Latest on MJJC

If Michael wants to tour, I think he should do it with Janet

Lonely1814 said:
Agreed...considering that both parties are known for cancelling due to "illness." :rolleyes:

MJ has to reintroduce himself to the world. So a solo tour would be best.
Click to expand...

im probably the only one whos gonna get this lol
 
michaelsson said:
ummmm no. we ant 2see a SOLO michael tour. i dont wanna have to sit thru a janet set waitin on mike lol. her recent tour didnt do that well so umm yea no thanx
Click to expand...
yes.
Her latest album is a flop and her tour didn't do well.
I'd rather MJ tour with J5 than her if he has to do a tour with some other Jacksons.
 
Michael need's to tour by himself. He's a performer without equal. His sister and his brother's would only hold him back.

And ya'll gonna diss Michael for lip syncing, but you try singing and dancing for 2 hours straight and see how long you last. On top of that he was having issues with his throat, laryngitis, etc... So whatever. Give him a break.

He's the greatest performing artist of all time man. All he needs is himself.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather have singing and no dancing than dancing and no singing. Duplicating a video is of no interest to me, I can just watch the video. I still think he's better with his brothers than solo.
 
^^MJ is reputable as a great dancer not a vocalist. The general public go to an MJ concert to watch him dance. If he does a concert singing 100% live without any dancing, no matter how great his vocal is, he sure gonna get bombarded for not dancing. And the next day you'll see headlines everywhere basically saying he can't dance anymore, he lost his moves and blah.
 
I have to disagree, no major star is going to share the stage with another major star and share a tour together. It doesn't make sense, I don't care if she is his sister, a guest appearance for a song maybe, which wouldn't work but not to share a concert. I want to see Michael and Michael alone. Sorry but that is the truth.
 
ilovemjj4ever said:
^^MJ is reputable as a great dancer not a vocalist. The general public go to an MJ concert to watch him dance. If he does a concert singing 100% live without any dancing, no matter how great his vocal is, he sure gonna get bombarded for not dancing. And the next day you'll see headlines everywhere basically saying he can't dance anymore, he lost his moves and blah.
Click to expand...

Not according to some.
 
Foxy.. said:
Ticket prices would be double the price if they toured together as well.. I think we would be talking £80 up a ticket.. So.. Around $150?
Click to expand...

Your right about that, and I wouldn't want to pay extra to see Janet on tour. I saw her on her Velvet Rope Tour in 1998, it was a brilliant concert and I was very impressed. But I have no wish to see her live again.

I want to see Michael Jackson in concert, not a reformed Jackson 5/ The Jacksons or with any of his siblings unless he has Randy as his keyboard player and musical director. I would also like Michael not to have a support act. I think having them is pointless, so are joint tours.

ilovemjj4ever said:
^^MJ is reputable as a great dancer not a vocalist. The general public go to an MJ concert to watch him dance. If he does a concert singing 100% live without any dancing, no matter how great his vocal is, he sure gonna get bombarded for not dancing. And the next day you'll see headlines everywhere basically saying he can't dance anymore, he lost his moves and blah.
Click to expand...

Michael is more known as a great dancer than a great vocalist, but he's got a as a brilliant vocalist. One of the reasons Michael is known as a genius and an amazing live performer, is because he is an equally brilliant live singer and dancer in concert.

People don't go to see Michael in concert just for his dancing, but to here him sing live. Michael lip-syncing on tours takes away a lot of his magic and power as a live performer. So Michael not singing live has a huge effect. If people just like "entertainment" ie like Britney "Lip-Sync" Spears and have no real appreciation of real talent, then Michael lip-syncing and doing choreographed dance routines, and doing lots of Moonwalks will be great. If people really want to see a mind blowing Michael Jackson, then he will do both spontanous and choreographed dancing with amazing live vocals like he did throughtout the 1970's and 1980's.
 
