No Victory songs on the Victory tour?

mj_frenzy

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
2,329
Points
83
Location
Greece
Country
Greece
analogue;4304534 said:
Yeah, what the hell was up with the Torture video? That creepy Phantom Of The Opera looking thing, the person wearing the silver mask, the eyeballs, the spiders. I love the song, but that video is just weird.

They made the ‘Torture’ music video look weird and scary because they wanted it to fit the song’s title and lyrics.

I personally found that music video very tasteless and cheap-looking, and it is no wonder that the production company (that shot it) went into bankruptcy after that.
 

wonderouzmj

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,007
Points
113
~Personal opinion~

Torture is not a good song, at ALL and from memory, doesn't feature Michael very prominently in the vocals. He wasn't even in the video for it (which is as creepy as hell btw), so I don't think he especially enjoyed performing it. There is more room for him to come in, on Tell Me I'm Not Dreamin' (like....BAM!) and make a greater impact on stage. It is a fairly weak song, as well, but better than Torture.
I understand but it was the only song with them as lead vocals & not one song performed. If i ever meet any of the remaining jacksons I'll be sure to ask in GLORIOUS detail!
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
11,637
Points
113
videos

I personally found that music video very tasteless and cheap-looking, and it is no wonder that the production company (that shot it) went into bankruptcy after that.
What does a video "looking cheap" have to do with a company going bankrupt? Lots of music videos of the period & before were low budget. A music video is just a commercial for a record. The record labels did not want to spend much on them.
 

83magic

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
774
Points
63
I’ve been rewatching the ‘victory’ tour lately, and I feel bad about some of the critical comments I previously made about it.

I’m not into concerts in general, but this is one of the few that I can watch the majority of, and still come back to.

I enjoy kanas city almost as much as New York. I appreciate that Toronto has the best picture quality.

it’s the energy and dancing I love the most. the speed of Michael’s moves cause me to rewind and see what I missed the first time. he did things that he never did previously or since then. there are moves that are solely associated with this tour. it’s more spontaneous aside from the few synchronised moments.

the disco lights and rhinestone theme, make it all look magical.

I actually think ‘tell me I’m not dreaming’ sounds better here than the studio version. I love the fast pace and synth bass line of ‘billie jean’.

I’m glad I gave it another chance.
 

filmandmusic

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2021
Messages
2,614
Points
113
it’s the energy and dancing I love the most. the speed of Michael’s moves cause me to rewind and see what I missed the first time. he did things that he never did previously or since then. there are moves that are solely associated with this tour. it’s more spontaneous aside from the few synchronised moments.
Absolutely! He is so SHARP here, like a lightning bolt. Maybe nitpicking but the intro dance to Billie Jean is entirely done like on Motown 25. Post Victory tour it never looked the same, the kicks were different, not as cool on the eye.
People say the bad tour is energetic but on this tour it is something else entirely.
Costumes are also fabulous btw.
the disco lights and rhinestone theme, make it all look magical.
Yes absolutely love the lights and stage, other tours looked boring in this department.
I actually think ‘tell me I’m not dreaming’ sounds better here than the studio version.
Absolutely, I think live it blows the studio track away, there is a grittyness when he pronounces some of the lyrics here, he slurs them but he still sounds clear and unforced unlike later tours. When he comes in after Jermaine, he is like a hurricane. It is here that I started to love the track, I never gave it much attention otherwise.
I love the fast pace and synth bass line of ‘billie jean’.
You and me are probably one of the very few on this but I agree, I love it too. The music seems to fit stage, lighting and costumes.
These BJ performances are impeccable to me.

Also interesting in the very first show in Kansas he doesn’t throw his hat into the crowd but he ends the song in a really cool pose.
 

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
8,686
Points
113
I’ve been rewatching the ‘victory’ tour lately, and I feel bad about some of the critical comments I previously made about it.
I really enjoyed reading your comments on this thread and also the one about Thriller not being performed on the tour. Lots of stuff for me to think about, stuff I wanna follow up on, stuff I need to look out for when I revisit Victory. Haven't watched loads of it but have enjoyed the bits I've seen so far.

I enjoy kanas city almost as much as New York. I appreciate that Toronto has the best picture quality.
Yes. Kansas and NY, definitely but Toronto is my fave so far. But it's early days with Victory. I've watched Triumph and Destiny way more often.

it’s the energy and dancing I love the most. the speed of Michael’s moves cause me to rewind and see what I missed the first time. he did things that he never did previously or since then. there are moves that are solely associated with this tour. it’s more spontaneous aside from the few synchronised moments.
I've seen some of this but need to go back and really absorb it properly. It blew my mind when I started to realise that is what I was seeing.

I actually thinktell me I’m not dreaming’ sounds better here than the studio version. I love the fast pace and synth bass line of ‘billie jean’.
1000x better

I’m glad I gave it another chance.
I actually really love it when that happens. I just re-read the Time 1983 article about Michael. I had always been fairly lukewarm about it. Found it a bit all over the place. This time around I really loved it. Had a blast. So happy!
 

83magic

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
774
Points
63
Absolutely! He is so SHARP here, like a lightning bolt. Maybe nitpicking but the intro dance to Billie Jean is entirely done like on Motown 25. Post Victory tour it never looked the same, the kicks were different, not as cool on the eye.
People say the bad tour is energetic but on this tour it is something else entirely.
Costumes are also fabulous btw.

Yes absolutely love the lights and stage, other tours looked boring in this department.

Absolutely, I think live it blows the studio track away, there is a grittyness when he pronounces some of the lyrics here, he slurs them but he still sounds clear and unforced unlike later tours. When he comes in after Jermaine, he is like a hurricane. It is here that I started to love the track, I never gave it much attention otherwise.

You and me are probably one of the very few on this but I agree, I love it too. The music seems to fit stage, lighting and costumes.
These BJ performances are impeccable to me.

Also interesting in the very first show in Kansas he doesn’t throw his hat into the crowd but he ends the song in a really cool pose.
he’s also super clean and fluid with his movements. even when he gets aggressive he still looks tidy (if that’s possible).

the Kansas show (‘billie jean’ in particular) was quite raw. yet it didn’t bother me. in fact, I think it’s part of the charm. being the opening show of the tour, and following all the hype leading up to it, I felt like I was part of a moment just by watching it. I like how Michael is more talkative, yet he still manages to keep that mythical aura about him. his absence is really felt when he left the stage for jermaine’s solo set.

I’m not a fan of gritty vocals. this is partly why the New York and Kansas are favoured more by me. I think ‘human nature’ is sung best on this tour.
 

filmandmusic

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2021
Messages
2,614
Points
113
Not just human nature imo. I think all 4 thriller songs were never bettered on later tours. Possible exception for the off the wall/destiny/triumph tracks, maybe he sounded even better in general on the triumph and destiny tours
 

83magic

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
774
Points
63
Not just human nature imo. I think all 4 thriller songs were never bettered on later tours. Possible exception for the off the wall/destiny/triumph tracks, maybe he sounded even better in general on the triumph and destiny tours
I’d also add ‘rock with you’ to the list. ‘shake your body’ is also more dynamic with the brothers in my opinion. especially the final date where he announced his departure. I’m partial to the ones that are sung in the original key.

touring puts a strain on the vocal chords. the ‘victory’ tour occurred exactly halfway through Michael’s life. that’s why he said, to paraphrase; ‘it’s been a long twenty years and you all have been great’. it’s natural for the voice to deteriorate with time. even non dancers have had to resort to lip syncing to preserve their voices for future recordings.

I would love a live album of the ‘victory’ tour. I’ve been thinking about that lately.
 

83magic

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
774
Points
63
I really enjoyed reading your comments on this thread and also the one about Thriller not being performed on the tour. Lots of stuff for me to think about, stuff I wanna follow up on, stuff I need to look out for when I revisit Victory. Haven't watched loads of it but have enjoyed the bits I've seen so far.


Yes. Kansas and NY, definitely but Toronto is my fave so far. But it's early days with Victory. I've watched Triumph and Destiny way more often.


I've seen some of this but need to go back and really absorb it properly. It blew my mind when I started to realise that is what I was seeing.


1000x better


I actually really love it when that happens. I just re-read the Time 1983 article about Michael. I had always been fairly lukewarm about it. Found it a bit all over the place. This time around I really loved it. Had a blast. So happy!
michael literally left a lifetime of content behind to enjoy. I can revisit certain things I may have overlooked, and rediscover them. I can never get bored 💜
 

83magic

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
774
Points
63
didn’t know where to put this..

in John branca’s latest instagram post, he discusses the ‘victory’ tour. I had no idea that Michael wanted to tour as a solo artist during this time. I get excited by the possibility of a ‘thriller’ tour. I hope this information may lead to some professional footage being released.
 

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
8,686
Points
113
in John branca’s latest instagram post, he discusses the ‘victory’ tour. I had no idea that Michael wanted to tour as a solo artist during this time.
Makes sense, though. We know he didn't wanna tour with the brothers. The Victory tour is fire, the bits I've watched. But I wish Michael hadn't been pushed into doing something he didn't wanna do. He'd outgrown the family thing by then.

I get excited by the possibility of a ‘thriller’ tour. I hope this information may lead to some professional footage being released.
That would be so cool.
 

