's seeing Liza Minnelli-and I called my boyfriend in college (huge Judy and Liza fan) to tell him about every detail of the show-and how she danced this one number without even being out of breath.
And he was like "you poor thing-she lip synched that number." I was so taken aback-for about 5 minutes-and thought about it-and then I was OK with it. Yeah, you dance like a crazy person and you'd be totally out of breath and missing notes. But she got on a stool and sang old torch songs LIVE that were fantastic. And she was such a pro, that I honestly couldn't tell the difference.

I don't remember any flack about performances being lip synched until the Milli Vanilli thing happened-and that was because they weren't actually singing at all.

 

[krikzil]

In Krizkils defence, I think they are just expressing their personal opinion.

I agree that if Motown 25 was live it would have been even better! Yes, maybe their wasn't a large anti-lip syncing movement at the time. But does that mean that it shouldn't have crossed anybody's mind that it would have been better live?

I don't think Krizkil is trying to belittle or downplays MJs performance at all, unless I missed something?

Yip, a simple personal opinion. Live is better. If anything, I think that preference makes me old school rather than ahead of my time. I grew up in a fabulous era of bands and performers who killed it live.

I was very happy Mike got his moment but as someone who'd attended Jacksons' concerts, I knew firsthand how fabulous he was as a live performer. So I come from the simple perspective that it would have been even more amazing. I also meant by "live" that at the time I wished it had not been a taped show for broadcast months later.

As for the night, I was a huge Motown fan and when I heard about the show I asked my Mom and stepdad to work their magic (mom worked at Disney Studios; stepdad, Universal so lots of connections) and get me tickets. I didn't even know the Jacksons and MJ would perform. I really wanted to see some of the legends and Diana Ross in particular. I was used to watching movies/tv being filmed so the stopping and starting for hours didn't bother me but the energy level of the audience did ebb and flow as a result. The change in the auditorium when the Jacksons came out was immediate. I think it surprised a lot of folks there.

When MJ did Billie Jean folks lost their minds. I confess that I wasn't as blown away simply because I already knew what an insane performer he was. My MJ obsession began not with Thriller but back after seeing a grown up MJ sing and dance during the Destiny and Triumph tours. Lawd, that man.

 

[Tygger]

And he was like "you poor thing-she lip synched that number." I was so taken aback-for about 5 minutes-and thought about it-and then I was OK with it. Yeah, you dance like a crazy person and you'd be totally out of breath and missing notes. But she got on a stool and sang old torch songs LIVE that were fantastic. And she was such a pro, that I honestly couldn't tell the difference.

Barbee0715, we have similar experiences and views in this matter.

I have seen J5, Jacksons, and Michael perform solo live. (Adding: I also have seen Michael's brothers perform after his passing.) When I first saw Michael lip-synch live, I was, like you, taken aback. However, after some thought, I did not concern myself with it. Considering the performance I had seen and everything that happened before it, it was logical. He seemed to have super-human capabilities although he was only human. Plus, Michael was such a generous, professional, live performer that I personally did not feel cheated. I will say I do feel cheated when I watch other performers live who lip-synch mediocre and less than mediocre performances.

Krizkil, thank you for your post and for clarifying what you meant by “live.” How fortunate to see those Motown legends! While I was not in attendance, I agree with you that it was interesting seeing others awed by Michael's performance - particularly because of the moonwalk - as I saw Michael do amazing performances before Motown25.

 

[barbee0715]

Yip, a simple personal opinion. Live is better. If anything, I think that preference makes me old school rather than ahead of my time. I grew up in a fabulous era of bands and performers who killed it live.

I was very happy Mike got his moment but as someone who'd attended Jacksons' concerts, I knew firsthand how fabulous he was as a live performer. So I come from the simple perspective that it would have been even more amazing. I also meant by "live" that at the time I wished it had not been a taped show for broadcast months later.

As for the night, I was a huge Motown fan and when I heard about the show I asked my Mom and stepdad to work their magic (mom worked at Disney Studios; stepdad, Universal so lots of connections) and get me tickets. I didn't even know the Jacksons and MJ would perform. I really wanted to see some of the legends and Diana Ross in particular. I was used to watching movies/tv being filmed so the stopping and starting for hours didn't bother me but the energy level of the audience did ebb and flow as a result. The change in the auditorium when the Jacksons came out was immediate. I think it surprised a lot of folks there.

When MJ did Billie Jean folks lost their minds. I confess that I wasn't as blown away simply because I already knew what an insane performer he was. My MJ obsession began not with Thriller but back after seeing a grown up MJ sing and dance during the Destiny and Triumph tours. Lawd, that man.

THAT WAS A GREAT STORY!!! Do you have any idea how jealous I am of you right now??!! First, I want to know how this whole special was kept such a big secret between March and May, because I heard nothing about it until it was about to be on TV.

But I might have just answered my own question. This one of the reasons that I hate that I live in the South-and even though it was 1983, Houston was still as segregated as ever. Certain acts were promoted to white audiences and certain ones were not. The Jackson 5 was considered a "crossover" act so the last and only time I got to see Michael live was when I had just learned to drive and I drug my brother and sister and drove us in our old station wagon down to the Houston Rodeojust to see him with the Jackson 5. This was the last waning days of Motown and I'm not sure if "Dancing Machine" was out yet-and they couldn't even give away a ticket.

Then when they signed with Epic/CBS it was decided they were not a cross over act anymore and the closest I got to see him was in his guest spots on things like Carol Burnett or Cher, and of course, their variety show when I started not to think of him as a kid and started falling in love because of that new adult voice. I was going to live concerts and touring companies of Broadway shows like mad then-and like I said earlier I saw the best of the best-I got to see Liza, Bette Midler, Sammy Davis Jr. twice (the best), Lena Horne, Johnny Mathis, Frank Sinatra etc. etc. but I never heard anything about the Jacksons touring at all.

