The Estate's Five Project Ideas for 2013 - What's Your Favorite?

[144000]

i love Michael's performances in the 96 97 History tour. His dancing was amazing. I'm tired of the lip synch argument. He had nothing to prove, and as far as I am concerned I loved his singing at those. And as far as his 2001 anniversary 30th, i believe that was superb. And that's the one I choose.
If Michael didn't release something, it was because he wasn't satisfied with it, as he has stated in the past. I buy his classics over and over. They never get old. I am terrified of somebody 'touching up' his unreleased material,(past results justify my fears) and I know they would 'touch it up'. No duets, please. I could feel Paul Anka's screw up coming from miles away.

 

[Pentum]

Feels like I'm the only one who don't want a duet album. The thought of unheard MJ vocals extracted from the music he recorded it to and pasted into some other production, featuring another person singing which was not the point in his song, makes me cringe and uncomfortable.

 

[Galactus123]

Now we have everything the Bad tour will ever give us, so any further release of it is useless.

No they aren't. I want to see Bad Tour in HD:

Imagine full Bad Tour concert in that quality in cinemas.

 

[AlwaysThere]

Secondly, a duets album can go from "Amazing" to "Awful" depending on the duet partners. I suspect the Estate would try to get someone for everyone and so have artists of all ages and genres. This is worrying. In my opinion the duets should only be with people Michael has worked with in the past, planned to work with in the future, or at least knew of their existence and enjoyed their work. Wouldn't it be better to hear an unfinished song as "Michael Jackson ft. Stevie Wonder" rather than not hearing it at all?

That's true and it's something I would love to hear. Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, Akon... people Michael has worked with in the past. But we all know the estate will try to make it "current" and will bring in people like Justin Bieber or Adele or Katy Perry, and we don't need them.

 

[Arklove]

Oh and I forgot to mention, that classical album will need to be backed up with a lot of evidence for me to believe Michael had ANYTHING to do with it - going on the Estate's track record.

True...I am so excited for MJ's classical stuff...but yes, how would we even know if it's actually his work? Such a shame

 

[dmehta]

i love Michael's performances in the 96 97 History tour. His dancing was amazing. I'm tired of the lip synch argument. He had nothing to prove

It's not about not having anything to prove. Michael Jackson was one of the best live performers of all time, that is without question. But when you pay to see a live concert, you expect a good portion of that show, at least, to be sung live. All of MJ's tours, solo and with his brothers, were brilliant up to and including the Dangerous tour. However, I can't really excuse the almost complete lack of live singing on the History tour and it's why I almost never watch it. I can't really understand it to be honest. The faster songs, fine to some extent, eg Smooth Criminal, but why stand on stage virtually still lip syncing to You Are Not Alone? Mike's heart was clearly not in the History tour, for some reason. He was going through the motions and not wanting to really be there. Compare that to the Bad and Dangerous tours where he was 100% committed and looked like he was enjoying every second of it. I don't get that same vibe from the History tour performances.

As for releasing a History tour DVD, the critics WOULD rip into it big time for that very reason. When reviewing the Bad tour Wembley DVD, the critics pretty much unanimously gave it great reviews, because it is so good.

There is some great dancing on the History tour, but the lack of live singing and lack of energy means it isn't even comparable with the Bad and Dangerous tours, in my opinion.

 

[Billie Jean 78]

All this talk about playback during HWT... Has anyone ever thought about the possibility of Michael having sung live in the micro, but because it wasn't up to his standards they just decided to run the playback over his voice? Is it possible that there would be live voice, even though not record perfect?

It wouldn't have been the first time something like this was done...

 

[144000]

It's not about not having anything to prove. Michael Jackson was one of the best live performers of all time, that is without question. But when you pay to see a live concert, you expect a good portion of that show, at least, to be sung live. All of MJ's tours, solo and with his brothers, were brilliant up to and including the Dangerous tour. However, I can't really excuse the almost complete lack of live singing on the History tour and it's why I almost never watch it. I can't really understand it to be honest. The faster songs, fine to some extent, eg Smooth Criminal, but why stand on stage virtually still lip syncing to You Are Not Alone? Mike's heart was clearly not in the History tour, for some reason. He was going through the motions and not wanting to really be there. Compare that to the Bad and Dangerous tours where he was 100% committed and looked like he was enjoying every second of it. I don't get that same vibe from the History tour performances.

As for releasing a History tour DVD, the critics WOULD rip into it big time for that very reason. When reviewing the Bad tour Wembley DVD, the critics pretty much unanimously gave it great reviews, because it is so good.

There is some great dancing on the History tour, but the lack of live singing and lack of energy means it isn't even comparable with the Bad and Dangerous tours, in my opinion.

My question is, should Michael have continued touring at all then? Why did This Is It sell out so well if so many had bad impressions of his last impressions as far as touring is concerned? There were many aspects to MJ's performance that were stunning and many who enjoyed them. And Michael put it together well. singing included. Many were thankful for pics of him from 2001 as well. It's either one thing or the other. So it is about him having nothing to prove.

On a footnote, that has nothing to do with my response to this post..

The idea for a blu ray of the funeral....simply MORBID. I'll always give props to the estate when i like what they do, but when they think of something like this?? That is truly LAME. And the behavior of the city of Los Angeles during that time...i'm guessing they'd want a cut of something as rediculous and terrible as this idea.

 

[CrazyVegasMJ]

The idea of a memorial service bluray is laughable IMO...

I don't think that idea was ever an option for the estate so I'm wondering why that would even be made an option by the OP..

Btw, I believe the service was produced by AEG Live and since they're being sued by the jackson family for billions, I just can't see this ever being released (at least not for ANY kind of profit that would benefit the estate and/or AEG)...

Also, a new album with unreleased (recent) material is a no brainer...

Or even around Halloween, a Thriller/Ghosts double bluray release with original 1080p transfers, and both in a widescreen format (assuming it doesn't crop out too much of original frame) would be amazing as well. As long as the "making of" docs are included, plus extra features (duh)...

I think Sony is going to wait until either 2014 or 2019 (5 and 10 year anniversary of MJ's passing) to re-release an extended version of "This Is It" I'm some way (theater release or straight to bluray).. Looking forward to that, of course..

 

[laurenjayne]

It's not about not having anything to prove. Michael Jackson was one of the best live performers of all time, that is without question. But when you pay to see a live concert, you expect a good portion of that show, at least, to be sung live. All of MJ's tours, solo and with his brothers, were brilliant up to and including the Dangerous tour. However, I can't really excuse the almost complete lack of live singing on the History tour and it's why I almost never watch it. I can't really understand it to be honest. The faster songs, fine to some extent, eg Smooth Criminal, but why stand on stage virtually still lip syncing to You Are Not Alone? Mike's heart was clearly not in the History tour, for some reason. He was going through the motions and not wanting to really be there. Compare that to the Bad and Dangerous tours where he was 100% committed and looked like he was enjoying every second of it. I don't get that same vibe from the History tour performances.

I have to agree with this, it didnt seem the same, such a shame most of it was lip synced, i always wish he didnt do it so much on tv performances and that tour
but you know they were always great performances either way

 

[ChrisC]

All this talk about playback during HWT... Has anyone ever thought about the possibility of Michael having sung live in the micro, but because it wasn't up to his standards they just decided to run the playback over his voice? Is it possible that there would be live voice, even though not record perfect?

It wouldn't have been the first time something like this was done...

Whether that is true or not is irrelevant in this discussion, I'd say.

If there are fans that liked the HIStory tour then great, that's fine. But in the wider scheme of things it will only prove a disservice to Michael's reputation and legacy were it released.

For anyone with any real credibility, you can't mime THAT much of a show and not take the hit for it. It's simple.

Some critics even picked up on the miming on the Bad Wembley release but those that did were happy to let it slide given that it was only used sparingly, and given the length and energy level of the overall concert. Michael's performance dance-wise was wonderful indeed. But you can't put on a live concert and mime 90% of it. You'll just be laughed out the room.

Why did This Is It sell so well despite all that miming someone asked? Perhaps a release of a HIStory concert prior to the This Is It announcement WOULD have harmed sales. After all, we're talking about a 12 year gap here. And for persons in the UK, no concert from that tour was ever shown on British television or released to market, so unless you attended a gig, actively searched for one online or read reviews at the time, my guess is you simply didn't know about it.

 

[144000]

Whether that is true or not is irrelevant in this discussion, I'd say.

If there are fans that liked the HIStory tour then great, that's fine. But in the wider scheme of things it will only prove a disservice to Michael's reputation and legacy were it released.

For anyone with any real credibility, you can't mime THAT much of a show and not take the hit for it. It's simple.

Some critics even picked up on the miming on the Bad Wembley release but those that did were happy to let it slide given that it was only used sparingly, and given the length and energy level of the overall concert. Michael's performance dance-wise was wonderful indeed. But you can't put on a live concert and mime 90% of it. You'll just be laughed out the room.

Why did This Is It sell so well despite all that miming someone asked? Perhaps a release of a HIStory concert prior to the This Is It announcement WOULD have harmed sales. After all, we're talking about a 12 year gap here. And for persons in the UK, no concert from that tour was ever shown on British television or released to market, so unless you attended a gig, actively searched for one online or read reviews at the time, my guess is you simply didn't know about it.

point is, This Is It sold out. Michael's credibility can't be damaged. The world is too big, and not everybody agrees on everything. There are a lot of aspects of Michael that others enjoyed that you didn't enjoy, apparently. You can't just go by you. You also can't worry about critics. Once an artist gets big, they get haters. You can't worry about that. A lot of people that nobody ever says anything bad about, don't necessarily do well in their occupation. A lot of people like the 2001 gigs. A lot of people didn't hear about a lot of things, and a lot of others did and don't care. Magic is magic. Anyway, I could certainly understand why MJ didn't want to tour anymore.

You really can't know what would 'damage' his legacy, in a hypothetical situation. I'm sure there are those who could feel justified at the idea that Michael was only good in the Thriller era, or that OFf The Wall was his only 'critically' good album, if people run scared and don't go beyond that. You can't go by what crap people would say. Nobody ever got anywhere being afraid of the opinions of negatories in their Mom's basements. You think Michael would have had such a long and storied career if he decided to quit as soon as somebody said something negative?

I've looked all over this site and there are a myriad of things that fans love about Michael that have nothing to do with the micromanaging criticism of this or that about him.

In fact, it was when he was attacked that more
fans were endeared to him.

There are musicians in many genres of music that want to explore the 'lesser known' MJ music, that got critically blasted in the recent past.
And, more importantly, in this subject matter, there are people who loved many aspects of MJ's later concert tours that you may not have given thought to.
I have heard that Motown 25 Billie Jean was entirely lip synched. Apparently, the world was ok with that.

If nobody ever said anything, I would never have given it any thought. And now, I don't give what people said about it, any thought. For me, I enjoyed it.

 

[AlwaysThere]

This is how I look at it:

Everyone needs to think of the Elvis 1977 comeback special. Elvis was a great live performer and everyone was aware of it. So did he have anything to prove? No. But he had two options. (1) Do his absolute best in concert or (2) Don't perform at all. In the special, Elvis is a shell of himself. He forgets the words to his songs, had to use lyric sheets and was mediocre at best. This special garnered negative reviews, with most critics and fans tearing it to shreds because Elvis's performance didn't measure up to his past ones. Because of this, his Estate confirmed that they would never release the performance (his last to ever be recorded) officially.

This is similar to the HIStory tour situation. Sure, this isn't exactly how it happened with Michael, but it's close. On the HIStory tour Michael was dancing at no more than 70%, sang to overdubbed vocals for over 95% of the concerts and didn't seem to even want to be on stage. Even when he did sing live, to Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' and the Jackson 5 Medley, his vocals were terrible. He really shouldn't have gone on tour; the album was already a success, he could've left it at that. I've spoken to people who have literally walked out of a HIStory concert because of this. I've even spoken to people that said they wouldn't go to a This Is It concert if they heard Michael mimed any more than 40% of the show. (Thankfully in rehearsals he didn't.)

In regards to critics, they DO indeed matter. No matter what you say we all know that critics would tear into the HIStory show if it was released. As it's been mentioned, some critics were giving small critiques to Michael for lip-synching to FOUR SONGS on the Bad Wembley DVD. FOUR. Whereas he sang the rest of the show with 100% live vocals. Wouldn't you want a release that was critically acclaimed rather than critically bashed?*

All I can say is that if the HIStory tour is released on any format, most of the fan community won't touch it. Mainly because it's not worth the money.

 

[144000]

Indeed, Michael shouldn't have toured. But not for the reasons you say. He said he didn't want to tour in 2003. But all kinds of people, including fans fell into the sweep up of the media's idea that if MJ didn't tour, he would lose his catalogue. It didn't seem to matter that some people apparently thought he was miming. Noting seemed to matter. Tickets went like wildfire. So, i don't know about Elvis, but fans themselves belied the idea that Michael was finished as far as touring is concerned. All we had to do was not buy tickets. But that wasn't the case. Critics don't matter.