83magic

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
774
Points
63
Makes sense, though. We know he didn't wanna tour with the brothers. The Victory tour is fire, the bits I've watched. But I wish Michael hadn't been pushed into doing something he didn't wanna do. He'd outgrown the family thing by then.


That would be so cool.
definitely agree with that. I was just under the impression that Michael didn’t want to tour in general at that point. he stated that ‘triumph’ would be his last. then again, he did continue to refer to himself as a ‘stage addict’.. I personally think that the ‘Motown 25’ reunion with all six brothers should have been their last.
 

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
8,686
Points
113
definitely agree with that. I was just under the impression that Michael didn’t want to tour in general at that point. he stated that ‘triumph’ would be his last.
Hm, that's interesting. I usually don't like to speculate about stuff like this bc how can I possibly know? But I'm thinking, maybe it was a combination of, he was already outgrowing the whole 'Jacksons' thing - even as early as Triumph - plus the strain of being on tour made him feel like that at that moment.

then again, he did continue to refer to himself as a ‘stage addict’..
... so maybe that's part of why he kept touring. Of course, it's also mundane stuff like having contractual obligations, albums needing to be promoted etc. So there's all of that. The business side of things. But, maybe, he loved being onstage as much as he always said he did. So when the strain of being on tour had worn off and he had recovered, maybe he wanted to get back to it.

I personally think that the ‘Motown 25’ reunion with all six brothers should have been their last.
That would have worked. Otoh, bc he did Victory, we've got him singing TMIND. Which is fire. The bit where it switches over from Jermaine to Michael's vocals, omg! I'm kinda glad we've got that although if I could wave a magic wand and have Michael not be part of that tour, I would. But him doing TMIND is just so awesome.
 

83magic

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
774
Points
63
I’ve been rewatching the ‘victory’ tour lately, and I feel bad about some of the critical comments I previously made about it.

I’m not into concerts in general, but this is one of the few that I can watch the majority of, and still come back to.

I enjoy kanas city almost as much as New York. I appreciate that Toronto has the best picture quality.

it’s the energy and dancing I love the most. the speed of Michael’s moves cause me to rewind and see what I missed the first time. he did things that he never did previously or since then. there are moves that are solely associated with this tour. it’s more spontaneous aside from the few synchronised moments.

the disco lights and rhinestone theme, make it all look magical.

I actually think ‘tell me I’m not dreaming’ sounds better here than the studio version. I love the fast pace and synth bass line of ‘billie jean’.

I’m glad I gave it another chance.
nope. my initial instincts were right yet again. I don’t enjoy this tour, or live music in general. it’s great to see Michael glide, and if I was forced to watch a concert it would be from this tour. I stand by my original statement though . no point in repeating it..
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
11,637
Points
113
I don’t enjoy this tour, or live music in general.
Technically, if you go back far enough all recorded music is live. Especially before the mid 1960s when most records were in mono. Because of the technology, music had to be recorded live in studio, the singers, band, (& orchestra if one was used) at the same time. If somebody messed up, everybody had to do another take. Around the late 1960s or early 1970s, stereo recording consoles with more recording tracks were invented, which made it possible to do "one man band" records or punch a small part in for any mistakes.
 

wonderouzmj

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,007
Points
113
Technically, if you go back far enough all recorded music is live. Especially before the mid 1960s when most records were in mono. Because of the technology, music had to be recorded live in studio, the singers, band, (& orchestra if one was used) at the same time. If somebody messed up, everybody had to do another take. Around the late 1960s or early 1970s, stereo recording consoles with more recording tracks were invented, which made it possible to do "one man band" records or punch a small part in for any mistakes.
That's why it's so magical to hear real instruments.
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
11,637
Points
113
That's why it's so magical to hear real instruments.
It depends on what somebody considers a "real instrument". I think when electric pianos, guitars, & later synthesizers first came around, some musicians of the time who had been playing traditional acoustic instruments did not accept them at first. That does not really have much to do with the recording equipment anyway. Probably somebody can use modern computerized instruments and record on an analogue console from the 1940s. Just everybody has to record at the same studio at the same time. They can't record their part as a computer file and email it to somebody else in another city/country to add their part like it is often done today. If multi-track consoles hadn't developed, then singers like Marvin Gaye & Michael Jackson could not have done their own background vocals.
 

wonderouzmj

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,007
Points
113
It depends on what somebody considers a "real instrument". I think when electric pianos, guitars, & later synthesizers first came around, some musicians of the time who had been playing traditional acoustic instruments did not accept them at first. That does not really have much to do with the recording equipment anyway. Probably somebody can use modern computerized instruments and record on an analogue console from the 1940s. Just everybody has to record at the same studio at the same time. They can't record their part as a computer file and email it to somebody else in another city/country to add their part like it is often done today. If multi-track consoles hadn't developed, then singers like Marvin Gaye & Michael Jackson could not have done their own background vocals.
I agree with some musicians didn't like digital that were used to acoustic instruments. I really wish I could see the process of how they did it back then. Just watching that video questioning what we're they thinking doing certain things just makes my mind wonder was it all done without computers with fl & pro tools (so far as vocal stacks.) I can't find any videos on YouTube about the multitrack process to them build it all.
 

