dangerous tour vs. history tour

chrissychristina

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
112
Points
0
maybe this has been done before, but im wondering which tour is better? i love bucharest '92 but im really starting to love munich '97 as well. what do u all think is the better one and why?
 
Dangerous Tour because im loving to see man in the mirror live :)
 
Had HIStory been more live singing I would go for HIStory no doubt, but too much lipsynching IMO. - Love the show, but I have to vote for Dangerous due to more live singing.
 
Dangerous tour, although they say the Bad tour was his best as he sang live all throughout and was at his sexiest and most energetic with his dance moves. He performed in my country during the HIStory tour but I was not a fan yet at the time.
 
better singing on dangerous, way better dancing on History, like way way better, to make up for the lack of live vocals, id say theyre even
 
Dangerous Tour. Which I unfortunately only saw once, but it still was better than seeing HIStory several times. Less lipsynching, more refined lighting and effects etc. etc.
 
Dangerous Tour.
Moments like the extended vocals on Working day and night
or Man in the Mirror are missing so much in the History Shows.
 
Dangerous Tour for reasons posted above and because of Man In The Mirror! I really think that he should have done Man In The Mirror in history, such a powerful and great song to end a concert with!
 
TII would end with Man In The Mirror.

I think TII would have been the best MJ tour ever! Even better than bad maybe.
 
Had HIStory been more live singing I would go for HIStory no doubt, but too much lipsynching IMO. - Love the show, but I have to vote for Dangerous due to more live singing.

Dangerous Tour...same reason.
 
Dangerous Tour for all the reasons above, especially because there was much more live singing. But I also prefer the stage, setlist and the fact that Michael's dancing has a bit more energy. That being said, the HIStory Tour is still a blast to watch as well of course.
 
Dangerous Tour for me, as I'm against lip-synced performances. I can't enjoy the HIStory tour, unless I'm watching it purely for the newer songs or for the dancing.
 
Just like most of you, it's Dangerous to me, for the same reason. I love many performances in HIStory, especially the beginning with They Dont Really Care About Us. Earth Song is mindblowing, too. Such a shame he sang so few songs live. I'd die to hear Earth Song completely live.

This Is It could have been a great compromise between the two shows: Cool dancing moves, huge show-effects, but also some songs without lip-syncing.
 
Dangerous, HIStory is lip synced & all the shows look exactly the same, Ive got a few HIStory Tours and they all seem the same to me except for a different song. I want to see the Dangerous Tour in Argentina - Buenos Aires.
 
History tour had the better intro and costumes, dangerous tour had the better ending. So 1-1
Dangerous tour was 50% live and History about 0,5% his “i love you’s” which he shouted about 250 times sounded great though. Makes it 2-1 for dangerous
setlist HIStory wins makes it 2-2

So in conclusion I think both are equally bad!
 
History tour had the better intro and costumes, dangerous tour had the better ending. So 1-1
Dangerous tour was 50% live and History about 0,5% his “i love you’s” which he shouted about 250 times sounded great though. Makes it 2-1 for dangerous
setlist HIStory wins makes it 2-2

So in conclusion I think both are equally bad!
What are you smoking??!
 
History tour had the better intro and costumes, dangerous tour had the better ending. So 1-1
Dangerous tour was 50% live and History about 0,5% his “i love you’s” which he shouted about 250 times sounded great though. Makes it 2-1 for dangerous
setlist HIStory wins makes it 2-2

So in conclusion I think both are equally bad!
Dangerous Tour its killer and his best,Bad tour is a joke compared to the Dangerous Tour wth
 
Back
Top