Anything Michael did, was criticized in the latter years. It came to the point where all he wanted to do was raise his kids. It didn't matter what project he came up with. Somebody always had something to say.

There will always be critics.

If it were up to them, Michael would not have a legacy now. So they don't matter.

Again, Michael proved his vocals when he was little. So now I hear he lip synched Motown 25. People went crazy.
So for every critic there are a lot of quieit people who want all of his concerts. All of his tours. There will be people who will buy them, and people who will not. But you can't speak for everybody..especially since this is the biggest fanbase on earth.

If there are people in the controversy section trying to defend a certain ...album...
Then there are plenty of people who will defend 2001, HIStory, and things you think are indefensible.
Now for the people that want Off The Wall, they can have it, if they ask the estate..i guess. If people want HIStory, they should be able to have it. And there are. If they want Victory(which some people criticized) then they should be able to have it.
Michael isn't Elvis.

I want the anniversary concerts.
I'm not going to focus on the negative.
I'll focus on the positive, which was overwhelming.
Peoples' pocketbooks spoke volumes.
I don't remember a time when they didn't.

Now I've seen that people want the release of unfinished material. Last time people tried that it got blasted, too. So what does it matter?

 

[HIStory]

Wouldn't you want a release that was critically acclaimed rather than critically bashed?*

That's exacty the point. They can release so many things that would give Michael critical acclaim, so why to release something that would only open him up to criticism? Yes, there will always be people who criticize him no matter what, but it's more difficult for them to do that if the release is actually good. And if it's good the good reviews will outnumber the bad ones by far. In the case of HIStory WT however the sad fact is that Michael DID mime 90-95% of the time. Critics will only have to state that fact and it won't look good on Michael. And most reviews will not be positive.

I think if HWT ever gets released that should only be a low key fan release. Maybe on the collectors' label. Definitely not a cinema release. If you want to put a MJ concert in the cinemas then let it be something which shows him at his best, not at his worst!

 

[144000]

there was never a time when good reviews outdid bad reviews, no matter what Michael did. For every giant fan support, there were critics who called MJ fans looney. That's not going to change no matter what you release. Real talk. I'm still waiting for stuff that's glowing from critics. I'm not holding my breath. So, this thread asked what each fan wanted. I stated what I wanted. I'm not holding my breath for critics. There's something for everyone here. The general public isn't the issue anymore. As you know there are people on here who complained about 'the general public' only appreciating 'Thriller'. That's not going to change. So you might as well request what you want as a fan.

 

[AlwaysThere]

I don't mean to criticize anyone but I just can't fathom why anyone would choose other than an album of new music. I mean, we've already gotten anything we'll ever get out of Michael's solo tours. But there are still dozens upon dozens of songs left in the vault that are unheard and just awaiting release. How in the world can you pass that up?

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I'd love to hear more unreleased and untouched material but I'd also love to have (from these options) The HIStory World Tour concert, if not in cenemas, released on DVD and blu-ray.

I wanna seriously know why the heck you're writing almost like a critic from the media who'd bash Michael? Why are you so freaking judgmental knowing he was sick and 100% sure he toured because he signed a contract? Many of us knew he had laryngitis but when we read the autopsy report we knew he also had discoid lupus. Didn't you take the time to learn all the problems and complications this disease cause?

Lupus Symptoms on Heart and Lungs

It is the linings of the heart and lungs - the so-called pericardium and pleura - which are most frequently affected. By far the commonest complaint is of pleurisy - sharp pains in the lower parts of the chest (usually round the side or at the back) on breathing deeply in.


In more severe illness, fluid may develop in the space between the layers of the pleura or pericardium and lead to shortness of breath. Serious though these problems are, they usually respond readily to lupus treatment. Chronic heart or lung disease are, fortunately, more unusual in lupus.

No one needs to be a professional singer and to know how important breathing properly is to hit the right notes + his laryngitis. If you keep being judgmental and critical on Michael's lip-syncing despite knowing some of the medical issues lupus cause, I don't know what your problem is. If you don't like it, it's fine but acting like a detractor from the media is a different story.

 

[windy09]

New studio album with unreleased music would be my choice.

 

[HIStory]

there was never a time when good reviews outdid bad reviews, no matter what Michael did.

That's not true.

 

[HIStory]

I'd love to hear more unreleased and untouched material but I'd also love to have (from these options) The HIStory World Tour concert, if not in cenemas, released on DVD and blu-ray.

I wanna seriously know why the heck you're writing almost like a critic from the media who'd bash Michael? Why are you so freaking judgmental knowing he was sick and 100% sure he toured because he signed a contract? Many of us knew he had laryngitis but when we read the autopsy report we knew he also had discoid lupus. Didn't you take the time to learn all the problems and complications this disease cause?

Lupus Symptoms on Heart and Lungs

It is the linings of the heart and lungs - the so-called pericardium and pleura - which are most frequently affected. By far the commonest complaint is of pleurisy - sharp pains in the lower parts of the chest (usually round the side or at the back) on breathing deeply in.


In more severe illness, fluid may develop in the space between the layers of the pleura or pericardium and lead to shortness of breath. Serious though these problems are, they usually respond readily to lupus treatment. Chronic heart or lung disease are, fortunately, more unusual in lupus.

No one needs to be a professional singer and to know how important breathing properly is to hit the right notes + his laryngitis. If you keep being judgmental and critical on Michael's lip-syncing despite knowing some of the medical issues lupus cause, I don't know what your problem is. If you don't like it, it's fine but acting like a detractor from the media is a different story.

Fans of course know that Michael had health problems during HWT and that compromised his performance. But it's not what critics will accept as an excuse. They will only see an MJ who is lip-synching through a whole concert, lip-synching even easy songs like YANA. It won't go down well.

You bringing up his illness only underline my point: So he was ill. So he wasn't in his best form. So why do you want the world see him in that form (ill, not 100% there) rather than something that would show him healthy and in top form?

No one here is a Michael "detractor". No one here said that we do not understand that Michael had a health problem during HWT. But we are talking about if it's a good idea or a bad idea to release something that would show him in that state rather than something that would show him in top form.

 

[8701girl]

Yep i chose unreleased new material album as well as it really the best option. To release the memorial service on dvd is really not a good idea as i dont think fans watch it regularly as they would for the concerts cuz it just too sad to watch it

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

respect, that wasn't an excuse. Lupus affected his heart and lugs at that moment causing him to breath with difficulty and his evident laryngitis. Obviously real critics from the media won't give a damn to know all the health issues he suffered in HWT but it seemed none the detractors here (that's how you're acting despite his health) weren't aware of because the only argument you mentioned for the millionth time to be a terrible idea to release it it's the lip-syncing. His health wasn't my only point in my previous comment, your critisism even though you right now are aware about the whole situation he wasn't allowed to be vocally in his best shape.

None of us attended every single show from the tour to know for sure how many concerts Michael sang better. If the Estate considers to release a HIStory concert, it must be the one he sang the most and the better.

 

[jamba]

Indeed, Michael shouldn't have toured. But not for the reasons you say. He said he didn't want to tour in 2003. But all kinds of people, including fans fell into the sweep up of the media's idea that if MJ didn't tour, he would lose his catalogue. It didn't seem to matter that some people apparently thought he was miming. Noting seemed to matter. Tickets went like wildfire. So, i don't know about Elvis, but fans themselves belied the idea that Michael was finished as far as touring is concerned. All we had to do was not buy tickets. But that wasn't the case. Critics don't matter.

Anything Michael did, was criticized in the latter years. It came to the point where all he wanted to do was raise his kids. It didn't matter what project he came up with. Somebody always had something to say.

There will always be critics.

If it were up to them, Michael would not have a legacy now. So they don't matter.

Again, Michael proved his vocals when he was little. So now I hear he lip synched Motown 25. People went crazy.
So for every critic there are a lot of quieit people who want all of his concerts. All of his tours. There will be people who will buy them, and people who will not. But you can't speak for everybody..especially since this is the biggest fanbase on earth.

If there are people in the controversy section trying to defend a certain ...album...
Then there are plenty of people who will defend 2001, HIStory, and things you think are indefensible.
Now for the people that want Off The Wall, they can have it, if they ask the estate..i guess. If people want HIStory, they should be able to have it. And there are. If they want Victory(which some people criticized) then they should be able to have it.
Michael isn't Elvis.

I want the anniversary concerts.
I'm not going to focus on the negative.
I'll focus on the positive, which was overwhelming.
Peoples' pocketbooks spoke volumes.
I don't remember a time when they didn't.

Now I've seen that people want the release of unfinished material. Last time people tried that it got blasted, too. So what does it matter?