zinniabooklover

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2022
Messages
8,686
Points
113
I agree with some musicians didn't like digital that were used to acoustic instruments. I really wish I could see the process of how they did it back then. Just watching that video questioning what we're they thinking doing certain things just makes my mind wonder was it all done without computers with fl & pro tools (so far as vocal stacks.) I can't find any videos on YouTube about the multitrack process to them build it all.
I'm the complete opposite. I'm bewildered by how it's done nowadays. I understand it intellectually but, at the same time, I don't understand it at all. I'm no studio tech so I can't even really explain my confusion, lol. I can understand an interview with Keith Emerson talking about using Moogs but can't understand - not properly - what Greg Phillinganes is on about.

It's just weird.
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
11,637
Points
113
I agree with some musicians didn't like digital that were used to acoustic instruments. I really wish I could see the process of how they did it back then. Just watching that video questioning what we're they thinking doing certain things just makes my mind wonder was it all done without computers with fl & pro tools (so far as vocal stacks.) I can't find any videos on YouTube about the multitrack process to them build it all.
I've read that when drum machines, synth programming, & samplers became what was used in a lot of mainstream popular music during the 1980s, many session musicians who played on the records before that started to get fewer jobs. In popular R&B, the band (eg. Kool & The Gang) started to become extinct, especially when New Jack Swing blew up. By the 1990s, there were very few R&B bands on the radio. It all became vocal groups, solo singers, & rappers. The instrumental break in R&B music was replaced by a guest rapper break or the singing group had their own rappers as a member like TLC. This is also when the traditional producer like Quincy Jones was replaced by beatmaker producers like Timbaland.
 

wonderouzmj

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,007
Points
113
I've read that when drum machines, synth programming, & samplers became what was used in a lot of mainstream popular music during the 1980s, many session musicians who played on the records before that started to get fewer jobs. In popular R&B, the band (eg. Kool & The Gang) started to become extinct, especially when New Jack Swing blew up. By the 1990s, there were very few R&B bands on the radio. It all became vocal groups, solo singers, & rappers. The instrumental break in R&B music was replaced by a guest rapper break or the singing group had their own rappers as a member like TLC. This is also when the traditional producer like Quincy Jones was replaced by beatmaker producers like Timbaland.
I love your musical history let me say 1st
 

DangerousGal91

You know I'm bad 😎
Joined
Aug 13, 2022
Messages
747
Points
93
Location
The Neverlands 😉
Country
Netherlands
It depends on what somebody considers a "real instrument". I think when electric pianos, guitars, & later synthesizers first came around, some musicians of the time who had been playing traditional acoustic instruments did not accept them at first.
Not MJ-related at all, but I'll always think of Bob Dylan, lol. "He went electric?? Heresy!!" Never mind that his electric albums are now common fan favorites.

Music tech is always evolving, it's only natural. There's also the question of cost; producing everything digitally is a lot cheaper since you won't need to hire session musicians. Purchasing digital instruments can be expensive, but most of the time they're one-off purchases (they can also be completely free, even) unlike session musicians that you need to pay for over and over again. I will also say that a good digital instrument nowadays can be pretty accurate in terms of sound reproduction, to the point where I'm pretty certain a lot of modern "real" sounding songs and albums are largely produced digitally. I'm not saying physical instruments aren't being used anymore at all (electric guitar is notoriously difficult to nicely replicate digitally, trust me I know from experience, also rock bands still exist), but I think many records nowadays are a mix of physical and digital instruments, even rock music.
 
Last edited:

Piek

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
187
Points
43
By that time Michael was deep into his solo career, if anything he probably would have liked to do a 'Thriller' tour but as we know he was pushed to do a Jacksons tour.. It was very clear by that time any association Michael had on Jackson albums were out of favor and persuasion/guilt.. They even needed to use an MJ statue in the torture video instead of him being in it.. Notice how once Michael started working his solo, he never again appeared on an album cover, it all became either artwork or he simply was not in it..
Michael was on all covers... Destiny, Triumph, Victory... it's a weird argument that the cover being a painted artwork would mean Michael wasn't interested in the project. In that case, he wasn't interested in Dangerous, HIStory, Blood On The Dance Floor and Invincible either. I think the correct conclusion is that Michael liked artworks on covers.
 
Top