Latest on MJJC

Was "30th Anniversairy Concert" redubbed (for the release)?

I agree with you guys. I think the 30th anniversary was kind of off. I barely watch it. I mean compare that with the dangerous tour for example. I felt so sorry for Michael. Back in the day it was reported that Michael didn't want to do these shows but was forced by the record label. Does someone have more info of this?

Luckily this is it was amazing. Really the MJ I like with a golden voice and awesome performances. ?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk
 
IMWhizzle said:
I agree with you guys. I think the 30th anniversary was kind of off. I barely watch it. I mean compare that with the dangerous tour for example. I felt so sorry for Michael. Back in the day it was reported that Michael didn't want to do these shows but was forced by the record label. Does someone have more info of this?

Luckily this is it was amazing. Really the MJ I like with a golden voice and awesome performances. ?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But 20 years later, no one will remember the circumstances or the squabbles or the contracts - just the performance. That, to me, is quite unfortunate.
 
ChrisC said:
But 20 years later, no one will remember the circumstances or the squabbles or the contracts - just the performance. That, to me, is quite unfortunate.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. That's why I wish BET would quit showing it-or any tv channel. It's the one show you can count on being shown on his birthday and the anniversary of his death and it's sad. They have so much other film that could be used.
 
IMWhizzle said:
I agree with you guys. I think the 30th anniversary was kind of off. I barely watch it. I mean compare that with the dangerous tour for example. I felt so sorry for Michael. Back in the day it was reported that Michael didn't want to do these shows but was forced by the record label. Does someone have more info of this?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure but it could be that his mother wanted to see the brothers perform again so he agreed. I'm sure he didn't really want to do it.
 
Do you guys think that Michael damaged his [live] voice? I've been hearing that for quite sometime now. TII was awesome. When he sung ballads like, IJCSLY and Human Nature it sounded perfect (though I suspect that they may have done some post pitch correcting), but when he did numbers that involved a bit more movement his voice became rougher, scratchier and raspier as it has been post Dangerous (or even before Dangerous).
 
Last edited:
Themidwestcowboy said:
Do you guys think that Michael damaged his [live] voice? I've been hearing that for quite sometime now. TII was awesome. When he sung ballads like, IJCSLY and Human Nature it sounded perfect (though I suspect that they may have done some post pitch correcting), but when he did numbers that involved a bit more movement his voice became rougher, scratchier and raspier as it has been post Dangerous (or even before Dangerous).
Click to expand...

Isn't it natural for your voice to get worse (in some ways) as you get older?
 
Themidwestcowboy said:
Do you guys think that Michael damaged his [live] voice? I've been hearing that for quite sometime now. TII was awesome. When he sung ballads like, IJCSLY and Human Nature it sounded perfect (though I suspect that they may have done some post pitch correcting), but when he did numbers that involved a bit more movement his voice became rougher, scratchier and raspier as it has been post Dangerous (or even before Dangerous).
Click to expand...

HIStoric said:
Isn't it natural for your voice to get worse (in some ways) as you get older?
Click to expand...
I don't think he "damaged" his voice at all-like some well known artists do through drinking, drugs, smoking, etc.-in fact, I think he took very good care of it-any differences were most likely from getting a little older as Historic said-I thought he sounded sublime in TII. THAT made me really happy.
 
I heard Michael was persuaded by his mother to do those concerts for his brothers. I wouldn't be surprised if it was indeed true because it really seemed he didn't want to be there.
 
IMWhizzle said:
I agree with you guys. I think the 30th anniversary was kind of off. I barely watch it. I mean compare that with the dangerous tour for example. I felt so sorry for Michael. Back in the day it was reported that Michael didn't want to do these shows but was forced by the record label. Does someone have more info of this?

Luckily this is it was amazing. Really the MJ I like with a golden voice and awesome performances. ?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The unfortunate thing is, without the terrible added audience noise, it would be quite an enjoyable audio bootleg.
 
Re: Was "30th Anniversairy Concert" redubbed (for the release

barbee0715 said:
I don't think he "damaged" his voice at all-like some well known artists do through drinking, drugs, smoking, etc.-in fact, I think he took very good care of it-any differences were most likely from getting a little older as Historic said-I thought he sounded sublime in TII. THAT made me really happy.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt in my mind that he took very good care of his voice and didn't indulge in activities that could be detrimental for his voice but I do think that his condition with lupus and maybe something like else may have played a roll as well. Maybe it was due to his stamina and endurance debilitating throughout the years but in every performance post dangerous, when he sings live his voice was always raspy and a bit rough. Though By the time he did TII his voice seemed to have found that smoothness again.
 