Last edited:
ilovemjj4ever said:
^^MJ is reputable as a great dancer not a vocalist. The general public go to an MJ concert to watch him dance. If he does a concert singing 100% live without any dancing, no matter how great his vocal is, he sure gonna get bombarded for not dancing. And the next day you'll see headlines everywhere basically saying he can't dance anymore, he lost his moves and blah.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I really don't care what the general public thinks to be honest lol. I just want Michael to sing live. I could do without all the dancing. I'd much prefer to hear him sing live than lip synch and do the same, tired dance moves he's been doing for years. No thank you.
 
DuranDuran said:
I'd rather have singing and no dancing than dancing and no singing. Duplicating a video is of no interest to me, I can just watch the video. I still think he's better with his brothers than solo.
Click to expand...


Even though I LOVE the dance, I agree with you!

As I said before: Sing live or Beat It! :lol:

Sure I hope he will dance. But singing live is more important IMO!
 
Cinnamon234 said:
That's true, but I really don't care what the general public thinks to be honest lol. I just want Michael to sing live. I could do without all the dancing. I'd much prefer to hear him sing live than lip synch and do the same, tired dance moves he's been doing for years. No thank you.
Click to expand...

I am with you a 100 % !

MJ singing live is the most beautiful thing EVER!
 
dreamy said:
I have to disagree, no major star is going to share the stage with another major star and share a tour together. It doesn't make sense, I don't care if she is his sister, a guest appearance for a song maybe, which wouldn't work but not to share a concert. I want to see Michael and Michael alone. Sorry but that is the truth.
Click to expand...
What about

Billy Joel & Elton John
B.B. King & Eric Clapton
Eric Clapton & George Harrison
Earth, Wind, and Fire & Chicago
Ozzfest
Lollapalooza
Metallica & Guns and Roses
Monsters Of Rock
 