I agree. And the thing about HIStory is he looked fantastic--gold pants were phenomenal! As far as Motown 25, yes he lipsyched Billy Jean--at least he sang along with the sound track with the mike off. He had sung live before with his brother and sounded excellent. I think they lipsynced BJ b/c they needed the sound track anyway as the band on stage was not up to doing the song justice, which had been released in January as a single, so why have a less-than-stellar live band doing the sound track when you want to promote the single? That performance is legendary in music and TV history--it set the entire place on fire when it happened, people who were there talk about the tremendous impact it had--so the fact he didn't sing live did not matter at all. It was the peformance, the energy. People who were there said it was like a spiritual experience. Lamont Dozier said: "something happened in the room that was so magnetic, so spiritual," "we were witnessing the birth of a band new superstar." Steve Ivory also was there and talked about how people were in a trance and how after MJ left the stage, they had trouble getting people to focus and calm down as they had to finish taping the show and all the people could talk about was MJ's performance. And the audience was filled with show people from MoTown.

 

[HIStory]

respect, that wasn't an excuse. Lupus affected his heart and lugs at that moment causing him to breath with difficulty and his evident laryngitis. Obviously real critics from the media won't give a damn to know all the health issues he suffered in HWT but it seemed none the detractors here (that's how you're acting despite his health) weren't aware of because the only argument you mentioned for the millionth time to be a terrible idea to release it it's the lip-syncing. His health wasn't my only point in my previous comment, your critisism even though you right now are aware about the whole situation he wasn't allowed to be vocally in his best shape.

None of us attended every single show from the tour to know for sure how many concerts Michael sang better. If the Estate considers to release a HIStory concert, it must be the one he sang the most and the better.

I did not mention his health issues because the point of the thread is not analyzing why he wasn't at his best on that tour (and I think everybody knows that here). To say he wasn't is NOT bashing him and not being a detractor. Are we allowed to be honest about things which weren't that great without being called a "detractor"? Surely, every performer has better and worse performances and Michael is no exception.

The thread is about what is a good idea to release and what is not. And if Michael was ill and not at his best it's just not a good idea to release that show - at least not give it a highly publicized (for example, cinema) release.

That is the point the people who oppose HWT are making. No one here is a "detractor", so please stop accusing others of that.

 

[jamba]

I agree the critics will bash no matter what. Look what happened to Invincible--did even ONE critic give it a great review? How many trashed it? There was a review in the LA Times that said it was "unlistenable"--HUH?? F** the critics.

 

[HIStory]

I agree the critics will bash no matter what. Look what happened to Invincible--did even ONE critic give it a great review? How many trashed it? There was a review in the LA Times that said it was "unlistenable"--HUH?? F** the critics.

It's not just media critics, but the general record buying public. People these days are very conscious about lip-synching. We have to think of Michael's legacy. Do we want people to think that he was an act who lip-synched 95% of his concerts, who could not sing live? That would be the impression they'd take away from watching HWT. IMO it's important for his legacy that people see him in his best form, not when he had problems.

I like the gold pants as much as the next woman, but HWT is still not the tour I would show to a non-fan if I'd want to impress them with Michael. Bad Tour, Dangerous Tour, Victory Tour, Triumph Tour, Destiny Tour - anything but not HWT.

If fans want HWT, fine, but only as a low key fan release, not something highly publicized IMO. I don't want people to mock Michael as someone who cannot sing live. It just would not be fair to him. As long as there is material that shows him in better form than HWT I don't know why the release of HWT (which could open him up to much criticism) is so important.

 

[AlwaysThere]

I agree the critics will bash no matter what. Look what happened to Invincible--did even ONE critic give it a great review? How many trashed it? There was a review in the LA Times that said it was "unlistenable"--HUH?? F** the critics.

Actually yes. I've seen several reviews that give Invincible credit where credit is due. But the negative reviews are because critics continually compared Invincible to Michael's past works. And that's what they'll do for the HIStory tour. I already know reviews would say that Michael's performances weren't up to par with his phenomenal ones during the Bad tour or even the Dangerous tour.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

F**k critics and non MJ fans indeed, the truth is that only hard core fans are currently buying the newest products. See how Michael and Bad 25 are doing.

 

[Edina]

None of us attended every single show from the tour to know for sure how many concerts Michael sang better. If the Estate considers to release a HIStory concert, it must be the one he sang the most and the better.

It's true.