Themidwestcowboy said:
Do you guys think that Michael damaged his [live] voice? I've been hearing that for quite sometime now. TII was awesome. When he sung ballads like, IJCSLY and Human Nature it sounded perfect (though I suspect that they may have done some post pitch correcting), but when he did numbers that involved a bit more movement his voice became rougher, scratchier and raspier as it has been post Dangerous (or even before Dangerous).
Click to expand...

He never sounded as good live after Bad Tour in my opinion. His voice was great on Dangerous Tour but not as great as before.
 
Galactus123 said:
He never sounded as good live after Bad Tour in my opinion. His voice was great on Dangerous Tour but not as great as before.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's my opinion as well. The bad tour really took a toll on his live voice and he never seemed to recover from it. Was he performing on the bad tour while being sick? It makes one wonder, because Michael had been performing all his life doing tour after tour after tour since he was 9 but specifically after the bad tour his voice deteriorated
 
Galactus123 said:
He never sounded as good live after Bad Tour in my opinion. His voice was great on Dangerous Tour but not as great as before.
Click to expand...

As a complete, overall live performance I'd be inclined to agree.

But there are individual live vocal moments after Bad that take my breath away. I generally think Michael peaked as a singer 1986-1996, whether that be in the studio or whatever.

Also, in This Is It at times I thought I hadn't heard him as good in a live setting since Bad.
 
Themidwestcowboy said:
Do you guys think that Michael damaged his [live] voice? I've been hearing that for quite sometime now. TII was awesome. When he sung ballads like, IJCSLY and Human Nature it sounded perfect (though I suspect that they may have done some post pitch correcting), but when he did numbers that involved a bit more movement his voice became rougher, scratchier and raspier as it has been post Dangerous (or even before Dangerous).
Click to expand...

Michael was a professional that worked together with Seth Riggs (!) on a (as far as I know) regular basis. I do not think he damaged his voice by singing - his singing style changed after Bad, yes, but the more edgier and rough colors are due to him wanting to sound like this, IMO.

Voice chords are muscles that need to be trained - and can be healed - like other muscles in the body. If a singer does not excercise his voice chords and does not consult a specialist / coach like Seth Riggs in order to work on them AND in order to recover after a flu etc. he can ruin a lot. I cannot hear that with Michael ...

Michael warmed up his voice for 2 hrs. before a recording session ... it must have been smooth like butter by then :)
 
moonstruck87 said:
Michael was a professional that worked together with Seth Riggs (!) on a (as far as I know) regular basis. I do not think he damaged his voice by singing - his singing style changed after Bad, yes, but the more edgier and rough colors are due to him wanting to sound like this, IMO.

Voice chords are muscles that need to be trained - and can be healed - like other muscles in the body. If a singer does not excercise his voice chords and does not consult a specialist / coach like Seth Riggs in order to work on them AND in order to recover after a flu etc. he can ruin a lot. I cannot hear that with Michael ...

Michael warmed up his voice for 2 hrs. before a recording session ... it must have been smooth like butter by then :)
Click to expand...

I'm not speaking about him singing in a studio session cause we already now Michael could sound as smooth as he wanted to and I agree that the raw, edgier vocal approach was an embellishment and not out of neccesity but as far as live performances go after The Bad tour his [live] voice declined in quality. Juxtapose the bad tour next to the dangerous tour, history tour, 30th anniversary and one off performances like Apollo Bandstand the difference is very noticable and I don't think it's a byproduct of him growing older because, as is evident in his studio albums, Michael could have sounded youthful if he wanted to.
 
Last edited:
^ I did not see any vocal issue on the Dangerous tour (maybe until the end).. The fact he speed up the songs on Dangerous naturally would effect vocals... IF he di that on BAD tour he'd sound the same...
 
I think if he did a tour for Invincible he would have been much more prepared for these two 30th Anniversary shows...

The MJ magic is still there though.
 
I wonder what happened between 1999 and 2001. During 1999, Michael looked great. Just look at the 1999 MTV interview. Amazing how so much could change in just a year
 
analogue said:
I wonder what happened between 1999 and 2001. During 1999, Michael looked great. Just look at the 1999 MTV interview. Amazing how so much could change in just a year
Click to expand...

I don't think he looked much different. It's just the hairstyle.
 
^ for me around 2000 something changed.. Visually to me his biggest changing was later in 1985... again In 1986 with the cleft.. 1993 with weight loss.. and 2000..

Not saying he changed as much as the media makes out.. Those are just the years I notice the most difference.
 
KOPV said:
^ for me around 2000 something changed.. Visually to me his biggest changing was later in 1985... again In 1986 with the cleft.. 1993 with weight loss.. and 2000..

Not saying he changed as much as the media makes out.. Those are just the years I notice the most difference.
Click to expand...

I agree. I remember watching MJ & Friends live on television and something just looked very different about him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top