Michael's a world class dancer. You would pay to see a brilliant dancer do nothing but dance. That's what a lot of people, even fans, don't seem to understand about Michael and it shows a lack of appreciation for the art of dance. But seeing a great dancer live is as special as seeing a great singer. Both are art forms and I would pay to see Michael dance and dance alone, without any singing, in a minute. I would also pay to see him sing alone and not dance just as quickly. The bottom line is, it's unfair to Michael to expect him to duplicat his ability from his prime to sing and dance live for two hours straight. It's unrealistic. Similarly, it's unfair and unrealistic to expect him to rejoin his brothers any time soon, or even ever again. What would be his motivation for such? He's been far more successful on his own then he ever was with the Jackson's, and that tells him that the public is interested in him alone and not with a group. By the time "Triumph" came about, they were already calling it the Michael Jackson show. His brothers hold him back because they couldn't perform the dance routines he does with professional dancers, there are better backing vocalists then his brothers and better musicians. And splitting a show between him and Janet wouldn't work because Michael is just too big of a star. He's the biggest star in the world and people are rabid about him. When you go to see Michael perform, there is a level of expectation that can't be matched by anybody else. That's why he's regarded as the best. Because he is. It's not just about singing and dancing live. That's not what makes Michael such a brilliant performer. It's his expression, the way he works a stage, the emotion his emites from that. He makes you feel whatever he is trying to convey and he causes unparalleled excitment. When I think of co-starring tours, I think of acts that are just starting, like Chris Brown and Rhianna, or I think of acts that are no longer pulling the kind of audiences they once did and need assistance in filling stadiums and arena's. Michael is neither one of those.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Michael's a world class dancer. You would pay to see a brilliant dancer do nothing but dance. That's what a lot of people, even fans, don't seem to understand about Michael and it shows a lack of appreciation for the art of dance. But seeing a great dancer live is as special as seeing a great singer. Both are art forms and I would pay to see Michael dance and dance alone, without any singing, in a minute. I would also pay to see him sing alone and not dance just as quickly. The bottom line is, it's unfair to Michael to expect him to duplicat his ability from his prime to sing and dance live for two hours straight. It's unrealistic. Similarly, it's unfair and unrealistic to expect him to rejoin his brothers any time soon, or even ever again. What would be his motivation for such? He's been far more successful on his own then he ever was with the Jackson's, and that tells him that the public is interested in him alone and not with a group. By the time "Triumph" came about, they were already calling it the Michael Jackson show. His brothers hold him back because they couldn't perform the dance routines he does with professional dancers, there are better backing vocalists then his brothers and better musicians. And splitting a show between him and Janet wouldn't work because Michael is just too big of a star. He's the biggest star in the world and people are rabid about him. When you go to see Michael perform, there is a level of expectation that can't be matched by anybody else. That's why he's regarded as the best. Because he is. It's not just about singing and dancing live. That's not what makes Michael such a brilliant performer. It's his expression, the way he works a stage, the emotion his emites from that. He makes you feel whatever he is trying to convey and he causes unparalleled excitment. When I think of co-starring tours, I think of acts that are just starting, like Chris Brown and Rhianna, or I think of acts that are no longer pulling the kind of audiences they once did and need assistance in filling stadiums and arena's. Michael is neither one of those.
Click to expand...
FACT:yes:; couldnt expalin it better:clapping:
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
Michael's a world class dancer. You would pay to see a brilliant dancer do nothing but dance. That's what a lot of people, even fans, don't seem to understand about Michael and it shows a lack of appreciation for the art of dance. But seeing a great dancer live is as special as seeing a great singer. Both are art forms and I would pay to see Michael dance and dance alone, without any singing, in a minute. I would also pay to see him sing alone and not dance just as quickly. The bottom line is, it's unfair to Michael to expect him to duplicat his ability from his prime to sing and dance live for two hours straight. It's unrealistic. Similarly, it's unfair and unrealistic to expect him to rejoin his brothers any time soon, or even ever again. What would be his motivation for such? He's been far more successful on his own then he ever was with the Jackson's, and that tells him that the public is interested in him alone and not with a group. By the time "Triumph" came about, they were already calling it the Michael Jackson show. His brothers hold him back because they couldn't perform the dance routines he does with professional dancers, there are better backing vocalists then his brothers and better musicians. And splitting a show between him and Janet wouldn't work because Michael is just too big of a star. He's the biggest star in the world and people are rabid about him. When you go to see Michael perform, there is a level of expectation that can't be matched by anybody else. That's why he's regarded as the best. Because he is. It's not just about singing and dancing live. That's not what makes Michael such a brilliant performer. It's his expression, the way he works a stage, the emotion his emites from that. He makes you feel whatever he is trying to convey and he causes unparalleled excitment. When I think of co-starring tours, I think of acts that are just starting, like Chris Brown and Rhianna, or I think of acts that are no longer pulling the kind of audiences they once did and need assistance in filling stadiums and arena's. Michael is neither one of those.
Click to expand...

1 of the many reason i love u. always know what ur talkin about
 
But it's a CONCERT, not a dance recital or a Broadway play. If Mike adverises his show as a dancing exhibition like a ballet, Alvin Ailey, or Riverdance, well that's different and that's fine. Then singing wouldn't be necessary. But a concert is singing or playing an instrument. Everything else like dancing, pyrotechnics, costumes, magic acts, props, etc is secondary. If he can't dance and sing at the same time, then the primary purpose of a concert is music. As they got older other people like James Brown, Tina Turner, and Prince phased out the heavy dancing (or let other people do it) and focused on music. Or he can exercise all the time like Madonna.
 