So I went right from the "Wiz" to the Diana 81" special where he was adorable and shy and sang phenomenally to that insanely sexy performance on "Motown 25." I guess along with the rest of middle America.

Just a few years ago I was watching the "Triumph" tour on You Tube and just being disgusted that I didn't see it-because I would have known years before Motown that he had turned himself into the greatest live performer of all time-just watching him sing and move to "Off the Wall" will tell you that (I watch the performance with the fringe at least once a week-ha). Then one day I decided to look up in Wikipedia to see where those two tours did go. And they did play Houston.!!! Both tours. I had the opportunity, transportation, the ticket money, and I did not hear or see one thing about either tour. Not a poster. Not a commercial.

And that just kills me. Of course, "Victory" was after Motown 25, and thanks to both the world discovering the adult Michael in that moment and that money order system, I couldn't go to that either. "Bad" played here 3 nights and the tix sold out in less than 10 minutes so all I could get was a scalper ticket for about 500 bucks. Couldn't do that either.

I am just amazed that I got deprived just due to who the record companies decided the audience should be.And Houston's racial issues. So yes, I am super jealous that you got to see this greatness with Destiny and Triumph before the world did. I think that's why I watch those shows on You Tube and listen to the live record so much. I'm tormenting myself.

 

[krikzil]

^^ I've always felt fortunate that I was born and raised in Los Angeles and had the parents I had. Both loved music and we always had the radio blasting. My Mom was a lot younger than my late Father and was very open to R&B and Rock -- Elvis, James Brown, Aretha, Tina Turner (OMG she loved Tina!), Tom Jones and so many others. Very eclectic. She totally understood my MJ crazy because she'd been that way over Elvis as a young woman. I should have paid rent to the LA Forum given how much time I spent there attending concerts. It wasn't expensive like today.

I heard about the Motown show at a party I attended with my stepdad and Mom. I honestly don't remember if there was any buzz before or after it was filmed. No social media at the time and Motown wasn't in the best shape then either. I had enormous respect for Barry Gordy and what he'd accomplished so I was pleased to hear he was being honored. I know MJ stole the show but there were many wonderful performances. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

[Silouette]

Except Jermaine's vocal bridge in 'I'll Be There'
Love how Michael let him use his microphone, It is an integral part to the song..

That's a lead vocal, not a backing vocal.
Yes the part where MJ let him use his mic was amazing though, but I am
not sure it was planned, I don't think Jermaines mic was on, but its these
things that sometimes add that little bit of magic to a performance.

Thanks for the clips Birchey. Short but sweet. Left me wanting more.

 

[ChrisC]

Chris C, please re-read the post. You are referring to lip-synching in general and that was simply NOT an issue in 1983. Again, any issues one may have with Michael performing live in later years can easily be cured by watching Michael perform and singing live in previous years. If that does not help, it is their issue, not Michael's.

The suggestion was that Krizkil wished Michael performed live during Motown25 as done during Grammys performances when Michael had just sung live with his brothers and did a now-iconic performance of Billie Jean NO ONE in the audience knew would happen. In 1983, lip-synching was NOT an issue so if it was indeed an issue for Krizkil, Krizkil was many years ahead of others which is what I said in my post. When Michael did perform on the Grammys five years later - when lip-synching was more popular among artists, talented or not - I did not hear any complaints that performance was not 100% live. In fact, it was one of Grammys top performances. Krizkil may address Michael’s Grammy performance as well; we shall see.

You missed the point of my post so there's no need for me to re-read yours. My point was not about a lip-synching debate at all, it's the way you treated an opposing opinion with suspicion and skeptism. At least that's how I interpreted it. Like I said, I'm fine with you being fine with it. And I'm fine with those who aren't.

You also said that the people who critique MJ's miming during HIStory "do not consider his stage shows and the effort they demanded increased with each album." Maybe they do consider all that? You can't possibly know. You are attempting to devalue other people's opinions and suggest their ignorance in some way. Maybe these people have all the information and wisdom that you have but just simply disagree agree with you? It happens. Just accept it, man.

 

[Tygger]

ChrisC, I wrote my previous response based on my interpretation of what Krizkil meant. My interpretation differed from yours.

I still believe there are those who do not consider that Michael's stage shows and the effort they demanded increased with each album as did his age. If you believe they have considered it and still preferred Michael to have sung live, grand.

Difference of opinions occur quite often on discussion boards.

 

[ChrisC]

I still believe there are those who do not consider that Michael's stage shows and the effort they demanded increased with each album as did his age. If you believe they have considered it and still preferred Michael to have sung live, grand.

You're still doing it. I believe that some will have, and some will have not. The point is, whatever their opinion might be, for or against lip-synching, I will still accept it without trying to suggest that they're all ignorant.

Anyway I appreciate your respectful replies. Let's move on. Much love.

 

[Tygger]

ChrisC, I have a difference of opinion as often happens on a discussion board. And?

When I found a poster showing ignorance of Time-Life products and Motown’s place in history I plainly said ignorance was shown. There is no suggestion of ignorance in that post so no need to attempt to place it there.

If there is a view to express about the clips in the opening post, let us leave the space for that.

 

[javiklasicki]

... Nowhere have I ever read or heard of Michael recording a concert to release it in the future, and trust me I have spoken to dozens of people who worked with MJ, Nocturne, handled the films and those involved in the bad 25 release...

Except when Michael sells his concert in Bucharest to HBO for $21 Million in 1992... :rolleyes2: