Can Michael's concerts be described as theatrical?

[StarlightXX]

Of course, Michael's concerts generally nodded to classic Hollywoid musicals like West Side Story and Fred Astaire films.

I'm talking about theatre which relies on acting - sometimes exagerrated dramatic/ emotional acting.

I think the HIStory tour had some theatrical elements - in the Earth Song performance with the scene of an army soldier who reconsiders shooting an innocent child.

Also: for the This Is It tour, the Smooth Criminal movie segments had hints of theatre acting.

 

[jasmine.uddin]

Of course, Michael's concerts generally nodded to classic Hollywoid musicals like West Side Story and Fred Astaire films.

I'm talking about theatre which relies on acting - sometimes exagerrated dramatic/ emotional acting.

I think the HIStory tour had some theatrical elements - in the Earth Song performance with the scene of an army soldier who reconsiders shooting an innocent child.

Also: for the This Is It tour, the Smooth Criminal movie segments had hints of theatre acting.

Interesting question.

I think maybe MJ demonstrated the most theatrical flair in his expression of art through his music and dance rather than purely acting. That famous silent stance from beginning of the Dangerous tour needed no theatrics, he just stood there silent, but wasn't it wonderfully theatrical? It's his showmanship that appears most theatrical to me, but not sure that's a result of acting, might be more about feeling the music/moment.

He did act in the Ghosts movie. I know he desperately wanted to act, but I don't think that is where he shined.

Not sure I answered your question, what are your thoughts about it?

 

[R1chard]

Yeah, I'd say the shows were theatrical. Some would say too theatrical, ie with HIStory it came at the expense of the music.

 

[wendijane]

Probably yes ...beautiful illusions with the exciting way m left the building on the dangerous world tour ... "he" flew up over the audience and left the building that way.....which other artist implies /does that?

 

[StarlightXX]

Interesting question.

I think maybe MJ demonstrated the most theatrical flair in his expression of art through his music and dance rather than purely acting. That famous silent stance from beginning of the Dangerous tour needed no theatrics, he just stood there silent, but wasn't it wonderfully theatrical? It's his showmanship that appears most theatrical to me, but not sure that's a result of acting, might be more about feeling the music/moment.

He did act in the Ghosts movie. I know he desperately wanted to act, but I don't think that is where he shined.

Not sure I answered your question, what are your thoughts about it?

Yes, I agree, his silent stance at the beginning of the Dangerous tour was theatrical - an example of dramatic “acting”, if you will.

I think a theatrical production he did noticeably take on was doing the movie The Wiz (that was based on a theatre production).

 

[jasmine.uddin]

Yes, I agree, his silent stance at the beginning of the Dangerous tour was theatrical - an example of dramatic “acting”, if you will.

I think a theatrical production he did noticeably take on was doing the movie The Wiz (that was based on a theatre production).

There's no doubt that MJs performances were theatrical in terms of stage persona (and production).

But I just thought that theatrical acting, which is what I thought you are referencing, involved a different skill set that I'm not sure MJ had.

If you are referring to stage persona as an example of theatrical acting, then yes, no one did it better than MJ.

Putting stage persona aside, I'm not sure his acting in The Wiz, Moonwalker and Ghosts showed a promising career in acting.

 

[R1chard]

Of course the other thing is cost. Both the literal cost (HIStory was $75, when a world-class band like Radiohead was $12). And also the environmental cost (it entirely negates the message of Earth Song if you're going to have 65 trucks and a Boeing 747 full of equipment).

 

[zinniabooklover]

Of course the other thing is cost. Both the literal cost (HIStory was $75, when a world-class band like Radiohead was $12). [...]

Is that a like-for-like comparison, though? Michael at Wembley Stadium 1997 priced at £26.75. I know Radiohead played Wembley Arena at some point. Did they ever play the Stadium? I didn't think they got that far although I think they played a stadium or two in America, maybe.

Not sure it's a legit comparison. Just imo.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Of course, Michael's concerts generally nodded to classic Hollywoid musicals like West Side Story and Fred Astaire films.

I'm talking about theatre which relies on acting - sometimes exagerrated dramatic/ emotional acting.

I think the HIStory tour had some theatrical elements - in the Earth Song performance with the scene of an army soldier who reconsiders shooting an innocent child.

Also: for the This Is It tour, the Smooth Criminal movie segments had hints of theatre acting.

He's acting out stories when he presents the stage version of his videos. I think it was really clear with the TII presentation, imo.

 

[R1chard]

Is that a like-for-like comparison, though?

Apologies. I was going from the figure in

How much would you spend in 2024 to see MJ in concert?