Last edited:
Madonna doesn't dance nearly as hard as Michael. Niether do people like Tina Turner or even James Brown. They never had the kind of concentration and precisian and control that's needed to perform the kind of dancing Michael does, and that takes it out of you more then anyone here could ever know. Michael is a performing artist and a part of that performance is music, yes, another part is dance, another part is theatrics. You would have just as many people complaining about Michael not dancing as you do now people who complain about him not singing live. It's one or the other at this point. Of course it would be great if Michael could still sing while dancing like mad at the same time, but it's an unrealistic and unfair expectation. A vast majority of people who go to Michael's concerts will tell you it's because they want to see him move, they want to see him just in general, they want to see him perform. It's not just about pure singing with Michael, it's about the overall package. Although you could take him as a pure singer, a pure dancer, etc... but he's all of those things and he combines them on stage to put on a performance, not just a concert. Not everybody is going to be happy with what he decides to do. But any one of his talents is huge enough to carry an entire show on it's own, and that's what makes him so immensley talented. The fact that his talent in each of those areas is big enough to make it the primary foucus of a full length show. It is what it is. But seeing Michael dance live is a very real treat to a lot of people, me included. As would be hearing him sing live. But saying you could just watch his videos to see him dance, the same argument could be turned around on you and people could say, I can just listen to his records to hear him sing, I want to see him dance live. Michael is too talented for his own good in this situation because each of his talents is big enough for people to have a demand for each.
 
Wannabe i understand what you're saying. MJ doesnt NEED his sister. But the reason i suggested it was looking at it from MICHAEL's perspective and what would be easier for him to deal with, what would make the experience less torturous. He doesnt like performing, so for him it could work. Also, how can she hold him back if its essentially two seperate performers taking turns? That way he could have breaks and not get so tired/strained.

I agree that most fans wouldnt like the idea, but forget about what we want. What would make these easier and happier for MJ? I think he'd love to spend so much time with Janet.
 
wannabestartinsomthin21 said:
The bottom line is, it's unfair to Michael to expect him to duplicat his ability from his prime to sing and dance live for two hours straight. It's unrealistic.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. My feelings are that on the HIStory Tour, Michael's slower, repetitive and more choreographed dancing plus lip-syncing were down to laziness. And possibly after Michael had an operation on his throat after the 1992 leg of the Dangerous Tour (which was cancelled earlier because of throat problems), Michael may have been advised not to sing live on tour for long periods.

At the age of 50, I think it's very unlikely Michael will have the same engery level etc that he had during his peak in the 1980's specifically the Bad Tour. But Michael is not someone I would underestimate, so I think we should just wait and see. And not expect him to perform like he did at his peak, and certainly not expect the worst. I think whatever Michael does live will be better than anything he did live in the 1990's, as I felt he became too complacent then.
 
If 45 years of career are laziness then I must be out of my mind....
Why don't you accept him just the way he is?
 
Last edited:
benscarr said:
Michael is more known as a great dancer than a great vocalist, but he's got a as a brilliant vocalist. One of the reasons Michael is known as a genius and an amazing live performer, is because he is an equally brilliant live singer and dancer in concert.
Click to expand...
That's basically what I'm trying to say. :) and as always great posts from WBSS21


If some Jackson fans want to see all the Jacksons on stage, I think
J5 can stand behind the stage doing backup vocals and Janet as a backup dancer for Michael's solo tour. lol J.K

I think MJ doing a tour with his siblings is a very bad move for his SOLO career and he doesn't need them to mess up with his SOLO career.

I can see why the poster of this thread suggest a joint concert.
But if MJ wants to do a tour, he can do it. Any obstruction in between is nothing if he has the will and determination to do it. He needs only his great spirit.
 
athina_livadi said:
If 45 years of career are laziness then I must me out of my mind....
Why don't you accept him just the way he is?
Click to expand...

What has laziness and a 45yr old career got to do with anything. Where have I said I have not accepted Michael the way he is as a live performer, because at present Michael hasn't performed live in concert since 2001 when he wasn't very happy or well. So there is nothing to not accept.

Michael toured every year from the start pre fame Jackson 5 1960's right through to 1981. From then on Michael toured an average of every 4yrs, he's said he doesn't like touring so it's no wonder he will become quite jaded about performing the same songs and dance routines for songs like Billie Jean. It might be fun for fans who have never seen Michael in concert before, but boring for Michael. Therefore Michael like a person of any profession who has to do the same thing over and over again will became complacent ie lazy.

