You couldnât have picked a worse player to make your point. Messi still plays at the highest level otherwise Argentina would not have win the world cup and the Copa America. Messi at the world cup was simply incredible.
A better player would be Wayne Rooney who shone very bright for a number of years and then continued playing like an amateur when he should have called it quits long before.
There is also no need to bring up influence or dance when Iâm exclusively talking about his live singing ability.
Perhaps but it is also practically the only era where several audio and video files exist of. When random people youtube MJ live most they get is HIStory tour footage. Iâm pretty sure they would not understand what the fuzz is about when they finally realize he isnât actually singing.
It is not, it is my opinion. Over the years I grew to hate these performance, I didnât even like them live when I saw him twice on the HIStory tour. I was simply not impressed because I heard the same voice from the albums.
source?
Sure but where can we judge it when it is widely unavailable?
Iâm not ignoring the vast majority of his career, in fact I am ignoring just the mid 90s till early 2000s.
It is still very disappointing to see a high profile artist mime this much. He would get massacred on social media and rightly so. I donât understand what part of performing âliveâ he didnât get. He did a playback show, something impersonators do to get some pennies in the street but us fans payed big money for something phoney. If you go to a 5 star hotel and get a 3 star treatment you will be disappointed about the money you dissed out too.
Anyway weâre going to run around in circles here, there is no way I can change your mind and there is no way way you can change mine and I have absolutely no interest in this becoming a fight so here is where I leave it.
Regarding point nr 1:
You said I couldnât have picked a worse player, but your argument actually supports my point. You reference Messi's recent World Cup win, but you're focusing on a specific success while ignoring that his best years, physically speaking, were behind him. Messi no longer runs the same distance, makes as many sprints, or plays with the same intensity he did a decade ago. Despite this, his contribution on the field is still invaluable, and thatâs the essence of my point. You don't measure greatness solely by peak physicality or whether someone is still at the "highest level" at all times. Messi has evolved as a player, much like MJ did as a performer. The comparison with Wayne Rooney doesnât work because Rooneyâs decline was tied to a lack of effectiveness and impact, while MJ, even in his later years, continued to captivate audiences with his stage presence, choreography, and overall showmanship. He adjusted based on his physical constraints but didnât become âamateurishâ as you implied with Rooney.
Regarding point nr 2:
ou mention I shouldnât bring up his influence or dance because youâre exclusively talking about his live singing ability, but thatâs an incomplete evaluation of MJ as a performer. His legacy was built on much more than just his vocal performance. It was the combination of his dance, music, visuals, and stagecraft. MJ was a performer in the truest sense, not just a singer. Evaluating him purely on live vocals strips away the context that made him an all-time great. Michael innovated live shows, creating experiences that very few artists have ever matched, even if parts of it were lip-synced. Dismissing the totality of what he offered his audiences is like criticizing an action movie for using special effects to enhance the experience. It doesnât make the movie any less thrilling. Remember that you're making the argument that his legacy as an artist has become "tainted".
I understand your disappointment with the lip-syncing, but let's put it in context. Artists like BeyoncĂŠ, Britney Spears, Madonna, and even Whitney Houston at times used lip-syncing in their performances, yet their legacies remain intact. Lip-syncing, especially in large-scale productions with intricate choreography, doesnât diminish an artist's ability to captivate and move an audience. MJ wasnât the only artist doing this, but what separated him from the rest was that even when he wasn't singing every note live, he gave fans a performance that no one else could replicate his energy, showmanship, and presence were unmatched. No one went to a Michael Jackson show expecting just live vocals, they went for the entire experience. And MJ always delivered an experience that few, if any, could match.
Your 5 star hotel analogy also doesnât work. People who went to MJâs concerts werenât just paying for the vocals. They were paying for the total performance, the choreography, the production value, the entertainment. And MJ, even in his later years, still provided that at a level no impersonator or street performer could ever hope to achieve.
Regarding Point nr 2 about sources:
The claim that MJ is widely regarded as one of the greatest live performers is not a niche opinion, but a well-documented fact, supported by decades of critical acclaim, awards, and fan devotion. For example, Michael received numerous awards throughout his career for his live performances, including MTVâs Video Vanguard Award (1988), multiple Billboard Touring Awards, and recognition from institutions like the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, where he was inducted twice, once with The Jackson 5 and once as a solo artist. His tours, such as the Bad Tour, were praised by critics globally. Major publications like The New York Times hailed it as a groundbreaking mix of spectacle and raw performance power. Rolling Stone and other major outlets consistently ranked his concerts as some of the best in history. Beyond critical recognition, Michael holds the Guinness World Record for the most successful concert series, with the Bad Tour drawing over 4.4 million attendees across 123 shows. The Dangerous and History tours continued to sell out stadiums around the world, which speaks to the massive demand for his live performances, despite any physical limitations MJ faced later in his career. Numerous artists, including BeyoncĂŠ, Justin Timberlake, Usher, Chris Brown, and Madonna (even his peers) have openly cited Michael as a key influence on their live performances, frequently referring to him as the greatest live performer they had ever seen. When we talk about Michael being regarded as one of the greatest live performers, itâs a fact thatâs deeply ingrained in popular culture. Itâs similar to stating that the Beatles were revolutionary in music, this is something universally acknowledged, not dependent on one particular source or opinion. His contributions and legacy are supported by decades of historical significance and influence, as well as recognition from both critics and fans.
I can also provide specific articles or reviews, but hte recognition of Michael Jackson as an iconic live performer doesnât rely on any single source. It's a matter of public record, documented through the massive impact he made across several decades of performances, sold-out tours, and cultural influence. This status is widely recognized in critic reviews, documentaries, award shows, and pop culture alike. This is the first time I encounter a fan, on a fanboard dedicated to MJ, asking this question.
Regarding the last few points:
You argue that the HIStory era is what people mostly find when they search for Michael Jackson on YouTube. Thatâs true for todayâs generation, but itâs a skewed perspective. People who care enough to understand MJâs career have countless other tours and performances to draw from. If someone only watches one tour and forms an opinion, thatâs not Michael's fault, but a lack of research. The Bad Tour alone, for example, is a masterclass in live performance. You canât reasonably dismiss an entire career based on one or two eras. Youâre focusing on this later period while ignoring the overwhelming body of work that established MJâs greatness, and here is also where you veer into revisionist terrority. While youâre entitled to dislike the later performances, thatâs a personal preference, it becomes revisionist when you argue that this âtaintsâ his legacy. Your personal opinion doesn't change the objective fact that MJ is globally regarded as one of the greatest performers in history. Disliking something doesnât erase its historical significance. Youâre right that opinions canât be changed, but opinions donât override the broader, established narrative of his greatness.
Youâre right that neither of us will change our minds, but itâs not about "winningâ an argument." Itâs about understanding the full scope of a performerâs legacy. MJâs later performances may not have been for you, and thatâs fine. But to argue that these later years somehow 'taint' his legacy is where I strongly disagree. His body of work, his influence, and his impact as a performer are so vast that they transcend any one tour or period of time.
They simply don't have the ability to think deeper so they can only come up with surface level opinions that lack depth.
LMFAOO!
I expect people who aren't productive, are unemployed, or haven't worked a day in their life to not get it; but anyone who works anywhere should be able to grasp what Michael was going through. 
It's not possible to stop every hiccup or bump lol. But, that crazy man always tried anyway. 