It's been 15 years of inflation since This is It. Live concert ticket prices have shot up an a shocking rate. How much would you be prepared to spend if he toured next week? For this, I'm ignoring the price of transport/parking/food/drinks/tshirt, which these days can easily add an extra $200...

www.mjjcommunity.com

I misremembered. Apparently "This is It was £75 in 2009".

But still, you get the point I'm making.

In 1994 Radiohead played the Astoria, which means the people at the back were something like 30 metres from the stage, all for £8. A football pitch is 105 meters long, so the people at the back at Wembley might be as far as 150 metres from the stage.

 

[someplace_else]

imo...

1. he donated so much money and
2. also you don't know the overall costs every band/musician has to realise such a tour, so I don't know why we have to compare ticket prices?

on topic: the only thing that is too theatrical for me is the "She's out of My Life/YANA" - drama . All the other things are great... although I have to say performance wise I will always like the Bad-Tour best because Michael singing and dancing are the most amazing things to me when I watch his concerts. I don't need anything else to make it a fantastic show.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Apologies. I was going from the figure in

How much would you spend in 2024 to see MJ in concert?

It's been 15 years of inflation since This is It. Live concert ticket prices have shot up an a shocking rate. How much would you be prepared to spend if he toured next week? For this, I'm ignoring the price of transport/parking/food/drinks/tshirt, which these days can easily add an extra $200...

www.mjjcommunity.com

I misremembered. Apparently "This is It was £75 in 2009".

But still, you get the point I'm making.

Not sure, tbh.

In 1994 Radiohead played the Astoria, which means the people at the back were something like 30 metres from the stage, all for £8. A football pitch is 105 meters long, so the people at the back at Wembley might be as far as 150 metres from the stage.

This is why I don't think I'm quite getting your point. The London Astoria in the 1990's - capacity approx 1, 500 - 2, 000. Ticket price £8 for Radiohead. A very intimate experience for the audience. Wembley Stadium in the 1990's - capacity approx 75, 000 (iirc). Ticket price to see Michael in 1997 - £26.75. Clearly a less intimate experience for people at the back of the venue but the difference in ticket price is really modest, imo. The difference in the audience experience would be wildly different, sure. Radiohead, a jeans-and-tee shirts guitar band. Michael Jackson, global superstar, steeped in the theatrical glamour and magic of Hollywood and 'old-school' entertainment. I mean, of course the shows will be completely different. Michael's offering his audience magical escapism. Radiohead, not so much, lol.

Sorry, I'm just really not getting the point you want to make. I still can't see this as a legit comparison.

Think I'll go and watch the rest of the London 1979 Destiny show!

 

[R1chard]

you don't know the overall costs every band/musician has to realise such a tour, so I don't know why we have to compare ticket prices?

I'm not saying it to make a comparison with anybody in particular. I'm just saying MJ was an expensive show. And the reason it was so expensive was that cargo plane full of lighting, speakers, props and costumes.

This is why I don't think I'm quite getting your point. The London Astoria in the 1990's - capacity approx 1, 500 - 2, 000. Ticket price £8 for Radiohead. A very intimate experience for the audience. Wembley Stadium in the 1990's - capacity approx 75, 000 (iirc). Ticket price to see Michael in 1997 - £26.75. Clearly a less intimate experience for people at the back of the venue but the difference in ticket price is really modest, imo. The difference in the audience experience would be wildly different, sure.

Exactly - that's what I was trying to get at. The dramaticised and over-theatrical performance weakened the musical performance, and led to an overall poorer (ie less intimate) audience experience.

Just for reference, about 2 weeks before that HIStory ticket above, Radiohead headlined the Glastonbury festival, in front of well over 100,000 people, in what has often been described as one of the best live concerts of all time. Ticket price for the whole 3-day event, with literally hundreds of bands... £75.

 

[someplace_else]

I often think acapella concerts would have been so cool... imagine, Michael singing accompanied only by an acoustic guitar. Just ballads or slower versions of some songs... would have been kinda impossible to do of course, but

 

[R1chard]

I often think acapella concerts would have been so cool

Definitely. When you look up lists of "best concert ever", one thing that always comes up is Nirvana MTV Unplugged.

... imagine, Michael singing accompanied only by an acoustic guitar. Just ballads or slower versions of some songs...

Exactly. Just one guitar and/or piano. Michael singing fully live. Changing the set list every night. Telling stories. Maybe even taking requests.

would have been kinda impossible to do of course, but

Nothing impossible about that. The last concert from Prince was exactly this.

 

[someplace_else]

Nothing impossible about that. The last concert from Prince was exactly this.

Let's say nearly impossible - because I think Michael wouldn't be able to just sit there and sing, at some point he would just jump off the chair and dance and people would, too .