What I said about Michael is positive. Reason being, despite fans complaining that Michael hasn't releaesed a new album since 2001, and hasn't toured for over a decade. Despite the trial and the bad things that happened to Michael pre 2005, this decade is really the first time Michael's lived as near a "normal" life someone as big an Icon can live, because he has not been an active as a recording and performing artist.

Some fans complain that Michael has taken too long out of the music world since the end of his trial in 2005. But I think such a period of time, with rejuvinate Michael at least as a live performer. I said in my last post not to undesitame Michael, and also not to expect to much from him or even expect the worst. I will accept Michael however he performs, even when I feel he's being complacent it's always a pleasure to see him perform. But I do think Michael live on tour in his 50's will be far better than he was on the Dangerous and HIStory tours. 50 may not be a young age, but being 50 isn't as old as it used to be which is why I still won't underestimate Michael, just as I won't expect Michael to be like he was at the age of 29-30 on the Bad Tour.

ilovemjj4ever said:
I think MJ doing a tour with his siblings is a very bad move for his SOLO career and he doesn't need them to mess up with his SOLO career.
Click to expand...

It would be a bad move at present. But I would like to see a reformed Jackson 5 tour in the future after Michael has made a comeback as a solo artist.
 
Last edited:
I can except the fact that Michael can no longer sing and dance at the same time anymore and it's either gonna be one or the other but what if Michael records new vocals to lip sync to? That way it won't be so obvious that he is lip syncing.
 
At the end of the day, the majority of people who will buy tickets to a Michael Jackson concert will do so because they want to see Michael Jackson sing. If Mike mimes a large portion of the concert (even half the songs) people will be complaining on the way out and it will be another knock back to his career and further damage his legacy. He has to put on a show where he can sing most songs (almost all) live, with good visuals and good sound quality. That did not happen during HIStory and there were many people walking out of the UK shows talking to news reporters about how let down they felt because they could have listened to the CD for free, that the sound quality wasn’t good and the screens were good enough. Other concerts around the same era were set up much better – look at U2s Popmart tour for example, that had a great setup. He still has a reputation as a great performer and people know him for his dancing but they won’t accept him giving dancing precedence over singing like he has done before, especially today when miming is even more frowned upon than it was in the late 90s.

My wife is not an MJ fan, but I would like to take her to see an MJ show and will be buying at least 2 tickets as soon as they are released, but if it turns out that there is a vast amount of miming I won’t take her because it would be too embarrassing. Lionel Richie didn’t mime when we saw him, neither did Stevie Wonder, and I’m sure Take That won’t be miming when she sees them in the summer, so why should we accept Mike miming? In fact, I have never been to a concert where the artist has mimed as much as Mike and never want to. She won’t be impressed by miming and rightly so IMO, in fact if he does mime like HIStory again, I’ll feel like he let the audience down. Perhaps some of you might find that a bit harsh, but I believe it’s the way most non-fans would feel too and the success of his comeback album and tour is largely due to them. They will be the ones that push the album and tour from being moderately successful to incredibly successful because the hardcore fan base can’t do it alone.

If Mike can’t sing live over a whole concert tour for some reason – perhaps because of a medical condition as someone suggested – then he should only perform a handful of shows in the world’s major regions for broadcast in that region (i.e 1 or 2 in the US, 3 or 4 in Europe, 1 in Australia, 2 in Eastern Europe, 4 or 5 in Asia) that way he can spread them out from each other and still put on a live show. He could perhaps command a large fee from TV companies to show a concert from their local area and viewer would feel as though they are getting something special by being able to see a local show on TV, rather than the same show everybody else in the world is seeing. He wouldn’t make as much money as by doing a full world tour, but I think it’s a good compromise. Also, this severe limitation on tickets could create a real buzz surrounding the concerts as they would be very limited.

[FONT=border=]
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top